|WikiProject Computing / Software||(Rated C-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject Video games||(Rated C-class, Low-importance)|
|This page was nominated for deletion on 10 October 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.|
|This page was nominated for deletion on 30 November 2007. The result of the discussion was withdrawn by nom pending discussion.|
What do you mean with consensus Teansum? I brought all opinion and also the arguments why I think the website field in the infobox should be set tp www.dolphin-emulator.com. I am wating for your arguments. Let's talk about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 10:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
www.dolphin-emulator.com é muito mais recente do que www.dolphin-emu.com As versões de correr muito melhor. Há muito mais informação e orientação. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 16:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- This is the English Wikipedia. Please post in English to have a discussion. --Teancum (talk) 00:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
sorry for my bad english: Many points speak for www.dolphin-emu.org above www.dolphin-emu.com:
* the support of www.dolphin-emu.org is much better www.dolphin-emu.com; already sent four mail, and every has been replied very quickly * www.dolphin-emu.org * in the infobox it says 'webiste' and not 'official website'; when a website is supplied, then it should be the one with the best and most information and user support! www.dolphin-emu.com is nothing! The content is old and incomplete * not www.dolphin-emu.com is the officle site but http://code.google.com/p/dolphin-emu/; the code is hosted there and every communication between the developers take place there; www.dolphin-emu.com is just a joke and a poorly maintained website, old info and not up to date
In my opinion there is no real official dolphin site. Maybe http://code.google.com/p/dolphin-emu/ can be seen as the official site, but even this not really the case, because Dolphin is a open source project, so it belongs to the public domain!
Sites about dolphin emulator which offer various services like downloads are just 'frontend sites'. The 'main site' is still http://code.google.com/p/dolphin-emu/. And there are many frontend site; and when it comes to list one in the infobox, it should be the best of them! That is up to date info, the moste and up to date download, and good guides and exlanations. www.dolphin-emulator.com does a great job here, but www.dolphin-emu.com does this very poorly!
I like dolphin emulator a lot and I play it a lot, always with the newest version :) I also want that other people in the world have the opportunity to get the best service thats out there. And when it comes to dolphin emulator, for now this only can be www.dolphin-emulator.com! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 08:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
- Long story short, www.dolphin-emulator.com only hosts SVN releases. Those are not considered notable, and do not follow the spirit of WP:VGSCOPE, point #9. If you wish to list www.dolphin-emulator.com as a reference for the latest preview release, that's fine, however www.dolphin-emulator.com does not have official forums, contains no news section, no games compatibility list (outdated or otherwise) and does not have any official release candidates listed on the site, only SVN releases. www.dolphin-emu.com lists release candidates, has forums, a compatibility list, shows the latest SVN releases. Anything listed at www.dolphin-emulator.com can easily be found on www.dolphin-emu.com's forums. Therefore the casual reader is better served by a site that has more content. You also posted that www.dolphin-emulator.com has "up to date info", however there's nothing to support that claim. The site has three guides - Wiimote, Performance, and FAQ -- all of which are very simple.
- Official site or not, www.dolphin-emu.com provide someone who knows nothing about Wii/Gamecube emulation with more information. Folks already using Dolphin don't come to Wikipedia for the latest SVN build anyways, so why would we need to list a site that only helps avid users? No, we need to use a site that contains the most general information, and then if people desire they can visit other sites. If you feel you need to take this issue to more people and get more opinions, I suggest taking it to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games where several experienced Wikipedia editors will help everyone come to the best conclusion. Until a consensus is made do not change the article's page, per the Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Doing so without consensus will be considered vandalism. --Teancum (talk) 13:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
- Read this: http://forums.dolphin-emu.org/Thread-dolphin-has-a-new-website --Isacdaavid (talk) 00:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
I think we are in common that http://code.google.com/p/dolphin-emu/ is the official project site? There www.dolphin-emu.org is called to be the official home page. The old one, dolphin - emulator . com, got out of control of the project, so they had to move. Please don't change the link to this page just because it's #1 on google. Degasus (talk) 04:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Release and Preview versions
The current release version is 2.0RC1. The current preview relase is 5186. I don't know why Mewtu still pasted the very old preview realease 4771. Just like 5186, it is just a reglar SVN snapshot. But 5186 is way more up to date. So I think it makes sense to make the latest SVN snapshot the current preview release, and mark 2.0RC1 as current release version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 08:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Faster than 1.03
- http://www.nyleveia.com/daco/ for the occasional unofficial SVN builds. You get more recent builds more likely to work by compiling from the source code on the Google Code page. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 16:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Why is everybody fixed on 720p support? Dolphin can use arbitrary resolutions, basically everything the graphics card can handle. A high-end graphics card can easily push out far higher resolutions without performance degradation. I think this should be clarified.--22.214.171.124 (talk) 13:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC) Heck, the screenshot for that section isn't even in 720p. Nintendo Maniac 64 (talk) 05:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- 720p is one step higher than 480p, which the Wii maxes at, so I guess it makes sense to list it as the first and only example, I do not believe it gave the impression it can only go up to 720p, but if you do then you could make it more obvious it doesn't.
