Is the nincfg.bin file being created on the root of the device where your launching games from?So any idea why it's not saving my settings?
Is the nincfg.bin file being created on the root of the device where your launching games from?So any idea why it's not saving my settings?
Wait so if I get a Eroupean Iso of the game it would work?
Can confirm that Force progressive is working well with F-Zero AX and MKGP1 on a Wii U, so I'm sure that the other 2 work well also. I'm transferring MKGP2 and Virtua Striker to my HDD tonight so I'll check em out just to be sure. Great job on this cuz the games look much better. Thanks for all you do.A second update today, that rare, found some more small things:
-hopefully improved the audio streaming code to not crash certain games on the end of the audio file
-added triforce video mode patches so all 4 triforce games can be patched to run with force progressive
I only verified the 4 triforce games run in progressive with my component cables on my wii, no idea if all work fine via hdmi on wiiu.
People are simply discussing the issue, calmly and rationally. There's no aggressive opinions or bickering or complaining or mudslinging, or demanding X or Y features. Instead, we are discussing how to make the existing list better, together, by coming to an agreement on how it should be done. We're talking about the list, not Nintendont itself. As the list is a community effort, it is important to discuss how to maintain it.
I don't really understand what you're so upset about.
Well I understand that but this shouldn't mean "the games aren't working" it simply means "the widescreen patch is not working" I believe that every issue shall be listed in the compatibility list, even minor ones, that includes minor visual glitches and sound issues or any delay that don't occur on real hardware, I don't see why these problematic games in wide screen can't be marked to have issues in widescreen but they shall still be marked green for being fully playable otherwise, the widescreen menu can simply say "not working" or "not supported" or whatever, then a description of the issue can be listed, but I don't see how this makes the games unplayable or should be labeled as orange or red.Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see anyone in the thread wanting to mark the games as unplayable. And obviously we shouldn't, because they aren't. However, what I've seen others argue, and what I have argued myself, is that we should not be marking these games (the ones that don't respond to the 16:9 hack) as if the patch works on them when it in fact does not. I.e. "the patch doesn't work", not "the game doesn't work." Totally different ideas. Very simple.
It's alright, thanks for the fix, at least my report for the game wasn't bullshit this time, that's why we need testers, anyway I can't test it now because I'm still resting in bed but the doctor said I should be fine in a week or two, so I'll be sure to update by then, thanks!small update, ax still had a debug patch enabled, thats why it worked fine for me.
-commented out some debug patches for ax which should let it start if OSReport is not enabled
-forgot to actually use a updated function, made sure its used now
Multiplayer support in Triforce? Hmm... This makes me cream my pants <3Some people might remember about the multiplayer support in Nintendont for Triforce games.
When I had time to actually add this none of the games were working so I thought about waiting till they do and now that they actually do work I don't have any time for this stuff anymore.
I wrote down most of the Triforce stuff here and also briefly documented all the socket functions, so hopefully someone might have time to add them.
http://crediar.no-ip.com/tritek.htm
I hope all is well now.First off, excuse me for the delay, been at the hospital for the past few days, that surgery I had in October failed and I had to redo it, it was a sudden thing so my apologies.
Nobody has been saying that though.Well I understand that but this shouldn't mean "the games aren't working"
That's exactly what we're saying should happen.it simply means "the widescreen patch is not working" I believe that every issue shall be listed in the compatibility list, even minor ones, that includes minor visual glitches and sound issues or any delay that don't occur on real hardware, I don't see why these problematic games in wide screen can't be marked to have issues in widescreen
The game itself, yes, absolutely. There was discussion, however, of having separate color coding for the patch. At present there's just a check box--a yes or no indicator--that is often checked off as "yes" simply because the game doesn't crash while using it and/or nobody was paying attention to whether the aspect ratio change actually worked at all.but they shall still be marked green for being fully playable otherwise,
Yes, but we need cleanup of the existing list and some agreed upon standard of what the check box is supposed to mean, or otherwise we need something other than a yes/no indicator. Otherwise we'll likely continue to see loads of false check marks.the widescreen menu can simply say "not working" or "not supported" or whatever, then a description of the issue can be listed
Again, not what anybody was talking about, except to the extent that it was suggested that the widescreen hack indication (and only that, not the game as a whole) could be color coded separately from the game. It sounds like our opinions aren't too far off, but you've been misreading everyone., but I don't see how this makes the games unplayable or should be labeled as orange or red.
That part should be crystal clear: Whether or not a game can be patched to run in widescreen mode. If the patch does absolutely nothing, then obviously the game can't be patched to run in widescreen mode, right?Wiki said:Wide (Widescreen Patch) - Whether or not a game can be patched to run in widescreen mode.
