Talk:Dolphin (emulator)/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Faster than 1.03

Where are these faster than 1.03 versions? 87.55.68.116 (talk) 21:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

http://www.nyleveia.com/daco/ for the occasional unofficial SVN builds. You get more recent builds more likely to work by compiling from the source code on the Google Code page. 62.106.49.65 (talk) 16:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The download doesnt work. 87.55.68.116 (talk) 12:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

"720p" resolution

Why is everybody fixed on 720p support? Dolphin can use arbitrary resolutions, basically everything the graphics card can handle. A high-end graphics card can easily push out far higher resolutions without performance degradation. I think this should be clarified.--78.42.170.115 (talk) 13:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC) Heck, the screenshot for that section isn't even in 720p. Nintendo Maniac 64 (talk) 05:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

720p is one step higher than 480p, which the Wii maxes at, so I guess it makes sense to list it as the first and only example, I do not believe it gave the impression it can only go up to 720p, but if you do then you could make it more obvious it doesn't.

However this is a PC emu and monitors are more often 16:10 than 16:9, so 800p or 900p would make more sense if it weren't for the fact that 720p is more commonly understood by readers. Gigith (talk) 20:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Release and Preview versions

The current release version is 2.0RC1. The current preview relase is 5186. I don't know why Mewtu still pasted the very old preview realease 4771. Just like 5186, it is just a reglar SVN snapshot. But 5186 is way more up to date. So I think it makes sense to make the latest SVN snapshot the current preview release, and mark 2.0RC1 as current release version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.100.11.231 (talk) 08:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Preview release

Is there really a point in marking every svn commit as a preview release? Imho the current preview release is 2.0rc1, as it is the release candidate for the stable 2.0 release. --87.77.84.60 (talk) 10:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd say yes and no. There definitely should NOT be constant updates for every SVN, simply because those are NOT RELEASES of any kind. Those are all development snapshots that aren't supported or endorsed. The only proper instance is when the developers do one of their occasional website releases, which is really intended as any kind of preview or beta release. Just because someone can compile the latest SVN build, doesn't mean it's a release. If anything, they are completely unofficial and don't belong here as canon. 76.26.180.254 (talk)

Big poorly written chunk at the end of History

I'm too lazy and not knowledgable enough to rewrite it more coherently, but I just thought I'd call attention to it. I'd put an "issues" tag on it if I knew how... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.171.0.141 (talk) 02:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

www.dolphin-emu.org

What do you mean with consensus Teansum? I brought all opinion and also the arguments why I think the website field in the infobox should be set tp www.dolphin-emulator.com. I am wating for your arguments. Let's talk about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.11.202.143 (talk) 10:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

www.dolphin-emulator.com é muito mais recente do que www.dolphin-emu.com As versões de correr muito melhor. Há muito mais informação e orientação. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.11.202.25 (talk) 16:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia. Please post in English to have a discussion. --Teancum (talk) 00:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

sorry for my bad english: Many points speak for www.dolphin-emu.org above www.dolphin-emu.com:

* the support of www.dolphin-emu.org is much better www.dolphin-emu.com; already sent four mail,
  and every has been replied very quickly
* www.dolphin-emu.org
* in the infobox it says 'webiste' and not 'official website'; when a website is supplied, then
  it should be the one with the best and most information and user support! www.dolphin-emu.com
  is nothing! The content is old and incomplete
* not www.dolphin-emu.com is the officle site but http://code.google.com/p/dolphin-emu/; the
  code is hosted there and every communication between the developers take place there;
  www.dolphin-emu.com is just a joke and a poorly maintained website, old info and not up to date

In my opinion there is no real official dolphin site. Maybe http://code.google.com/p/dolphin-emu/ can be seen as the official site, but even this not really the case, because Dolphin is a open source project, so it belongs to the public domain!

