Outbreak 1-2 Discussion

Prince of Judah wrote:

I played it for about 15 minutes on twitch last night. It took me many hours to get game capture working. Well it would not surprise me if Outbreak was ported to the PC. But my concern is that it wont be properly modified for communication that works well. Also, even if they only charge 19.99 for it, that price is too steep for me, and it will be for a long time to come. I already purchased the Outbreaks for the PS2, and it would be nice if Outbreak was free to those who prove to Capcom via photographs they purchased it in the past.

http://www.twitch.tv/benyohanan/b/505077542

I may delete the video in the future.

Most people I play with seem to prefer to use communication methods out of game while playing. Programs like Skype, Steam Chat, Team Speak and Ventrilo. The communication would not be a problem with just a little extra work. Unless you are referring to the in game character communication, and not actual voice chat. Some say they would prefer to play Outbreak without voice chat.

I do those things too. I only use twitch when i am talking to someone.

For those wanting to play Outbreak on their PC through a PS2 emulator:

The PS2 EMULATOR needs a high processor speed otherwise your ps2 games will run in slow motion. 3.8GHZ works well.

Better to have a dual core 3.8GHZ than a Quad Core 2.8 GHZ processor. That's why your ps2 games run in slow motion.

If you turn OFF the frame limiter in Outbreak (and you have a bad ass PC) the entire game runs in FAST SPEED. You can toggle frame limiter with "F4". Not only that but the LOADING times are only 1 sec. That's right. The loading times are "FAKE". Whether you load a tiny little room or a giant arena the load time is still the same, it's just timed. So if you put the game in high speed the load times go away and shrink down to 1 second.

Voltius wrote:

That's right. The loading times are "FAKE". Whether you load a tiny little room or a giant arena the load time is still the same, it's just timed. So if you put the game in high speed the load times go away and shrink down to 1 second.

Consider this. Installing a game to one's hard drive makes them run faster. Emulators are essentially this, games being played straight from your hard drive. With a disc, the loading times are understandable. Without the disc, it's obvious that using an emulator's configurations you can make it run faster. Try to do this with an actual disc copy and then present your proof of "fake" load times.

Besides, if the load times were "timed" it would always take the same amount of time, instead of something from 5 to 30 seconds. Unless, of course, you are asserting that they coded in a random load time interval which would be just ridiculous.

Mass Distraction wrote:

Consider this. Installing a game to one's hard drive makes them run faster. Emulators are essentially this, games being played straight from your hard drive. With a disc, the loading times are understandable. Without the disc, it's obvious that using an emulator's configurations you can make it run faster. Try to do this with an actual disc copy and then present your proof of "fake" load times.

Besides, if the load times were "timed" it would always take the same amount of time, instead of something from 5 to 30 seconds. Unless, of course, you are asserting that they coded in a random load time interval which would be just ridiculous.

Mass, you must really think I'm retarded or something. I've TIMED THE LOADING SCREENS WITH AND WITHOUT THE FRAME LIMITER ON. THE LOADING is not associated with actual loading it's FAKE loading based on a timing code. The game finishes loading levels way before the load screen ends. The "loading" is suppose to search your hard drive for the proper data to assemble and load the next room up. Instead they use FAKE loading screens. The timing of the game is based on the frame rate, the loading is based on a timing code. Simply by running the game at 80 frames per second the "loading" turns into 1 second. Turn the frame limiter off and run the game at it's native 30 frames per second and the load times go right back to their usual loooooong selves.

Voltius wrote:

Mass Distraction wrote:

Consider this. Installing a game to one's hard drive makes them run faster. Emulators are essentially this, games being played straight from your hard drive. With a disc, the loading times are understandable. Without the disc, it's obvious that using an emulator's configurations you can make it run faster. Try to do this with an actual disc copy and then present your proof of "fake" load times.

Besides, if the load times were "timed" it would always take the same amount of time, instead of something from 5 to 30 seconds. Unless, of course, you are asserting that they coded in a random load time interval which would be just ridiculous.

Mass, you must really think I'm retarded or something. I've TIMED THE LOADING SCREENS WITH AND WITHOUT THE FRAME LIMITER ON. THE LOADING is not associated with actual loading it's FAKE loading based on a timing code. The game finishes loading levels way before the load screen ends. The "loading" is suppose to search your hard drive for the proper data to assemble and load the next room up. Instead they use FAKE loading screens. The timing of the game is based on the frame rate, the loading is based on a timing code. Simply by running the game at 80 frames per second the "loading" turns into 1 second. Turn the frame limiter off and run the game at it's native 30 frames per second and the load times go right back to their usual loooooong selves.

I what? I would never think that. The reason I question you is if the load times are fake, how are you supposedly the only person on the entire internet who knows this?

I mean, I would love to see some actual data and a comparison with an ISO versus a disc that is being run with a higher framerate.

I can't just take information someone tells me online as the absolute truth without some heavy evidence.

Prince of Judah wrote:

This is an old topic but I don't see any reason to not use it by starting a new thread.

