PS1 Classics (PlayStation Network) Releases on PSP confirmed extremely fast

Carcinogen

Edit history:

Carcinogen: 2012-11-26 04:21:35 am

Carcinogen: 2012-11-16 12:41:27 am

Carcinogen: 2012-11-16 12:40:12 am

Carcinogen: 2012-11-15 11:28:34 pm

Carcinogen: 2012-11-15 11:27:27 pm

2012-11-15 11:25:01 pm

http://www.twitch.tv/carcinogensda/c/1736618
(HUGE content warning, all dialogue and the Twitch Game Title is NSFW)

RE2 Leon A, PS1 Dual Shock Version
PSP with Fast Disc Speed (Actually Pre-Caching): 1:07:42
PS2 slim with Fast Disc Speed: 1:14:18

This is roughly on-par, maybe only slightly better than my current SDA run performance-wise. I landslid my time by nearly 7 minutes and got a World Record time (even beats the Japanese time) without trying. I'm convinced this time is otherwise impossible on any disc-based PlayStation console. I'm pretty sure we should separate these categories. Thoughts?

btw, load time comparison works like so:

PSP > PS2 > PS1 = PS3

Thread title:

Sir VG

2012-11-15 11:29:50 pm

Fucking Weeaboo

Hmm, have you done comparison to figure out why about 6.5 minutes is being gained? Is it really the load times, or just because you played awesomely? Cause most of the stuff I play PS1 on PSP doesn't seem to be that much faster.

Carcinogen

Edit history:

Carcinogen: 2012-11-16 12:43:09 am

2012-11-15 11:47:05 pm

Dude, there is no way I could've improved 6 minutes with the way I played. I don't even perform as well as Trevor Seguin's Leon A run. I seriously wasn't even trying with this run. It's definitely the load times, guarantee you.

I was playing RE1/Chris/Best Ending as well under the same settings a couple of years back and got a 1:13 without trying either, when the time should've been a 1:24 on PS3. 1:17 on a PS2.

Exo

Edit history:

Exo: 2012-11-16 04:51:57 am

Exo: 2012-11-16 04:51:00 am

2012-11-16 04:50:14 am

Sandbagging

Nice find Carc.
Maybe this is finally enough of a reason to ignore loading times on cd-based consoles.
Something that's been long overdue in my opinion.

bangerra

2012-11-16 05:07:13 am

Quote from Exo:

Nice find Carc.
Maybe this is finally enough of a reason to ignore loading times on cd-based consoles.
Something that's been long overdue in my opinion.

I have seen loading times vary widely between different PS3s and even from time to time on the same console. I stopped racing CD-based games because of this really. Take my DreamCast: at times it loads up a game within 10 seconds, other times he takes like a full minute. Ok, the laser might not be the best anymore, but that's an issue with every console that isn't brand new.

Exo

Edit history:

Exo: 2012-11-16 08:07:55 am

Exo: 2012-11-16 08:07:40 am

2012-11-16 08:06:51 am

Sandbagging

Yeh bangerra I've had highly varying loading times in every cd-based console. I own 2 psx and they both differ a lot in loading times for example. The biggest gap I encountered was roughly 5 seconds.

Carcinogen

2012-11-16 08:29:57 am

Exo - I'd love to say disregard load times, but there's a lot of PS1 games with IGTs. Generally doesn't matter, because any smart person'll play most PS1 games on a PS2 anyway.

I have no name

2012-11-16 09:26:15 am

Quote from Carcinogen:

Exo - I'd love to say disregard load times, but there's a lot of PS1 games with IGTs. Generally doesn't matter, because any smart person'll play most PS1 games on a PS2 anyway.

But even between PS2s there's a load time difference: I lose nearly a minute over an Ape Escape any% on the WR holder just because of this. I always assumed PS2 > PSP though, guess that was because Ape Escape was ported with different controls and stuff.

