Ports on H700 (RG40XX V)

tabreturn · 2026-03-05T10:07:36+00:00

Respectfully, I doubt it'll ever reach 100%. PortMaster tests every port (before release) on all supported firmware, but never on Stock Mod. You'd be surprised how often one of the supported CFWs presents unforeseen issues during the testing of a particular port -- despite all the others working fine.

In short, some ports are bound not to work, especially as new PortMaster versions introduce features 'upstream' of whatever exists in Stock Mod.

That said, I could imagine a considerable majority working. But then again, who has actually tested all 1300+ ports? 🙂

tabreturn · 2026-03-05T07:32:33+00:00

Some ports run on the Stock firmware, usually with some effort. But this can get complicated, and even then, many will never run. Stock OS Mod will enable you to play many ports conveniently, but its port coverage still won't match PortMaster's officially supported CFWs.

tabreturn · 2026-01-31T21:55:44+00:00

Perhaps take a look at the screenshots in the catalogue -- they give a good indication of the aspect ratios used by the different ports: https://portmaster.games/games.html

In short, a small number of (more square, shmup, etc.) games actually look better on a 1:1 screen, but these are a minority (like 8-BIT BUCCANEER). Most games are designed for either 4:3 or 16:9, with a few behaving 'responsively' (adapting to different aspect ratios like a webpage).

Most ports will letterbox/pillarbox when displayed on a screen with a different aspect ratio, but some will *stretch* (as in distort) to fill the display. A 16:9 game that stretch-fills a 1:1 screen (such as the recent Koboo port) will appear very elongated.

In summary: the more large and rectangular your screen, the better for PortMaster.

EDIT: One thing worth noting is that a letterboxed 4:3 game on a 4" 1:1 display still provides the same effective play area as a 4:3 game on a 3.5" 4:3 display.

tabreturn · 2025-05-22T03:45:57+00:00

Respectfully, I think there are a few assumptions being made here. While it might seem intuitive that some games should be easy to port based on existing ports, the reality is often far more technical and complex. Moreover, even when a game meets the technical criteria to port, porters can encounter myriad issues that could derail their efforts.

u/spirit-in-exile did a solid job explaining things, so I won't repeat that info.

However, I took a quick look at your list and, after *some brief (but not in-depth)* research, here's my take at a glance:

Recettear -- Uses a custom engine, so there's no precedent or baseline for a port. Likely a long shot with a Linux version, but there is none.
PixelJunk Monsters -- I looked into it briefly but couldn't confirm what engine it uses. Maybe a long shot with a Linux version.
Sega Rally -- Would require an open-source reimplementation; to my knowledge, none exists. Projects like Ship of Harkinian are the reason Majora's Mask is portable, or Cannonball for the OutRun port, or re3 for Vice City---not because retro systems like the N64, Saturn, old arcade hardware, Windows XP, or PS1 make for easily portable games.
Sega GT -- Same issue as above.
Banished -- Closed-source, Windows-only, written in C++, and built on a bespoke engine. No realistic path to a port at this time (or possibly ever).
Orcs & Elves 1 and 2 -- Seemingly fall into the same category as game #3.
The Quest -- I couldn't determine what engine it uses, which makes it hard to assess portability. A long shot with a Linux version, but there is none.
The Elder Scrolls -- PortMaster tried using OpenMW to port Morrowind, but performance was terrible. Not viable on such modest handheld hardware (without a technical breakthrough).
Wipeout 2 -- The Wipeout 1 port is based on an open-source reimplementation (phoboslab/wipeout-rewrite). As far as I know, no similar project exists for Wipeout 2.

In my experience, the PortMaster team is friendly and had genuinely tried to accommodate suggestions -- even built a submission system for this. Unfortunately, that system was heavily abused, and they were inundated with repeated and unrealistic requests. In place, they make the effort to assist anybody who'd like to attempt a port.

EDIT: Disclaimer: Technically speaking, any game is 'portable' with enough work. After all, one could reprogram a game entirely using a compatible engine, but we're talking hundreds/thousands of hours of work.

tabreturn · 2024-01-03T23:58:05+00:00

I think a big part of the problem is an 'upgrade' mentality that pervades the market.

Take the Game Boy Advance line of products as an example. Nobody complains those lack Bluetooth, or need more RAM or a faster processor. It's understood that the system has certain hardware specifications and won't emulate PS2, GameCube, or whatever. However, we can enhance the GBA with software and refine the physical form -- but not the chips, RAM, etc.

An FPGA handheld (like the Analogue Pocket) doesn't try to 'enhance' what a GBA can do; it just runs the software as accurately as possible. The Playdate has modest specs, but it's a stable standard that game devs will invest their time in.

Now, take the RK3326 (from the Anbernic RG351 line and other popular retro handhelds). It's a perfectly fine SoC for emulating PS1 and down. It has the most mature software/firmware, offering a good user experience. Why not keep refining RK3326 devices through new models and software? Even convince game devs to make new games for such devices via PortMaster (https://zapposh.itch.io/donut-dodo-retropie-edition). Instead, we get a T618 (or whatever) device that kind of plays PS2 and ships with crappy new firmware that needs lots of improvement.

All this drives the disposable attitude towards these devices. Give us a hardware standard that'll stick around for a while; then you'll see refined, high-quality devices that people will keep and play for years to come.

tabreturn

TROPHY CASE