- However this is a PC emu and monitors are more often 16:10 than 16:9, so 800p or 900p would make more sense if it weren't for the fact that 720p is more commonly understood by readers. Gigith (talk) 20:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Is there really a point in marking every svn commit as a preview release? Imho the current preview release is 2.0rc1, as it is the release candidate for the stable 2.0 release. --126.96.36.199 (talk) 10:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
- I'd say yes and no. There definitely should NOT be constant updates for every SVN, simply because those are NOT RELEASES of any kind. Those are all development snapshots that aren't supported or endorsed. The only proper instance is when the developers do one of their occasional website releases, which is really intended as any kind of preview or beta release. Just because someone can compile the latest SVN build, doesn't mean it's a release. If anything, they are completely unofficial and don't belong here as canon. 188.8.131.52 (talk)
Big poorly written chunk at the end of History
I'm too lazy and not knowledgable enough to rewrite it more coherently, but I just thought I'd call attention to it. I'd put an "issues" tag on it if I knew how... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 02:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Remove "Nvidia 3D Vision" from feature list?
Given that DX9 backend is now deprecated in Dolphin 4.0.2 and is no longer available in latest test builds, should we drop Nvidia 3D vision that can be only found in DX9 backend? Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 02:37, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- There is the possibility of it being readded in D3D11... but meh, there's no reason it can't be readded to this page when that occurs. Of course, Windows XP support was removed with the move to VS2013, so the page is a little behind in other areas as well... - MaJoRoesch (talk) 05:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
As other editors may have noticed, there has been some back and forth lately between me and Oranjelo100 regarding DolphinFX. For a little background, DolphinFX is a collection of improved shaderpacks for the OpenGL backend of Dolphin created by a coder not affiliated with the Dolphin team, completed in late 2013. They are superior to the ones currently included in Dolphin. Unfortunately it requires advanced setup and manually editing files, so the Dolphin team chose not to integrate it with Dolphin as stated by neobrain in THIS LINK. Furthermore, the developer of it, Asmodean, has ceased development on the shader pack. So DolphinFX is definitely not a part of Dolphin; that is established.
Several months ago, Oranjelo100 added DolphinFX to the list of features of the emulator on this page. As it is not a component of Dolphin, I (as an IP editor, I forgot I wasn't signed in) removed it and provided the link above as evidence that it is in fact not a features of Dolphin, and should not be there. It was undone without explanation. I removed it again, again stating that it was not a part of the emulator. Several months past, and he returned and added DolphinFX yet again, saying it needed to be here so "people know it exists".