MortyreR45

(user is banned)

MortyreR45

Edit history:

MortyreR45: 2012-11-16 09:51:04 am

2012-11-16 09:43:24 am

I AM FUCKED ANGRY

The PSP runs PS1 games faster, because it runs from hdd or memory-stick. When you also Flash(hack) your PSP, you can also run all your games with your memory stick, that means it load very fast. You can also do it with your PS2 when you install a hdd-loader, but this is banned of the sda rules.

But for PS1 on PSP this is a good question ! ?

@ bangerra ->
The dreamcast has a other engine, so Quake 3 Arena is the BEST example of differences between the PS2 version. And Resident Evil Code VX.
edit: bleemcast, runs very fast ps1 games on the dc Smiley

Exo

Edit history:

Exo: 2012-11-16 10:19:25 am

2012-11-16 10:19:04 am

Sandbagging

Quote from Carcinogen:

Exo - I'd love to say disregard load times, but there's a lot of PS1 games with IGTs. Generally doesn't matter, because any smart person'll play most PS1 games on a PS2 anyway.

There are psx-games that add loading times to the ingame-timer? :c

ZenicReverie

2012-11-16 10:26:30 am

Waiting hurts my soul...

Any possibility there's lag reduction between the consoles as well, or does all the time savings come from loading screens?

Carcinogen

2012-11-16 10:46:46 am

MortyreR - If PS1 games were played on PSP, they have to be the official PSN Store releases.
No Name - Yeah, there is. Probably dependent on the model, but doing timing comparisons in FFVIII, some PS2s loaded faster than others.
Exo - All of the RE games do, for sure, as do FF and possibly MGS.
Zenic - I think there is, but RE2 loads a lot; every time there's a camera angle change, actually. The way the hit detection works in that game is, there's critical hits based on an undetermined frame rule. I've noticed a change in damage in places I wouldn't have noticed otherwise playing on a PS2.

TheThrillness

2012-11-16 03:32:59 pm

thethrillness.blogspot.com

I thought this was common knowledge already? A physical laser versus solid state only has one winner.

To add more consideration, install an SSD in a PS3 and that will load PSN classics faster than a PS1 or PS2.

Carcinogen

Edit history:

Carcinogen: 2012-11-16 07:30:34 pm

Carcinogen: 2012-11-16 07:30:09 pm

2012-11-16 07:24:45 pm

Will it? I haven't tried since I don't have the means to. I would think it could load faster than a PS1 or PS2 with an SSD.

This IS common knowledge, but I want a ruling. This is the same version of the game as the PS1, yet the console played on is extremely fast (and an official Sony console no less).

I mean, I'm pretty stumped on whether this should be a separate category or not since it's pretty much the same idea as Virtual Console... Not to mention I want to take down my old PS2-ran runs when I submit these as improvements. There will be no reason to submit a run played on PS2.

JUDGE PLS!

MortyreR45

(user is banned)

2012-11-17 02:59:39 am

I AM FUCKED ANGRY

hello Carc, my post was a Example to understand, why the games run faster on the PSP. Wink

So PSN or pirated the technic is the same.

I understand your question, because SDA has not a rule for this. But for me is this is a seperate category.

Can you check the frames of the PSP PS1 games ? is it 25fps , 29fps or '30' fps ? I do not know. But when the frames are different from the original PS1 console, than I think it is a seperate category.
But I do not know of the PSP, my friend has a PSP and he run all games from the memory stick and he say it runs very fast.

Melodia

2012-11-17 08:24:01 am

You don't have to pirate PSX games to play them unofficially on PSP, you can rip your own games and use them with the official emulator that PSN games use.
But I imagine that would be considered a 'hardware modification' as you need to use custom firm ware.

Carcinogen

Edit history:

Carcinogen: 2012-11-17 09:29:19 am

2012-11-17 09:28:45 am

Custom Firmware is not the issue. Playing a game that wasn't released for an official emulator, on an official emulator, is.

