Rpcs3 save and load state functions
Started by Gerar




4 posts in this topic
Gerar
Unregistered


 
06-03-2017, 09:53 AM -
#1
Hello
Is will be function saving and loading states in games for starting from saved point in rpcs3?
It's especially important for me for getting rare items in gold chests of Castlevania harmony of despairSmile))
Thanks
Ani
Administrator
*******


16
4,386 posts 106 threads Joined: Aug 2017
06-03-2017, 02:15 PM -
#2
Save states are basically a memory dump. This can be done but will amount to save states being near to half a GB.
    Desktop: Ryzen 7 5800X,   Radeon RX 6800 XT, 2x8G DDR4 3600MHz, Manjaro Linux
     Laptop: Ryzen 9 5900HX,  Radeon RX 6700M,   2x8G DDR4 3200MHz, Manjaro Linux
Old Desktop: AMD FX-8350,     Radeon R9 280X,    2x4G DDR3 1600MHz, Manjaro Linux
shoopdahoop22
Unregistered


 
06-03-2017, 06:25 PM -
#3
(06-03-2017, 02:15 PM)Annie Wrote: Save states are basically a memory dump. This can be done but will amount to save states being near to half a GB.

Would it be possible to compress/decompress savestates on the fly?
ssshadow
Moderator
*****


4
2,494 posts 63 threads Joined: Aug 2017
06-04-2017, 11:48 AM -
#4
Nothing is impossible but it's not worked on right now or even in the near future because it adds a bit of complexity overall. "First make it work, then make it work well" as you say...
mcabel
Member


0
1 posts 0 threads Joined: May 2018
05-30-2018, 02:44 PM -
#5
I wish to propose an alternative to propose an alternative to compression, which might be irrelevant and more time consuming to code, as well as CPU consuming.
"
My suggestion is on a first run, first usage of a savestate feature, a warning saying that the "savestates take around 500 mb disk space. It is recommended to use no more than one or two if disk space is a concern." Most emulators anyway have a max of 10 save state slots available, which would take no more than 5-10gb disk space, which is really trivial for most modern computers.

This might have been obvious, but just wanted to point it out because sometimes when I code, I put off features because the implementation does not seem optimal or it seems to consume a relatively high amount of disk resources, but then I realize that for most users, that is a non-issue.


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)