So it's time to have a conversation. I am of the opinion that mods that are not and will never be a part of the emulator should not be listed on this page. Are there any objections to this? Does anyone believe that it should be there, and why? - MaJoRoesch (talk) 04:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- Hi guys! DolphinFX is a tangiential topic which does not impact the purpose of a Wikipedia article, which is to establish the notability of the Dolphin application as per reliable sources. This article elucidates why Dolphin is unique, why it has a legacy, why it is a truly substantial achievement. It has some coverage by RSes, and so on. As per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a collection of links, not a directory, and not a collection of information stating that something exists. That's the job of the project's page, to which we link, so contact them. Contributors may be confused in their determination of what's relevant, because the article is already so loaded with trivia and junk (see "don't add sewage to the already polluted pond" and "other stuff exists"). Entire sections need to be deleted, such as all of the Origins (2003–2007) section and most or all of the other history section(s). That's trivia for the project's own web site, and they do have a wiki, which we are not here to supplant or mirror. We need more WP:RSes, and to not fundamentally rely at all upon forums and wikis or any other primary sources. We need actual articles and stuff. Also, people shall be mindful of WP:3RR so as to not communicate through edit messages or edit wars, because that's a disciplinary offense even if you're of the right intentions. I'm a Dolphin beta tester on Mac OS, so I am enthusiastic too! Thanks guys! — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 05:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- Dev here (Lioncash, name was taken). I agree with what MaJoRoesch is suggesting. As he has stated, DolphinFX is most definitely not a part of the Dolphin Emulator. It isn't even directly included in it, or considered a part of the emulator by any of the developers. Putting it on this article "to let people know it exists" is not a valid reasoning for doing so, as the same argument can be made for every single extension or mod that people could possibly make for it. Lioncache (talk) 05:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
You want it removed probably because you don't want people asking on Dolphin forums for support for it. But people have right to know it exist because it offers superior effects than Dolphin itself. I mentioned that its not part of the project.--Oranjelo100 (talk) 21:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- You are being reported for edit warring in defiance of warned Wikipedia policy, for making things nonsensically personal (WP:ICANTHEARYOU), and for defiance of established objective consensus achieved as per common sense and Wikipedia policy, which is in itself also in defiance of Wikipedia policy. Also, these fine people were not in any way kidding whatsoever about your tendency to shred up Wikipedia (and decent editors' attention spans) a half a word at a time, over irrelevant and/or incorrect minutea, like a death of a thousand cuts. :( The edit will have to stand, pending an admin's removal. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 23:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- If there are notable features developed by a 3rd party, adding a “3rd party developments” (or similar) subsection would be OK if the article does not become unwieldy because of it. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 23:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
x64 with SEE2 issue
I just noticed revision #642609276, in which "with SSE2" is removed from
|platform= with this edit summary: "x64 does already implied SSE2 support". I disagreed and proceeded per WP:BRD. But this edit strikes as vaguely familiar. So, I decided to take the initiative and start this discussion myself.
So, what is wrong the edit summary? SEE2 is indeed a core part of x64; if you have an x64 CPU, you have a CPU with SEE2 as well. (At least, this is the case with AMD and hopefully Intel CPUs.) So, it gives you the minimum bottom. The problem is that
|platform= isn't supposed to mention the minimum bottom; it is supposed to mention all supported platforms. Saying "x64" alone doesn't say anything about implementation of SSE-specific code; the reader seeing "x64" still does not know whether an x64 with SSE3 would suffice or not. Silence is not always equivalent to explicit confirmation. (We have precedence in the form of consensus through editing here: There are computer programs with versions specifically written for both IA-32 and x64; specifying "IA-32" does the job of specifying the minimum, but Wikipedians specify both to convey the fact that the application is specifically written to take advantage of x64.)
So, one might ask: Okay, but why did you revert the part on system requirements? If "x64" would suffice for the bottom requirement, you shouldn't have reverted it there. Well, the problem is: System requirements section doesn't exactly specify a vague minimum only; it specifies a recommended CPU too and these two shouldn't be of varying accuracy. The resolution of both ends should be near equal. But I am ready to negotiate or even forfeit that part.
- First, SSE2 isn't just included by all x64 vendors, it's also required by the x64 specification. So SSE2 can't be seen as an additional feature for x64.
- But I think you're right, we should mention the recommended CPU instead. SSE2 is a hard requirement, but SSSE3 is used a lot (if available) and will be a big slowdown else. So I think we should replace the SSE2 with SSSE3.
- Degasus (talk) 12:16, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- "SSE2 isn't just included by all x64 vendors." Really? In that case this discussion is unnecessary and SSE2 mention is mandatory.
- "but SSSE3 is used a lot". Well, if you have a source for that, then we can add it to the infobox too.
- Best regards,
- Codename Lisa (talk) 03:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)