Sites about dolphin emulator which offer various services like downloads are just 'frontend sites'. The 'main site' is still http://code.google.com/p/dolphin-emu/. And there are many frontend site; and when it comes to list one in the infobox, it should be the best of them! That is up to date info, the moste and up to date download, and good guides and exlanations. www.dolphin-emulator.com does a great job here, but www.dolphin-emu.com does this very poorly!

I like dolphin emulator a lot and I play it a lot, always with the newest version :) I also want that other people in the world have the opportunity to get the best service thats out there. And when it comes to dolphin emulator, for now this only can be www.dolphin-emulator.com! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.11.202.143 (talk) 08:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Long story short, www.dolphin-emulator.com only hosts SVN releases. Those are not considered notable, and do not follow the spirit of WP:VGSCOPE, point #9. If you wish to list www.dolphin-emulator.com as a reference for the latest preview release, that's fine, however www.dolphin-emulator.com does not have official forums, contains no news section, no games compatibility list (outdated or otherwise) and does not have any official release candidates listed on the site, only SVN releases. www.dolphin-emu.com lists release candidates, has forums, a compatibility list, shows the latest SVN releases. Anything listed at www.dolphin-emulator.com can easily be found on www.dolphin-emu.com's forums. Therefore the casual reader is better served by a site that has more content. You also posted that www.dolphin-emulator.com has "up to date info", however there's nothing to support that claim. The site has three guides - Wiimote, Performance, and FAQ -- all of which are very simple.

Official site or not, www.dolphin-emu.com provide someone who knows nothing about Wii/Gamecube emulation with more information. Folks already using Dolphin don't come to Wikipedia for the latest SVN build anyways, so why would we need to list a site that only helps avid users? No, we need to use a site that contains the most general information, and then if people desire they can visit other sites. If you feel you need to take this issue to more people and get more opinions, I suggest taking it to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games where several experienced Wikipedia editors will help everyone come to the best conclusion. Until a consensus is made do not change the article's page, per the Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Doing so without consensus will be considered vandalism. --Teancum (talk) 13:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation Teancum —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.11.202.143 (talk) 16:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Read this: http://forums.dolphin-emu.org/Thread-dolphin-has-a-new-website --Isacdaavid (talk) 00:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I think we are in common that http://code.google.com/p/dolphin-emu/ is the official project site? There www.dolphin-emu.org is called to be the official home page. The old one, dolphin - emulator . com, got out of control of the project, so they had to move. Please don't change the link to this page just because it's #1 on google. Degasus (talk) 04:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Remove "Nvidia 3D Vision" from feature list?

Given that DX9 backend is now deprecated in Dolphin 4.0.2 and is no longer available in latest test builds, should we drop Nvidia 3D vision that can be only found in DX9 backend? Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 02:37, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

There is the possibility of it being readded in D3D11... but meh, there's no reason it can't be readded to this page when that occurs. Of course, Windows XP support was removed with the move to VS2013, so the page is a little behind in other areas as well... - MaJoRoesch (talk) 05:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

DolphinFX

As other editors may have noticed, there has been some back and forth lately between me and Oranjelo100 regarding DolphinFX. For a little background, DolphinFX is a collection of improved shaderpacks for the OpenGL backend of Dolphin created by a coder not affiliated with the Dolphin team, completed in late 2013. They are superior to the ones currently included in Dolphin. Unfortunately it requires advanced setup and manually editing files, so the Dolphin team chose not to integrate it with Dolphin as stated by neobrain in THIS LINK. Furthermore, the developer of it, Asmodean, has ceased development on the shader pack. So DolphinFX is definitely not a part of Dolphin; that is established.

Several months ago, Oranjelo100 added DolphinFX to the list of features of the emulator on this page. As it is not a component of Dolphin, I (as an IP editor, I forgot I wasn't signed in) removed it and provided the link above as evidence that it is in fact not a features of Dolphin, and should not be there. It was undone without explanation. I removed it again, again stating that it was not a part of the emulator. Several months past, and he returned and added DolphinFX yet again, saying it needed to be here so "people know it exists".