No mention of what to do if the patch simply does nothing. The game doesn't fail to start or error (that we've noticed). It doesn't display any oddities. It's not a matter of the game supporting it directly or not. It's not a matter of not testing the patch. So one could reasonably infer that a non-working patch that otherwise causes no harm should be marked as working without issues, and that's exactly how some have been marked. What was initially clear in the first line is now murky after the rest of the instructions.Wiki said:Games that fail to start or later error should be marked "No". If the game displays any oddities but plays without crashing, you can enter "Issues". If the game itself already has a widescreen option, enter "Support". If your game has a widescreen option, you can either see in the options or look it up in this list. If you didn't test Widescreen patch, leave the wide field blank.
I'm not quite sure you understand, the widescreen column itself on the compatibility list has it's own colors. If you look now a couple of cells are green, blank and red, but the game column itself remains green if it is playable regardless of said options. So again to re-iterate the color for that specific cell for widescreen support would be changed per the result of the patch.^Again with the colors? This will most definitely give the wrong idea, if a game already has issues regardless of wide screen people will assume it works but has issues with wide screen only, then they will come asking "why's this game not working?" and so on, I don't think changing the colors is a good idea, at the end of the day wide screen is a hack, it's not within the original game, I'm sorry but I don't support the idea of different colors, only solution would be either a simple (working/not working/stretched) option under the (wide screen) option, while the game remains (green) to avoid any confusion, or simply make the wide screen box its own color instead.
flamepanther I think we're both on the same bar, yes, we just misunderstood each others' thoughts.
I like this the best. It's simple to understand and concise, not throwing orange, blue, and a bunch of other colors into the mix. To that end I would also like to keep the option to put "support" since certain games already support widescreen rendering the patch unnecessary or possibly even problematic.If the Widescreen patch does nothing than the Widescreen part should be marked "No" as people will assume that it works even if it does nothing.
I believe the only time the Widescreen Patch for a game should be checked off is if the game is displayed in proper 16:9. Stretched to 16:9 should be marked as "Not supported".
We should have 3 options:
Green = Games displays in proper 16:9 with no graphical issues
Yellow = Game displays in proper 16:9 but has graphical issues that don't impair playability. (ex: missing textures outside the 4:3 box.)
Red = Game is either stretched to 16:9, has major graphical issues which impair playability or the game is displayed in 4:3.
Some games render graphics outside the 4:3 box as a buffer so when the game is forced to Widescreen, we seen these rendered graphics which should not be seen.
On the other hand, i think there was never any compatibility list better than nintendonts, this is i think because the involvement of the community.It was so peaceful for a while...
I stand corrected, if that's the case then no problem I guess, just as long as it doesn't give the wrong message about a game being not playable when indeed it is.I'm not quite sure you understand, the widescreen column itself on the compatibility list has it's own colors. If you look now a couple of cells are green, blank and red, but the game column itself remains green if it is playable regardless of said options. So again to re-iterate the color for that specific cell for widescreen support would be changed per the result of the patch.
On the other hand, i think there was never any compatibility list better than nintendonts, this is i think because the involvement of the community.
So it really can't hurt to brainstorm about making the list better me thinks..
I stand corrected, if that's the case then no problem I guess, just as long as it doesn't give the wrong message about a game being not playable when indeed it is.
I went ahead and tested the new update, regardless of what the doctor orders were, it was a quick test for the Triforce games anyway, all 4 games ran fine but I noticed in F-Zero the bottom of the screen flickers in certain screens, not during the race but only on certain screens such as the title screen and race intro, not sure why this happens though, running on a 4:3 TV and everything but the EmuMC is set to off on a regular Wii with a GC controller, also VS4 runs fine but the random split-second freezing still happens during the match, not sure if this can be fixed or not, other than that the games seem to run just fine, looking forward to save and multiplay support in the future.
I remember you telling me the same thing in the Quadforce topic, good to know it's nothing I'm doing wrong, so I take it this lag cannot be fixed but what about the flicker that appears at the bottom of the screen on F-Zero? That didn't happen in previous revisions.Mind you that on a real Trifroce all games are loaded to the internal 512MB RAM and run from there.
So all slowdowns and those lags you descripted are because of that.
Is the nincfg.bin file being created on the root of the device where your launching games from?
I have a problem with LoTR: The third age and the return of the king. The problem is that the game does not show at fullscreen and it is cut at the bottom part, casuing a big black part at the top of the screen and missing image at the bottom. Any solution?