Request: configurable delay for 240p mode transitions

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Problem: For those using video upscalers with HDMI output, transitioning from 
480p/480i to 240p input can incur a costly transition. For example, the 
Micomsoft XRGB-Mini takes about 5 seconds before the output becomes visible 
again. With genplus-gx, this affects those who choose to use the 'original' 
display mode. A typical side effect would be missing the first few seconds of 
the introduction upon first starting a ROM. Another issue is that, after saving 
the game state, one can be put straight back into the action but not be able to 
immediately see what is happening. Unless one remembers to pause before saving 
state, this can be the difference between virtual life and death!

Requested solution: Have an option which implements a configurable delay which, 
if enabled, defaults to 5 seconds. It would need to trigger upon leaving the 
menu and returning to the emulator (but not in the other direction).

Original issue reported on code.google.com by kerfra...@gmail.com on 27 Jul 2012 at 10:18

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Another solution I can think of would be to have an option that keeps the 
emulator's UI running at the same video mode as the current game.

Original comment by superballena on 27 Jul 2012 at 10:39

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Hmm, no, i won't add options that does not make any sense for 99.9% of users. 
What if someone suddenly want to use some kind of external sound amplifier that 
introduce latency between video and audio, i should add an option to delay 
video emulation ?

Also, i don't really understand the need for you to use 240p: it's an upscaler, 
which means that no matter what the source is, it will output HD video, just 
stick with unfiltered 480p or 480i. I'm also pretty sure this kind of device 
only fakes scanline so a lower resolurion signal won't make the output more 
accurate.

As for using 240p in menu, i don't think you would like it very much 
considering all the gui images are designed for 640x480 screen.

Original comment by ekeeke31@gmail.com on 28 Jul 2012 at 7:38

• Changed state: WontFix

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I feel the need to defend my usage of 240p. I can assure you that it *does* 
make it more accurate. Yes, your emulator is accurate in the unfiltered mode. 
However, with 480p, the placement of the scanlines is not always correct with 
the XRGB-Mini, meaning that - depending on whichever input/system is being used 
at the time - it may be required to invert the intensity of the SCANLINES_A and 
SCANLINES_B setting. There is no option to toggle between odd and even, so 
adjusting these settings is a slow process. Nor is there an option to store 
different arrangements of settings. With 240p inputs, it *always* gets it 
right. This scaler is designed from the ground up to work with 240p signals.

Yes, I'm probably a niche case but I find this a bit disappointing, given the 
target audience of an emulator such as this. Still, I can probably fudge in a 
usleep() statement somewhere for my own purposes.

Original comment by kerfra...@gmail.com on 28 Jul 2012 at 7:57

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Honestly, it seems like to me than having to reconfigure scanlines once in a 
while when you want to play with a 480i/480p source is much less inconvenient 
than having to wait 5s (!) everytime you load a new game or simply return from 
main menu. I would be more disappointed by the hardware i am using if i were 
you since it's really a major flaw and in my opinion, certainly not the role of 
the emulator (or even good design for any program)  to restrict itself in order 
to deal with exotic hardware's issues.

That's the point of open-source, anyone is free to add whatever "feature" he 
wants, but that does not mean I am supposed to add any possible options 
(especially those I have zero need for) in official trunk or that it is 
supposed to be the ultimatest configurable emulator of the world, because there 
is really no limit with user's imagination (or crazyness ?)  ;-)

Original comment by ekeeke31@gmail.com on 28 Jul 2012 at 8:20

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Of course, you are under no obligation to add any feature you don't think 
belongs. I wouldn't even think of suggesting otherwise. I can but ask.

Yes, I suppose the 480p scanline placement could be considered a defect. But 
this device does a lot of things right. It works magic with a wide range of 
~15kHz sources operating at various resolutions, with crystal-clear upscaling 
and few quirks (even with unstable sources). In that respect, it's a retro 
gamer's dream. That I use one is perhaps not so unusual. Rather, it's the fact 
that I don't use a *real* MegaDrive that makes me a niche case. This is 
probably the road I will eventually go down.

I'm guessing that one of the reasons it doesn't fare so well with scanline 
placement on 480p sources is that the heuristics are easier to implement when 
it is getting the 'genuine' picture. At least, that is where they have 
concentrated their development effort. Maybe I can file another bug asking for 
an option to offset the image by 1px in the vertical axis (just kidding ...)

Original comment by kerfra...@gmail.com on 28 Jul 2012 at 8:35