So it's time to have a conversation. I am of the opinion that mods that are not and will never be a part of the emulator should not be listed on this page. Are there any objections to this? Does anyone believe that it should be there, and why? - MaJoRoesch (talk) 04:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi guys! DolphinFX is a tangiential topic which does not impact the purpose of a Wikipedia article, which is to establish the notability of the Dolphin application as per reliable sources. This article elucidates why Dolphin is unique, why it has a legacy, why it is a truly substantial achievement. It has some coverage by RSes, and so on. As per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a collection of links, not a directory, and not a collection of information stating that something exists. That's the job of the project's page, to which we link, so contact them. Contributors may be confused in their determination of what's relevant, because the article is already so loaded with trivia and junk (see "don't add sewage to the already polluted pond" and "other stuff exists"). Entire sections need to be deleted, such as all of the Origins (2003–2007) section and most or all of the other history section(s). That's trivia for the project's own web site, and they do have a wiki, which we are not here to supplant or mirror. We need more WP:RSes, and to not fundamentally rely at all upon forums and wikis or any other primary sources. We need actual articles and stuff. Also, people shall be mindful of WP:3RR so as to not communicate through edit messages or edit wars, because that's a disciplinary offense even if you're of the right intentions. I'm a Dolphin beta tester on Mac OS, so I am enthusiastic too! Thanks guys! — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 05:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Dev here (Lioncash, name was taken). I agree with what MaJoRoesch is suggesting. As he has stated, DolphinFX is most definitely not a part of the Dolphin Emulator. It isn't even directly included in it, or considered a part of the emulator by any of the developers. Putting it on this article "to let people know it exists" is not a valid reasoning for doing so, as the same argument can be made for every single extension or mod that people could possibly make for it. Lioncache (talk) 05:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

You want it removed probably because you don't want people asking on Dolphin forums for support for it. But people have right to know it exist because it offers superior effects than Dolphin itself. I mentioned that its not part of the project.--Oranjelo100 (talk) 21:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

You are being reported for edit warring in defiance of warned Wikipedia policy, for making things nonsensically personal (WP:ICANTHEARYOU), and for defiance of established objective consensus achieved as per common sense and Wikipedia policy, which is in itself also in defiance of Wikipedia policy. Also, these fine people were not in any way kidding whatsoever about your tendency to shred up Wikipedia (and decent editors' attention spans) a half a word at a time, over irrelevant and/or incorrect minutea, like a death of a thousand cuts. :( The edit will have to stand, pending an admin's removal. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 23:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

If there are notable features developed by a 3rd party, adding a “3rd party developments” (or similar) subsection would be OK if the article does not become unwieldy because of it. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 23:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

~~No, sorry, as we said, it would not.~~ I'm sorry, I didn't completely read you literally. Literally speaking, yes, by contrast with, and outside of the scope of, this conversation, notable (WP:N) things would go in Wikipedia. :) — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 23:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

x64 with SEE2 issue

Hi.

I just noticed revision #642609276, in which "with SSE2" is removed from |platform= with this edit summary: "x64 does already implied SSE2 support". I disagreed and proceeded per WP:BRD. But this edit strikes as vaguely familiar. So, I decided to take the initiative and start this discussion myself.

So, what is wrong the edit summary? SEE2 is indeed a core part of x64; if you have an x64 CPU, you have a CPU with SEE2 as well. (At least, this is the case with AMD and hopefully Intel CPUs.) So, it gives you the minimum bottom. The problem is that |platform= isn't supposed to mention the minimum bottom; it is supposed to mention all supported platforms. Saying "x64" alone doesn't say anything about implementation of SSE-specific code; the reader seeing "x64" still does not know whether an x64 with SSE3 would suffice or not. Silence is not always equivalent to explicit confirmation. (We have precedence in the form of consensus through editing here: There are computer programs with versions specifically written for both IA-32 and x64; specifying "IA-32" does the job of specifying the minimum, but Wikipedians specify both to convey the fact that the application is specifically written to take advantage of x64.)

