User talk:Mbc07: Difference between revisions

Want to say or ask something? Just click "Add topic" above, I'll get into it when possible. [[User:Jhonn|Jhonn]] ([[User talk:Jhonn|talk]])

: I tried to dig the talk page where we discussed this but I couldn't find it. As far as I remember we were close to getting a consensus to add only 16:9 codes I think, because we started having a lot of weird AR codes  popping out, taking a lot of space in the (at that time) patches section (48:10 or similar in Super Mario Sunshine? Don't remember now). Theoretically an existing (and decrypted) 16:9 code can be turned in any other AR by just adjusting the values so in future I would like to investigate the possibility of doing something allowing the user to get different ARs without cluttering the page with various codes that looks almost like duplicates (except for the value bytes, of course). I'm not sure either but MaJoR seems to prefer sticking to 4:3 and 16:9 only too. Anyway we need to get this sorted out soon (I'll wait reverting the 007 code until we conclude this) - [[User:Jhonn|Jhonn]] ([[User talk:Jhonn|talk]]) 05:57, 1 March 2016 (CET)

::: It's somewhat how I thought, but there are some flaws. The first (and probably the most important) is how are we going to keep track of the values? They won't be the same for every game, and on this mockup I see you're linking to another page where it seems we would store a list of values? If that's the case, in long term it's going to get bigger and messy... - [[User:Jhonn|Jhonn]] ([[User talk:Jhonn|talk]]) 08:24, 1 May 2016 (CEST)

: I'm with Jhonn on finding a way to tell other users that they can modify the value in a given AR code to get a different AR. I'd like to say I don't support 4:3 code, but have realized I should because it will provide the code in the first address before the value for AR for the other users to use with their arbitrary AR value. I'm not sure how to provide AR code for the games that already support both 16:9 and 4:3. I may be in for 21:9 for this reason. [[User:Lucario|Lucario]] ([[User talk:Lucario|talk]]) 13:47, 4 March 2016 (CET)

::::::With our current design, no, it would take too much space. However, if we could find a way to show those 21:9 codes without cluttering the page (I had some ideas a while ago but didn't try to get them on the wiki yet -- maybe soon, too busy ATM), I would probably be in favour given that 21:9 TV/Monitors seems to be getting popular nowadays. Anyway, if that ever happens in future, I would also want a very strict set of rules/reasons backing that to prevent future complaints like "if 21:9 AR is allowed, why not 48:10 or 5:4 or <insert any other weird AR here>?" - [[User:Jhonn|Jhonn]] ([[User talk:Jhonn|talk]]) 08:24, 1 May 2016 (CEST)

: Currently we are only accepting 4:3 => 16:9 AR/Gecko codes or vice versa. We haven't explicitly stated that on the Wiki Conventions (yet) because we're still discussing some approaches to get other aspect ratio codes to the wiki (but with the whole release process of Dolphin 5.0 those discussions stalled). So, in other words, any aspect ratio code that's not 16:9 or 4:3 will get purged if added, at least for now. Meanwhile, until we finish with this mess, you can post them on the forums, there's [https://forums.dolphin-emu.org/Thread-gc-ar-codes-for-16-9-21-9-60hz a master thread] just for them. - [[User:Jhonn|Jhonn]] ([[User talk:Jhonn|talk]]) 07:16, 15 July 2016 (CEST)

: I also think we should omit needless excess specifications, and we always did that anyway. And since we're talking about the speeds, I'm supportive of dropping them from all testing entries at "stock" conditions, including the speed only in the case the user overclocked their CPU. Cleaning up the wiki however would need a looot of work, especially considering base speed vs Turbo Boost speed - [[User:Jhonn|Jhonn]] ([[User talk:Jhonn|talk]]) 06:06, 29 April 2017 (CEST)

::: Although we overall don't focus on performance on the wiki, from my understanding the main purpose of the testing section is providing an insight of how well a game run on a given system configuration and a specific Dolphin version. In that regard, even a minimal overclocking of the CPU will directly affect the results and thus I strongly think the overclocked speed should be included in the test entry on those cases. Otherwise, for CPUs running at stock speed, dropping the GHz indicator is harmless since they're reflecting the performance all users of that CPU should get at stock settings... - [[User:Jhonn|Jhonn]] ([[User talk:Jhonn|talk]]) 09:31, 30 April 2017 (CEST)

::::: Dolphin relies on two hard working threads and on IPC rate unlikely other applications, so even a small overclock could drastically improve Dolphin performance although it makes little to no difference in other scenarios. For reference, the overall speed improvement on "normal" use cases from the Ivy Bridge to Haswell jump was of about 10%, but on Dolphin that improvement were over 40%! We have some benchmarks on the forums and on AnandTech, I'll try to gather some real-world tests to better show what I'm talking about. - [[User:Jhonn|Jhonn]] ([[User talk:Jhonn|talk]]) 19:53, 1 May 2017 (CEST)

::: That's a -1 from me. Even if we update the guidelines to "enforce" that, there's already thousands of test entries following the current guidelines and as such they would need to be cleaned up. TL;DR a lot of work just to accommodate a very small nitpicking - [[User:Jhonn|Jhonn]] ([[User talk:Jhonn|talk]]) 09:31, 30 April 2017 (CEST)

:::::: <blockquote>Why are you editing my entries in the first place, since the manner in which I am making the entires is consistent with the Wiki guidelines?</blockquote> It's simple, your test entries are being edited because '''they are not''' consistent with the current conventions, if you didn't get it yet . Also, you talk as if Kolano keeps lurking in a corner just waiting for your next edit but it just happens that Kolano reviewed your edits before someone else (like me or other active users), which would also purge your .0 thing you keep nitpicking. - [[User:Jhonn|Jhonn]] ([[User talk:Jhonn|talk]]) 19:53, 1 May 2017 (CEST)

::::::: Just because we missed an edit doesn't mean everybody on that period believed it shouldn't be edited. Now that you brought it to our attention, it's likely going to have its .0 indicator purged - [[User:Jhonn|Jhonn]] ([[User talk:Jhonn|talk]]) 06:44, 2 May 2017 (CEST)

::::::: * About your future test entries, you should only stop putting CPU speed on your entries if/when this discussion get settled and the conventions get updated to reflect that. Even through there are intentions to simply purge the CPU speed from all test entries, nothing here has been officially approved.  [[User:Jhonn|Jhonn]] ([[User talk:Jhonn|talk]]) 06:44, 2 May 2017 (CEST)

::::::::: Currently the CPU speeds are included, so your test entries should have them. Excess specifications should be scrapped (e.g. 2.40 GHz => 2.4 GHz, 4.0 GHz => 4 GHz and so on). If you add new test entries not following this, your data won't be deleted, it'll simply be edited to fit those conventions (and that's what Kolano was doing with your recent test entries). Regarding the small number of testing entries which doesn't currently include the CPU speed, they're inconsistent and should be eventually edited to also include the speed, as that's our current conventions. - [[User:Jhonn|Jhonn]] ([[User talk:Jhonn|talk]]) 22:15, 2 May 2017 (CEST)

: I've already unblocked you, sorry for accidentally catching your account in the backfire with the ongoing spam attack - [[User:Jhonn|Jhonn]] ([[User talk:Jhonn|talk]]) 21:03, 31 July 2017 (CEST)