Dude, you've been expressing yourself unclearly for a long time now, posting posts upon posts on the same matter without any coherency and clarity, at the same time refusing to analytical approach both suggestions and facts. Maybe you should take a step back and think a little more about what you did in this topic for the last few pages instead of posting more antagonizing remarks.Yes sure...if only you had carefully read at least one of my posts...
i did actuallty replicate it, the issue is SMB related other modes should not be affected i dont remember any of those being updated
This is why I keep saying PS2 was never designed for it and it's just a dirt hack to even have games played like that. On a console like PS2, you have ZERO free resources. The games for PS2 were optimized to the brim of possibilities. Every single processor cycle is priceless in such an environment. We should focus on trying to get the best performance from iHDD because that was at least planned as a game storage by Sony from the beginning. HDDs were just too expensive back then and there was virtually no way to sell digital games worldwide, so it ended up as unused except for a few titles. However, the options was always there, so PS2 FAT is inherently compatible with an internal HDD. SMB is trying to force something the system was never designed for.
although you make a good point not everyone has access to a fat+na+hdd console combo and some people dont want fats because of the size, noise and other things, more than half of the production life of the ps2 was spent on slims so as you know that means no iHDD but integrated NA for that majority of console it leaves them with either USB that has to be fat32 along with split games due to file system (in my experience also less convenient and annoying to maintain the games) instead smb games are easier to maintain no restriction in file system either, just because something wasnt designed to be used that way doesnt mean it cant do it, if that was the case why do most games work just fine they might take a bit longer to load i dont think for most people thats an issue.
I don't have access to most things I would like to have access to. That doesn't mean I wan to cut corners and force my way into having half-broken substitutes.
I agree. The whole purpose of OPL is to make the PS2 do something it was not designed specifically for. Allowing users to play games from SMB or USB opens up the PS2 to anyone with a fat or slim console, with or without a working DVD drive.
Every homebrew, by definition, is doing that. That's a fallacy, not an argument, because it's so broad that pretty much everything fits.
But as I understand it, the SMB and USB code isn't loaded when you launch a game in HDD mode, so functionality is completely unaffected.
I mean the work put into developing and testing these solutions.
It's exactly because I value their works so highly that I consider this a waste.
The same fallacy as above.
Then go ahead and add even more stuff. My point is that very talented people like sp193 waste their time and efforts on something which is fundamentally crippled because the PS2 hardware itself will never allow it to work the way these games were designed to function. Don't compare SMB to iHDD. It's apples and oranges.
There should be disclaimer saying how much crippled games are through SMB. The FPS issues the guy above described are not an exception. SMB is littered with such issues. It's why I pulled out of it after a few tests. In my extensive gaming experience, only iHDD provides gameplay the way it was intended by developers.
I have never experienced any FPS drops through SMB but it seems others have, maybe developers can fix these issues somehow. iHDD maybe provides the best experience for you but for me SMB does, personal preference