So, one might ask: Okay, but why did you revert the part on system requirements? If "x64" would suffice for the bottom requirement, you shouldn't have reverted it there. Well, the problem is: System requirements section doesn't exactly specify a vague minimum only; it specifies a recommended CPU too and these two shouldn't be of varying accuracy. The resolution of both ends should be near equal. But I am ready to negotiate or even forfeit that part.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 15:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

First, SSE2 isn't just included by all x64 vendors, it's also required by the x64 specification. So SSE2 can't be seen as an additional feature for x64.

But I think you're right, we should mention the recommended CPU instead. SSE2 is a hard requirement, but SSSE3 is used a lot (if available) and will be a big slowdown else. So I think we should replace the SSE2 with SSSE3.

Degasus (talk) 12:16, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi.

"SSE2 isn't just included by all x64 vendors." Really? In that case this discussion is unnecessary and SSE2 mention is mandatory.

"but SSSE3 is used a lot". Well, if you have a source for that, then we can add it to the infobox too.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 03:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dolphin (emulator). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for //http:/www.dolphin-emu.com/news.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dolphin (emulator). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dolphin-emu.com/news.php
Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6DqHUqQN7?url=http://www.1up.com/news/super-mario-galaxy-720p to http://www.1up.com/news/super-mario-galaxy-720p

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dolphin (emulator)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jd22292 (talk · contribs) 16:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
I notice a lot of words that should be avoided per the Words to Watch guideline. Perhaps looking into them will help.
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
The one violation I found through Copyvios is a backwards copy via Wikia.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
The only issue I have is the use of certain words which should be avoided per WP:W2W. I will place this review on hold until the issues are addressed. If nothing is done in this time, I will fail the review. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 16:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I have started skimming through the WtW page and seeing what words I can find- do you perhaps have at least a few specific examples that you happened to catch?? (I am not the nominator, by the way, I'm just here to help out.) TheDisneyGamer (talk) 17:51, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

@TheDisneyGamer: The only few I have found in particular were puffery words such as "great" and "leading" (not sure if they're used in a way that's not described in W2W), an expression of doubt in the use of "so-called", and finally the use of "notably" is not of impartial tone, as described in W2W's Editorializing section. Perhaps I might be looking at this MoS wrong, but I'll leave it up to the editors to decide. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 17:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I think I might've removed most of the W2W-y things?? I couldn't find "so-called" anywhere, though I might've missed it (or I removed it and don't remember doing so), but I got rid of some that I found how does such as "critically acclaimed". How does it look?? TheDisneyGamer (talk) 17:35, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

This is also for KAMiKAZOW, who made this edit, but in the section about Ishiiruka, I notice the use of "unique," another peacock word. "So-called" is still present in the phrase "The solution that the so-called Ubershaders...". A quick Ctrl+F can help with that. See WP:EDITORIAL about the use of "notably" in the lead where it says "most notably the ability to play games with...". That's all I can see for now. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 17:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my errors. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 13:29, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Not a problem. I can now say that the Words to Watch issue has been addressed and the article is now good article status. Congratulations! jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 17:23, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

3rd party refs

A few days ago I added something this article mostly lacked: 3rd party refs. If any of you add new info, check if 3rd party sites also covered that feature. PC Gamer may be a good place to look. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 23:49, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Reception

I fail to see the relevance of the story about some man hacking the dialogue in The Wind Waker. He didn't mod the game with Dolphin, he merely used it to test the mod, which he could as well have done with the real hardware. Should we include every possible example about someone using the emulator to play games as well? Bluest Bird (talk) 17:08, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

“which he could as well have done with the real hardware”

– But he didn't. He used Dolphin and major IT news publications picked up the story (quick web search found that Kotaku and Eurogamer covered the story as well).

“Should we include every possible example about someone using the emulator to play games as well?”

– If that someone is so newsworthy that major publications pick it up: Yes – at least until the section becomes insanely long. The Wind Waker gender change thing is only one sentence and the overall length of that section is two short paragraphs. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 19:09, 4 February 2018 (UTC)