How different is Easy from Normal? Does it change the AI? Does it effect the speed of infection, damage of enemies and health? How does it work? I might be putting this on twitch with my friend.

There is a lot of differences in higher difficulties. For example in wild things on easy you only have to find a way out of the park to the tram, In normal you have to find objects in the park(iirc they are coins) and you insert them into a puzzle to get a key item needed to escape. In much higher difficulties your team(if your playing offline) will only follow you so in order to complete a scenario you will have to go everywhere compared to lower difficulties. You get less ammo and weapons, you take more damage and the gauge goes up much quicker(although depending on character also). Harder difficulties are the most intense but the most rewarding when you complete them.

Voltius wrote:

For those wanting to play Outbreak on their PC through a PS2 emulator:

The PS2 EMULATOR needs a high processor speed otherwise your ps2 games will run in slow motion. 3.8GHZ works well.

Better to have a dual core 3.8GHZ than a Quad Core 2.8 GHZ processor. That's why your ps2 games run in slow motion.

If you turn OFF the frame limiter in Outbreak (and you have a bad ass PC) the entire game runs in FAST SPEED. You can toggle frame limiter with "F4". Not only that but the LOADING times are only 1 sec. That's right. The loading times are "FAKE". Whether you load a tiny little room or a giant arena the load time is still the same, it's just timed. So if you put the game in high speed the load times go away and shrink down to 1 second.

Its stated on the server forum to never use emulation to play online as it has a habit of crashing and bugging out, its best to play on real ps2 hardware then you will have a much better experience. And no the loading times aren't fake...your using the ISO of course the loading times are quicker its not the real disc image in real hardware at all. Why else would you have installed the game to a ps2 HDD back in the day? It was to decrease loading time in general its not fake... Hope that clears stuff up for you Mass.

Edit: Just saw your last post which is what i've just re-typed more or less >.<

That's pretty much what I've been trying to say, yeah.

I've ran some more tests, it seems there's something fishy going on...
- I thought I was right.
- Then I though you were right.
- Ran more tests and I'm confused...

The Following was tested on Outbreak File #2 "End of the Road", first door you go through when you start out.

Running off PS2 DISC on Emulator:
- The loading screen is 1.4 seconds when the frame limiter is OFF and the game is running at 80+fps.
- The loading screen is 5 seconds when the frame limiter is ON and the game is running at 30 fps.

Running off Harddrive on Emulator:
- The loading screen is 1.4 seconds when the frame limiter is OFF.
- The loading screen is 5 seconds when the frame limiter is ON and the game is running at 30 fps.

Running the game off of the hard drive or disc made NO difference. This is what made me suspect that the loading screens were timed. Everyone knows the hard drive is much faster at fetching data than a disc is.

Running off DISC on your PS2:
- The loading screen is 7 seconds long.
- Can someone else confirm this as well?

Why does the frame rate affect loading?! Is it because the PS2 bases game speed on frame rate? Does that mean if the PS2 frame rate were higher the Outbreak loading screens would be shorter? That doesn't make sense? Loading should be "fetching the data and assets from the disk and loading them into memory RAM".

HYPOTHESIS: The Loading Screens in the Outbreak games do not end when the game gets done loading the next stage, I think they are timed for a predetermined amount.

EXPLANATION: SAME as the old school Resident Evil door animations. The animation of the door opening doesn't speed up if the game gets done loading early, it still runs the entire animation of the door opening. Whether you are loading a tiny room with only 4 pre-rendered backgrounds to load or the RE2 main hall with 9 pre-rendered animations, the door animations are the same length. The door animation also doesn't slow down if the game is not done loading, it simply completes the animation and stays on a black screen. (The PC version of RE2 lets you skip the door loading screens by interrupting them.)

HOW THE PS2 (and EMULATOR) WORKS:
- Because the PS2 synchronizes it's game speed with the frame rate, the game gets sped up when the frame rate is raised and slows down when the frame rate is dropped. Game Speed and load speed should have nothing to do with each other.

IF the Loading times are FAKE and timed "load for 7 seconds when going through this door, show loading screen for 6 seconds when going through that door" WHY?
- To make all loading screens the same length in the game, that way when you're playing online and everyone goes through the door at once you all come OUT of the door at the same time, instead of only 1 person coming out because they loaded quicker and freaks out thinking the team didn't follow them.

CONCLUSION:
???

Hmm... Maybe it's a difference in hardware and a PS2 loads a disc slower than a computer.

For example, like you said, you can't skip the door loading times in earlier REs nor does it speed up at any point. However, when you play a disc version of RE2 on a computer you can skip the door loading sequences alltogether by pressing "enter". You can do this even if you don't install all assets of the game to the hard drive, essentially playing the game from the disc. Again, like you mentioned. This leads me to think it's a difference in hardware.

If only we could tamper with a PS2's framerate.

Plus, the timed part really doesn't sound right since the load times in the first Outbreak seem to be completely random, depending on the map and the place you are trying to enter.

I never played the games online so I can't say anything on that aspect.