User talk:Mbc07: Difference between revisions

From Dolphin Emulator Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 46: Line 46:
== Ultrawide AR Codes ==
== Ultrawide AR Codes ==
I saw this edit reverting another user's 32:9 codes for the F-Zero GX[https://wiki.dolphin-emu.org/index.php?title=F-Zero_GX&oldid=181115] and wanted to know where I could advocate for the Wiki pages themselves having more codes on them. Your comment for the edit, "(Although widescreen codes are an allowed code type per the wiki conventions, we currently accept only 4:3 => 16:9 or vice-versa)" indicated that this was a standard, but I couldn't find that on the [[Project:Wiki_Conventions#Enhancements]] that you linked. It only says Wider Aspect Ratios, not specifically 16:9. So, where can I learn more, or advocate for a change here? The rule seems to exist - but I don't see where it was decided. Thank you! --[[User:BlinksTale|BlinksTale]] ([[User talk:BlinksTale|talk]]) 19:39, 23 March 2022 (CET)
I saw this edit reverting another user's 32:9 codes for the F-Zero GX[https://wiki.dolphin-emu.org/index.php?title=F-Zero_GX&oldid=181115] and wanted to know where I could advocate for the Wiki pages themselves having more codes on them. Your comment for the edit, "(Although widescreen codes are an allowed code type per the wiki conventions, we currently accept only 4:3 => 16:9 or vice-versa)" indicated that this was a standard, but I couldn't find that on the [[Project:Wiki_Conventions#Enhancements]] that you linked. It only says Wider Aspect Ratios, not specifically 16:9. So, where can I learn more, or advocate for a change here? The rule seems to exist - but I don't see where it was decided. Thank you! --[[User:BlinksTale|BlinksTale]] ([[User talk:BlinksTale|talk]]) 19:39, 23 March 2022 (CET)
: The discussion goes waaay back and at some point were scattered over a few different talk pages (usually from wiki users questioning why an edit adding a  widescreen code got reverted) so it might be a bit hard to find them all nowadays. From a quick search, I could find only the initial discussion back from 2015 under [[Project talk:Wiki Conventions]] and '''a lot''' has changed since then (especially the page pollution that big codes caused at the time). I recognize that the usage of bigger displays (aka wider than 16:9) is more widespread nowadays than it was 7 years ago, but I'm personally still a bit wary of allowing other aspect ratio codes directly on the wiki. Anyway, feel free to create a new discussion topic about this under [[Project talk:Wiki Conventions]] (or [[Project:General Discussions]] perhaps) and let's see how it goes, we can adjust the conventions depending of the general outcome... - [[User:mbc07|mbc07]] ([[User talk:mbc07|talk]]) 08:22, 24 March 2022 (CET)

Revision as of 08:22, 24 March 2022

Navbox styling

Could you please replace content: " ·"; with content: " · "; in MediaWiki:Common.css? That way navboxes would show "first · second" instead of "first ·second". Flacs (talk) 23:45, 24 November 2019 (CET)

Revised, but not seeing any effect as of yet. Presuming there is some caching that needs to expire. Kolano (talk) 00:22, 25 November 2019 (CET)
Well, it's a CSS change, might need to clear your browser cache or use Ctrl+Shift+R to reload the affected pages instead of F5... mbc07 (talk) 06:17, 25 November 2019 (CET)

Batman Begins game ini link

Can I ask why you reverted my change on the Batman Begins page to use the link to the wiki itself back to the forum thread? (The change I'm referring to.) I think it would be better to link to the relevant section directly in the wiki itself than the forum thread. Hman360 (talk) 01:15, 20 April 2020 (CEST)

I would guess they were just trying to revise the Issues link in your original edit, prior to you revising it to use the internal GameIni link, overwriting your secondary change. I've restored it. Kolano (talk) 01:52, 20 April 2020 (CEST)
Indeed, my edit was only to use the issue template. Don't know what happened but the wiki showed the previous edit (with the forum link) as the latest revision when I did the change. mbc07 (talk) 02:09, 20 April 2020 (CEST)
Ah, understood, thanks guys! Hman360 (talk) 04:00, 20 April 2020 (CEST)

Wii Fit Plus Channel issue

Hey, I had only written that issue 11858 can be fixed by the change in setting, but however this can cause mini games to break as written in the GameINI note. I had written it for future reference that if someone uses the settings and the game becomes unplayable, then at least that person will be able to know what caused the game to break. Or am I wrong? Please correct me if I am. Thanks. Jack (talk) 06:00, 5 June 2021 (CEST)

