ScummVM 0.13.1

[Paco]

ScummVM (http://www.scummvm.org/) 0.13.0 came out some days ago.

It support 4 new Game (ie. The 7th Guest!) and some change.

a List what changed in the new Version is here:
http://sourceforge.net/project/shownotes.php?release_id=662248

you can downloads it here:
http://www.scummvm.org/downloads.php

now happy discussing. ^_^

[peace01]

As for multiple computer platforms mess is better.
Though I personally find it better to get indivuals emulators usually though Mame is great asrcade machines and Fusion is good for sega machines.
If Mirosoft can't beat dos box for dos emulation no one will. I go with the best and leave the rest behind.

[TotalAnarchy]

But seriously - only 0.13 in 7 years, that's so slow!

[hahajejeje]

Who cares Anarchy,is Scumm VM!!! god I remeber when my brother got it and play the Day of tentacle :)

[Capo]

- Added support for Blue's 123 Time Activities.
- Added support for Blue's ABC Time Activities.

:|

[Japo]

ScummVM is not really an emulator nor even a VM. It's a re-make for modern platforms of several game engines (for DOS).

[red_avatar]

I'm not a big user of SCUMMVM. Even before I had Dosbox, I preferred different ways of getting those games to work. ScummVM is a bit like Exult for Ultima VII: it's not an emulator but rather a re-write of the game's engine. I prefer an authentic experience over the ScummVM experience. For many people it won't make a difference and Dosbox is still harder to use than ScummVM but if you when it to be authentic, Dosbox still beats ScummVM by far.

[_r.u.s.s.]

well the games that are supported are pixel to pixel authentic

[Szilvio]

Is supported games faster in ScummVM, than in DOSBox? I always played in native DOS or in DOSBox, so I even do not know what ScummVM able to do. I guess supported games are more tested than in DOSBox?
I decided to use DOSBox, because it seemed more universal, despite of that I had to read a manual and make tries to set it up. But in the end it was fun without big problems. I know some people do not like to read manuals, but life is easier and less problematical, so it is not a wasted time, if you try to read them... :)

So I vote for DOsBox, but I'd like to know what people think about the other alternatives...

[_r.u.s.s.]

of course it's universal and once you get the game running i don't think you can get any "faster" speed since it's all adventures. well, theoretically speaking, yes scummvm is of course faster

[Szilvio]

It is a long time, that I was checking for ScummVM... If it supports only advanture games, than "fast" is really not needed to much. Probably there is no need to setup cycle times. ;)

[_r.u.s.s.]

you set your cycles to auto and you don't need to configure anything neither=P

[red_avatar]

you set your cycles to auto and you don't need to configure anything neither=P
I prefer "Max". "Auto" has too may examples where it sets the cycles much too low. Max may make a game run too fast in certain instances, like old Sierra games, so you still need to know a thing or two about cycles really. In my experience, games older than 1990 = 10.000 cycles or lower. 15.000 works for most games that needed a 386 or 486.

[Tulac]

But then again the number of cycles depends on your CPU, so it's values are not universal.

[Szilvio]

I meant, that in some cases you can slow down the cycles to "cheat". So if you have lack of experience in some game or you are not enough quickly slowing down helps to finish some levels. (Eg. Vikings) :)

[red_avatar]

But then again the number of cycles depends on your CPU, so it's values are not universal.
Erm no, that's not really true. The amount of cycles you can choose is *limited* by your CPU but any amount below that limit will run games at the same speed on every PC. 15000 cycles is 15000 cycles. It's "max" that will change for every CPU. But if a game runs fine at 5000 cycles, then everyone else who has a CPU made in the last 6 or so odd years will be able to play that game just fine at that same amount of cycles.

[_r.u.s.s.]

what tulac said is true in case of dynamic core i think

[red_avatar]

what tulac said is true in case of dynamic core i think
I've never noticed a speed difference even when using a Dynamic core to be honest. I doubt that it would make much of a difference though - cycles with Dynamic core do act differently but between computers (I've tested the same games on both my laptop and desktop) I never noticed any need to give games a different amount of cycles on different PCs. The very idea of cycles, is that they are supposed to be a fixed value that works the same on every PC.

[Paco]

ScummVM (http://www.scummvm.org/) 0.13.1 came out some days ago.

It fixes some Bugs.

a List what changed in the new Version is here:
http://sourceforge.net/project/shownotes.php?release_id=676818

you can downloads it here:
http://www.scummvm.org/downloads.php