|
|
|
|
|
|
by elipsitz
976 days ago
|
|
|
But it isn’t a 1-to-1 simulation of the real hardware. Unless they have the original designs for the chips used in the N64, they’re still implementing something with likely very different internals on an FPGA. You can get the same accuracy in a software emulator. If they want to claim it’s better because it’s more performant, or because it can use original cartridges, or it can produce better analog video output, that’s fine. But that’s not what they’re saying— they’re saying it isn’t emulation at all. |
|
|
Yes, you can do all the same things in software, in fact it is trivial, just take the same output from you EDA tools and run it in a simulator. Of course that is so slow it cannot interface with (most) real external HW like CRTs and accessories, but in some technical sense it is software taking the exact same set of inputs as an FPGA, and generating the exact same outputs (just much, much slower).
If we accept that as the premise then then we can consider emulators an optimization where instead of using the simulated verilog we try to manually write code that performs equivalent operations, but can run fast enough to hit the original timing constraints of the HW we are replacing. The thing is that the code is constrained by the limits of the modern HW it is running on, and sometimes the modern HW just cannot do what legacy HW did.
An NES does not have a frame buffer (it does not even have enough ram to hold ~5% of a rendered frame of its output!). To cope with that the games generate their output line by line as that the video signal is being generated. What that means is that you click a button on the controller it can change the output of the scanline that is currently writing to the screen (and you can release it updating the output before the frame is being generated, changing subsequent lines). IOW, the input latency is less than a single frame of input. That is not true with modern computers where we render into a memory mapped frame buffer which is then transmitted to the screen with a complex series of of chips including the GPU and DC, and ultimately synchronized on the blanking intervals.
On an FPGA you can design a display pipeline that matches that of legacy consoles, and get the same latency. Of course you could also do the same thing in software emulation on a computer if you clock it so high that it renders and outputs one frame of video for each scanline of output on the original, but given the NES had a framerate of ~60 (59.94) fps and vertical resolution of 240p that comes out to a framerate of ~14,400 fps to hit the latency target for accurate emulation.
Now in practice most of the time it is a non-issue and emulation is more than sufficient, but some old games do very funky things to exploit whatever they could on the limited HW they run on.
It is also worth noting that FPGAs are a lot more interesting for older systems. Once you get to more modern systems that look more like modern computers the strict timing becomes less important. In particular, once you get to consoles that have frame buffers the timing becomes much less sensitive because the frame buffer acts as a huge synchronization point where you can absorb and hide a lot of timing mismatches.