Dolphin comes with "Store EFB Copies to Texture Only" enabled by default because it's faster, however less accurate compared to a real GC/Wii. Some games will break if that option is enabled, and on such cases the GameINI will automatically disable that option. By disabling that option the EFB Copies will be stored both in the RAM and into the Texture, which is slower performance-wise but more accurate to the real hardware, thus fixing related problems in the affected games.
Your previous edit suggested that disabling Store EBF to Texture Only (the more accurate behavior) breaks the mini games, but like I wrote in the change, that's nonsense since it makes the emulator behave more like to the real hardware in that scenario. I'm not saying there isn't an issue with the mini games, just that there's no way for the issue to be caused by that option, if the problem really exists. mbc07 (talk) 05:25, 5 June 2021 (CEST)
Well if you say that Disabling “Store EFB to TEXTURE” does not break games, then why isn’t it made by default in the GameINI of Wii Fit Plus and channel. If it’s made default then at least the mii faces and graph would appear in the wii menu. Also, if disabling it is not the reason for mini games to break then the GameINI note stating that the games are broken by this setting should be removed. Jack (talk) 06:00, 5 June 2021 (CEST)
Did you actually test the channel or cared to at least check the contents of its INI file? It's clearly stated on the current GameINI (RFP.ini) that disabling "Store EFB Copies to Texture Only" is required for the Mii faces and the graph to show up in the channel, but it's not enabled by default since it will cause a performance hit in the main game, which doesn't require this option for anything else. If the option is not defined or commented out (like in the current INI), Dolphin will use what's set on the Graphics config, and "Store EFB Copies to Texture Only" comes enabled by default.
I suggest you read Project:Wiki conventions if you didn't yet. On the wiki we only track problems that happen with the default Dolphin settings, and currently the default config for this game (and by extension the channel, since they share the same ID) is having "Store EFB to Textures Only" not set on the INI (thus, falling back to the global config, which is enabled by default), that will cause the missing Mii faces and graphs on the channel (and only on the channel). Regarding the mini games, they might hang if you have "Store EFB Copies to Texture Only" disabled while "Defer EFB Copies to RAM" is enabled, but that last option is disabled by default through the INI, thus, not tracked on the wiki. mbc07 (talk) 22:31, 5 June 2021 (CEST)

I get it now. Sorry for all the troubles caused by me. Jack (talk) 03:32, 6 June 2021 (CEST)

The spam page

It must have caught your eyes by you going to the Project:Community portal where I edited something there recently. I added more page types for talk page DPL so my discussion at MediaWiki talk:Common.css doesn't vanish but then I noticed the spam page. I'm impressed that it has survived so long. Lucario (talk) 11:58, 29 January 2022 (CET)

Why did you remove the rating template from someone's testing result?

From your recent edit at StarBlade sorry, it was Rygar: The Battle of Argus, I see you removed a four star {{Rating}} and replaced it with "Playable", is there something wrong with the template? Lucario (talk) 02:44, 4 February 2022 (CET)

Excess Ratings templates on a page throw off the Category:Rating that pages get assigned to. Kolano (talk) 04:50, 4 February 2022 (CET)
Actually this isn't the case, as that template doesn't output the categories. At the same time I'm supportive of these updates. Kolano (talk) 08:34, 4 February 2022 (CET)
Two similar templates doing similar things can be confusing, if one's going this won't be the case. Lucario (talk) 12:49, 5 February 2022 (CET)
Also, when included on the testing template, the stars become very tiny to the point it's barely readable and out of place in general, as the results column is intended to have text only. Furthermore, it has been years since we last used that template on game pages (it was superseded by {{Ratings}}) and the only reason {{Rating}} hasn't been deleted yet is because you're including it in one of your sandboxes, otherwise it would have been already gone. mbc07 (talk) 05:23, 4 February 2022 (CET)
Alright, you've got a point. I think the templates used in my sandboxes can go too, the rating number can be fed into the main template but I will most likely abandon that column anyway. I'll copy/paste codes used to create stars for future use... Lucario (talk) 06:36, 4 February 2022 (CET)

Ultrawide AR Codes

I saw this edit reverting another user's 32:9 codes for the F-Zero GX[1] and wanted to know where I could advocate for the Wiki pages themselves having more codes on them. Your comment for the edit, "(Although widescreen codes are an allowed code type per the wiki conventions, we currently accept only 4:3 => 16:9 or vice-versa)" indicated that this was a standard, but I couldn't find that on the Project:Wiki_Conventions#Enhancements that you linked. It only says Wider Aspect Ratios, not specifically 16:9. So, where can I learn more, or advocate for a change here? The rule seems to exist - but I don't see where it was decided. Thank you! --BlinksTale (talk) 19:39, 23 March 2022 (CET)

The discussion goes waaay back and at some point were scattered over a few different talk pages (usually from wiki users questioning why an edit adding a widescreen code got reverted) so it might be a bit hard to find them all nowadays. From a quick search, I could find only the initial discussion back from 2015 under Project talk:Wiki Conventions and a lot has changed since then (especially the page pollution that big codes caused at the time). I recognize that the usage of bigger displays (aka wider than 16:9) is more widespread nowadays than it was 7 years ago, but I'm personally still a bit wary of allowing other aspect ratio codes directly on the wiki. Anyway, feel free to create a new discussion topic about this under Project talk:Wiki Conventions (or Project:General Discussions perhaps) and let's see how it goes, we can adjust the conventions depending of the general outcome... - mbc07 (talk) 08:22, 24 March 2022 (CET)