How good is the Voodoo on PCem-X and other stuff to mention.

[RetroGIG94]

So I found a working PCem-X 32 bit and it occurred to me that it can handle games pretty well than a original PCem. And I was thinking about making a Windows 95 VM, but one thing bothered me before I was thinking about putting win95 on my ready made 8 gig hd image. How good it the Voodoo emulation on this advanced version of the emulator? Is it bad, is it very good? Or is it the same with PCem v10 and I have to wait for PCem X v11 with the recomplier. Also I was wondering if the S3 virge DX card is still a horrible card for PCem X. And I am still having trouble on how to get my Mach64gx 2D cards installed on my Win95 VM to get Lego creator to use the voodoo card, Because me and Omarsis81 doesn't know how to install the video drivers because in the Mach64gx folder there were like 4 folders and I don't know which one it is.

So I would like to know how you installed Mach64 drivers.

[nerd73]

Umm, FYI, PCem-X is no longer being developed, and PCem-X is out of date anyways.
Use PCem-experimental instead if you want the featureset of PCem-X.

[RetroGIG94]

How do I get the experimental emulator?

[leilei]

You don't. Both emulators are misleading (with the "better" marketing and its "beta forum" fan club to echo that) and bring false expectations and inaccurate bug reports towards PCem, and thus neither are supported here.


SPOILER: it won't help you pick which mach64 driver to use or get your lego game working faster.


SPOILER2: The s3 ViRGE DX is a horrible card in real life.

[RetroGIG94]

Ok then I'll just use the regular PCem you have and what mach64 driver should I use?

[Battler]

You don't. Both emulators are misleading (with the "better" marketing and its "beta forum" fan club to echo that) and bring false expectations and inaccurate bug reports towards PCem, and thus neither are supported here.

Cut your accusations and ad hominem attacks already, they've gotten old already. If you have problems with my work, point them out instead of behaving like this. Also, want to measure how many patches I already provided to mainline PCem (and how many I still have on my list to provide) and how many you have?

Also, PCem-X is abandoend, and noone has ever marketed PCem-Experimetal as better than the mainline - quite on the contrary, I've warned every single person that requested a copy that as its very name says, you should expect it to be very buggy and even have bugs specific to it.
And how exactly is my work bringing false expectations to PCem? There's a few things in PCem-Experimental that won't make it to the mainline and I've clearly said so since start. Those right now amount to the 440FX and Intel i686 emulation as well as the AMD K* as it's all heavily incomplete and improperly done stuff. The rest however I am going to provide as patches to the mainline and it will be up to Sarah whether or not to accept them.
And any inaccurate bug reports are solely the fault of the reporter as I'm doing my best telling people to ALWAYS try to reproduce the bug with Mainline PCem if they hit a bug in PCem-Experimental, and only report the bug here if it also occurs in Mainline PCem.

In short, while I did indeed engage in bad marketing and misleading practices a year ago, I have tried my best to stop that and engage in honest development. The only one here that's still behaving inappropriately is you.
Also, please stop insulting anyone who dares have interests not fully aligned with yours, it just hurts your cause.

Edit: And let me make this crystal clear:
1. PCem-X is abandoned, forever;
2. It has been superseded by PCem-Experimental, whose aim is to work on improvements, fixes and additions that will be contributed as patches to the mainline when they are ready, so it can hardly be better than the mainline, when its end goal is essentially improving the mainline;
3. Of course there are exceptions to that, specifically the AMD-K* emulation, 440FX emulation, and Intel i686 emulation, which is currently pretty much fake CPU's with the correct instructions (but full of bugs) but heavily inaccurate timings, and will probably not be mainline-ready for years, if at all;
4. I kindly ask people to direct questions and bug reports about PCem-Experimental either in PM to me here or on IRC on irc.ringoflightning.net / #pcem-x (nevermind the channel name, it was created last year and I just haven't bothered creating a new channel), and never use this forum for issues regarding that, and if you hit a bug in PCem-Experimental, *ALWAYS* first attempt to reproduce it with mainline PCem, and ONLY report it here if it also occurs on mainline PCem;
5. The reason I'm doing my development as an entire unofficial branch rather than just private code is because that way I can also have other people test it and report bugs, so in the end bugs are discovered faster so the quality of what I end up submitting to the mainline is better;
6. The branch is in no way official.

Hopefully this is going to end all the misinformation and misunderstandings going around.

[RetroGIG94]

Ok I am very very sorry. I will stop all the horsing around, Ok... And how should I point out my problems without goofing off?

[SarahWalker]

6. The branch is in no way official.

To help make this clear, could you call it something other than 'PCem-experimental' please? That does sound official to many people, given the amount of confusion I've heard on this matter.

[AnnaWu]

The discussion about the 'PCem-experimental' gets on my nerves.

[Battler]

- SarahWalker: Well I would if I wasn't completely out of ideas what to call it.

[SarahWalker]

PCem-experimental-unofficial would be an improvement...

[Battler]

Alright, I'll consider renaming it to that then.

Edit: I'll probably go with PCem-Unofficial as its shortest. Though I wish people brought up the issue before I started the new GitHub repository.

Edit: Done. Even changed the name of the repository: https://github.com/OBattler/PCem-Unofficial . Hopefully confusion should stop then.