Omnigamer

2012-11-17 09:30:52 am

All the things

Quote from TheThrillness:

To add more consideration, install an SSD in a PS3 and that will load PSN classics faster than a PS1 or PS2.

I'm fairly certain this is incorrect. In my experience, adding an SSD only benefits certain games that do large amounts of on-disk cacheing for environment elements or otherwise. The PS3's emulator is not built to take advantage of this in any way, hence why the load times are still generally slow (roughly equivalent to PS1) even though it's on an HDD.

TheThrillness

Edit history:

TheThrillness: 2012-11-17 11:04:41 am

2012-11-17 11:03:55 am

thethrillness.blogspot.com

It's general loading as well. I figured out that you can decrease load times on the PS3 by disabling smoothing so that combined with an SSD SHOULD be faster.

Carcinogen

Edit history:

Carcinogen: 2012-11-18 03:24:27 am

2012-11-18 03:23:20 am

Yeah, actually, none of this makes any sense.

Records are one thing, but tbh, as long as the video is reflective of the fastest possible time for a version of the game, PSP runs should obsolete runs from other consoles.

Sir VG

2012-11-18 04:42:12 am

Fucking Weeaboo

Thing is Carc, we've got runs of games on different consoles as different categories (SotN for one right off the top of my head). It's definitely something that needs to be looked at and thought about a little more though.

Carcinogen

Edit history:

Carcinogen: 2012-11-18 06:01:57 am

2012-11-18 05:38:35 am

I thought it was different versions, no? This is an emulator we're talking about.

Consider this: the runs would look fundamentally the same; no cutscene skipping, change in controls, or change in resolution/framerate. Bugs are unpatched, and damage values remain the same. They're different releases, but completely the same version. I don't understand why there should be a separate table of videos if the only different criteria is the loading times. If this were the GCN version I were submitting, then of course it'd be a separate category hands down.

Sir VG

2012-11-18 06:19:56 am

Fucking Weeaboo

SotN is mostly the same game, just differences with lag and load times. According to the game page, "The Xbox Live Arcade and Playstation Network version of the game is a separate category from the Playstation version because of differences in lag and timing." (They have an in-game timer that's actually displayed in the menu post-game, unlike the PS1 version).

This also may fall into a case like PC games, where the load times and crap like that are cut out and it's manually timed since each PC can play it differently.

I'm not sure. I'm just throwing out ideas into the discussion.

The2012Robot

Edit history:

The2012Robot: 2012-11-24 04:37:38 am

The2012Robot: 2012-11-24 04:13:27 am

The2012Robot: 2012-11-24 04:07:32 am

2012-11-24 04:03:02 am

I run for fun :)

I didn't realize there was that much of a difference in load times. Honestly, I hadn't even thought about it, which is ridiculous since I'm still planning a Legend of Dragoon run. So I did some side-by-side testing- the PS2 (fast disc speed) against the PSP (ripped copy), and the results were very interesting.

The PSP was half a second faster to load the opening FMV. The load times from the FMV to Rose overlooking the forest was equal. Loading over to Dart in the forest was when things got strange- the PS2 caught up to the PSP. And PS2 loaded a whopping 2 seconds faster at the next transition.

In general, almost every screen loaded close to 1 second faster on the PS2. The menu loads at nearly the exact same time (can't see a difference with my eyes, so they're probably only a couple frames apart, and I can't tell in whose favor). Battle load times vary slightly, but always in the PSP's favor (usually by something like 5 frames). The PS2 makes up the time though by loading back to the environment faster.

This was a very satisfying discovery overall- I really didn't want to run TLoD on the PSP. Forget the fact that I would have to pay for TLoD again to run it officially (or question my morals and try to trick everyone with a manually installed copy... but I have morals. No, really. lol), I just much prefer playing on the real thing.

