Collector, How could you!!!

[envisge0ne]

In the ScummVM forums, you thought I made such a novice mistake as to not setup MUNT correctly? After all these years I've posted on your forums! How could you!!!

[Collector]

LOL, sorry you took it that way. Just that what you you described is exactly what it sounds like when the MT-32 driver is loaded without Munt or an MT-32 module in DOS or DOSBox. It was intended as more of a curious pondering what ScummVM might be doing, not you. After all, SVM does not even use the SCI drivers.

[MusicallyInspired]

Yeah, that's how I took it as well. ScummVM has always had something finicky about it that didn't work properly with SCI games. Each SCI version has a different problem. The speed issues in SCI1.1, the inability to disable digital sound effects in certain SCI0 and SCI1 games...

[envisge0ne]

I agree. ScummVM is good for people that are looking for a simple setup & aren't comfortable using DOSBox, but it comes with it's share of problems. I setup the Windows version of KQ6 through DOSBox, running it through Windows 3.1. That was NOT fun to set up lol. However, running it through DOSBox seems to be the best option & I haven't had any problems with it

[Collector]

Of course a lot of that discomfort is just allowing themselves to be intimidated by the unfamiliar. Once one becomes familiar with DOSBox, it is easier to use directly than via other means. Hell, a lot of games can be started simply by dropping its executable onto a shortcut to DOSBox. Even a frontend requires some learning. Boxer for Mac OS tried to address that, but you would need to build in setup information for each game within the app. Then again, that was the purpose of my installers. Each installer is scripted for the needs of each game. Nothing for the user to figure out, just run it to get a working install of your game that you can start with a Windows shortcut like a native application.

I would have scripted a 3x install for KQ7 and others if MS had freewared 9x.

[envisge0ne]

I use the ProgammaX front end for all my Dos games. I also use Launchbox. I agree that DOSBox isn't hard to use, but I get why novice users could be intimidated by it.

[Tawmis]

I use the ProgammaX front end for all my Dos games. I also use Launchbox. I agree that DOSBox isn't hard to use, but I get why novice users could be intimidated by it.

It's an odd thing right... Because if people are using DOSBox, it probably means they were using Windows 3.1/Windows 95 era computers (a lot of the old school Dos games spawning in that time), so you'd think they'd be familiar with dos commands.

The most difficult thing about DOSBox is mounting (whether mounting a drive; not to difficult - but if you're mounting a CD-ROM, okay - that's a little more complicated). But the documentation - which is short - covers that, for that reason.

[envisge0ne]

I agree. Even mounting a drive, I forget how to do it from time to time & have to look it up. It's really easy, but you can forget if you haven't done it in a while. When I was a kid, I was very familiar with dos commands. I actually preferred using DOS over Windows 3.1. It wasn't until Windows 95 came out, that I finally ditched running things through DOS. Now a days, I think having to enter DOS type commands is so alien to most people, that they don't want to even try. I've gotten a tad irritated at some people when they just want someone to make things work for them, without putting in any effort on there own O:)

[MusicallyInspired]

DOSBox commands are burned into my mind now. Honestly I'm a little spoiled with what DOSBox can do. I'm starting to forget how to set up proper autoexec.bat and config.sys settings...

[Semi-Happy Partygoer]

For me, installing and setting up the games is half the fun. Back in the "old" days, I sometimes would uninstall games just to reinstall them, as I loved the sound of floppy disk drives at work. (Weird, I know.) Now I have fun writing configuration and batch files to launch them...and using Collector's great installers when I need some help

As great as running a game natively can be, in some ways I prefer DOSBox because of the individual cycle customization. No more "one size fits all" approach depending on your hardware. It wasn't until DOSBox that I was able to view certain game animations at their correct speed, as some played too fast even on older machines. Kyrandia I comes to mind - I had no idea the logo actually faded in and out of view until DOSBox, as before it played so fast it appeared to just "pop" on and offscreen. And "The Hand of Fate" intro sequence is much better when viewed at a lower cycle setting, allowing more of the animations to play in their entirety. (The ScummVM settings for those games are much too fast, and the sequences I described blow by at warp speed.)

[notbobsmith]

I agree. ScummVM is good for people that are looking for a simple setup & aren't comfortable using DOSBox, but it comes with it's share of problems. I setup the Windows version of KQ6 through DOSBox, running it through Windows 3.1. That was NOT fun to set up lol. However, running it through DOSBox seems to be the best option & I haven't had any problems with it

Just out of curiosity, is there any significant difference between running KQ6 through ScummVM and Windows 3.11/DOSBox? I used to run the Windows 3.11/DOSBox (to get the hi-res images), but switched to ScummVM since I needed to use it for other things anyway and just thought launching through ScummVM was less "messy" (i.e., launch Windows, launch the game...)

[MusicallyInspired]

Besides the speed issues inherent in all SCI1.1 games in ScummVM (because it's dependent on system speed rather than simulated CPU cycles like DOSBox that you can slow down, least that's how it was explained to me by a ScummVM dev), in ScummVM you can have the high res dialogue portraits from the Windows versions with the large coloured cursors of the DOS version at the same time. That's pretty much it.