EDIT: Just tested my PS2 against ePSXe... and my PS2 is faster?! I don't have a good enough understanding of why this would be. I was under the impression that the emulator was usually faster. But the emulator is as slow as the PSP, and even slower in some cases (menu opening is a big one- a good chunk of frames behind). This an awesome find for me personally because I've only been testing on the emulator (because save-states rock), and through my testing I guessed that around 3h 30m was going to be the fastest possible time for disc 1. Now I know that not only is that time estimate minutes higher than it should be, but the whole run is going to be a good portion faster than expected. Very excited Smiley

I'm not sure how much help this post is to anyone, but I thought the findings might interest some of you.

I didn't realize there was that much of a difference in load times. Honestly, I hadn't even thought about it, which is ridiculous since I'm still planning a Legend of Dragoon run. So I did some side-by-side testing- the PS2 (fast disc speed) against the PSP (ripped copy), and the results were very interesting.

The PSP was half a second faster to load the opening FMV. The load times from the FMV to Rose overlooking the forest was equal. Loading over to Dart in the forest was when things got strange- the PS2 caught up to the PSP. And PS2 loaded a whopping 2 seconds faster at the next transition.

In general, almost every screen loaded close to 1 second faster on the PS2. The menu loads at nearly the exact same time (can't see a difference with my eyes, so they're probably only a couple frames apart, and I can't tell in whose favor). Battle load times vary slightly, but always in the PSP's favor (usually by something like 5 frames). The PS2 makes up the time though by loading back to the environment faster.

This was a very satisfying discovery overall- I really didn't want to run TLoD on the PSP. Forget the fact that I would have to pay for TLoD again to run it officially (or question my morals and try to trick everyone with a manually installed copy... but I have morals. No, really. lol), I just much prefer playing on the real thing.

EDIT: Just tested my PS2 against ePSXe... and my PS2 is faster?! I don't have a good enough understanding of why this would be. I was under the impression that the emulator was usually faster. But the emulator is as slow as the PSP, and even slower in some cases (menu opening is a big one- a good chunk of frames behind). This an awesome find for me personally because I've only been testing on the emulator (because save-states rock), and through my testing I guessed that around 3h 30m was going to be the fastest possible time for disc 1. Now I know that not only is that time estimate minutes higher than it should be, but the whole run is going to be a good portion faster than expected. Very excited :)

I'm not sure how much help this post is to anyone, but I thought the findings might interest some of you.

Carcinogen

2012-11-26 04:20:50 am

You weren't ever going to get your run accepted on PSP anyway with your ripped copy, because you can't submit runs on ripped PS1 games.

PS1 games downloaded from PSN otoh, can be run. The difference between that popstation shit and the version you would buy on PSN is a completely different ballpark, d00d, and this is why: each individual PSN release is a slightly modified version of the same emulator being tweeked to that game's specifications, just like virtual console. Unlike coding a game for hardware, you have to code (or debug) an emulator around a game. Submitting something you ripped and created with popstation or whatever is like tying to submit a run of a VC inject of Goldeneye 007; the game will not be emulated properly. Unofficial release, therefore an unofficial emulator of that game. So, no, doesn't help with the ruling, really.

I've been clamoring for some kind of ruling for a while. I really hope none of you are looking at the title for this thread and passing it over for a game ripped from a disc, because I *am* talking about the official PSN releases.

You weren't ever going to get your run accepted on PSP anyway with your ripped copy, because you can't submit runs on ripped PS1 games.

PS1 games downloaded from PSN otoh, can be run. The difference between that popstation shit and the version you would buy on PSN is a completely different ballpark, d00d, and this is why: each individual PSN release is a slightly modified version of the same emulator being tweeked to that game's specifications, just like virtual console. Unlike coding a game for hardware, you have to code (or debug) an emulator around a game. Submitting something you ripped and created with popstation or whatever is like tying to submit a run of a VC inject of Goldeneye 007; the game will not be emulated properly. Unofficial release, therefore an unofficial emulator of that game. So, no, doesn't help with the ruling, really.

I've been clamoring for some kind of ruling for a while. I really hope none of you are looking at the title for this thread and passing it over for a game ripped from a disc, because I *am* talking about the official PSN releases.