Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(752)
Joined: 9/29/2008
Posts: 964
Location: 🇫🇷 France
skychase wrote:
Is there someone who knows if it's possible to avoid those 3 rings ?
(MZ3, near ther end)
I had been trying to get past them since your previous post; sadly, everything I tried has failed. There are no enemies that can harm you so you can go through the ring, the terrain inside the wall (which can be entered through the monitor) doesn't help (if it extended a single 128x128 block further right, it would), and so on.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(752)
Joined: 9/29/2008
Posts: 964
Location: 🇫🇷 France
If you are interested in making the special stages as fast as possible, you can try doing the run in one of my hacks that speedup the special stages; one is about 5/2 times faster, the other is about 9/2 times faster (and this is the only difference). I can provide IPS patches to them if you are interested.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(752)
Joined: 9/29/2008
Posts: 964
Location: 🇫🇷 France
skychase wrote:
CN1 too but the last three rings seems, at first, unavoidable. I still have some test to do, if I can keep speed shoes long enough there's a wall I'd like to get over, I don't know if it's possible... At the end of the .gmv you can see what i'm talking about.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(752)
Joined: 9/29/2008
Posts: 964
Location: 🇫🇷 France
skychase wrote:
I was wondering if it was possible to do a Knuckles "No rings" run but I got stuck at the end of CP2, there's like 3 loops I can't avoid with an invisible wall...
Here you go. Using your movie until frame 15930, different from then on.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(752)
Joined: 9/29/2008
Posts: 964
Location: 🇫🇷 France
Mr. Pwnage wrote:
Is the final run going to go back and fill in the levels that got skipped? Even if "all rings" isn't an attainable goal in those levels, you could go for as many as are reachable, or even just use "most perfect bonuses" as the measure and run a pure speed route in those levels.
The chances of having the run accepted will be much higher if you don't simply hand-wave 4 levels out of the game by using level select.
I concur: playing all levels in sequence is much better than using stage select, even if it is not possible to get a perfect in those levels.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(752)
Joined: 9/29/2008
Posts: 964
Location: 🇫🇷 France
If you play the game like this, you will be unable to complete the game: any time you reach the top boundary of the level will kill you under reverse gravity, and there is at least one level -- Lava Reef 2 -- which you won't be able to complete unless you loosen up the restrictions. the boss fights are liable to be interesting :-p
But if you want to play like this, you may consider TASing S3&K: The Challenges, which has some levels like this.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(752)
Joined: 9/29/2008
Posts: 964
Location: 🇫🇷 France
Ufff... what a bust. I gave it my best shot -- the result is that the first and last sets of normally unreachable rings in OOZ2 can be reached with the anti-gravity glitch. Other than those, I managed to grab only one ring of the other four sets of unreachable rings, and even this ring is slow as hell to reach. Here is a movie showing how to get the first and last sets of rings using the anti-gravity glitch; it needs the same savestate skychase supplied above. From the strategy, you can see that the slopes near the other sets are all facing the "wrong" way.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(752)
Joined: 9/29/2008
Posts: 964
Location: 🇫🇷 France
I can use the glitch to grab 2 of the 3 rings trapped in the wall right next to the launcher where the glitch happens; by canceling the glitch I managed to get the top ring too. The next two groups of hidden rings are easy to grab by just getting into the wall: the slopes on the route above might be usable to get to them, and once inside the wall, all that is needed is to jump around to grab all of them. The last group of rings is also easy: you can use the slopes nearby to get inside the wall.
I am concerned about that top ring in the first group and the 4th and 5th ring groups: I can't see how to get in the wall for the two groups.
And for what is worth, being hurt and losing rings does not prevent you from getting a perfect; but if you don't want to lose the rings, there is a shield under the first elevator in OOZ2.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(752)
Joined: 9/29/2008
Posts: 964
Location: 🇫🇷 France
I think you mean you found a way to trigger the anti-gravity glitch; I doubt it is the same glitch as the wheel in CNZ in Sonic 3 because it requires setting a flag that, while implemented by S2, it is not set in S2 for any object at all. Or maybe you mean the 'Super Sonic glitch' where entering a throwing ball while in hurt state causes Sonic to move super fast and jump super high.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(752)
Joined: 9/29/2008
Posts: 964
Location: 🇫🇷 France
Felipe wrote:
The HTZ2 strategy works effectively, but I want to find a way to run something faster. When the lava rises, it takes too long. As I may have much more presicion, maybe I can really optimize that time, I think there exist a platform that i can use. I hope to get lucky.
You don't have to wait for the lava to rise; with the closed door just offscreen, have Tails stand at its location: it will open, and then Sonic can go through. You can then spindash with both characters so Tails crosses the other door just in time to open it for Sonic.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(752)
Joined: 9/29/2008
Posts: 964
Location: 🇫🇷 France
Just a hint: you may want to add a memory watch on address $FFFF40 (2 bytes, unsigned): it is the perfect rings counter. It is the number of rings you still need to collect for a perfect bonus -- it starts as the number of rings in the level, and goes down by 1 for every ring you collect.
FuzZerd wrote:
for an idea of the strategy you'd need to use, you can watch this video:
From this video, it is clear that a perfect in Hill Top 2 is possible with Tails tagging along -- he didn't get the perfect only because of 3 rings which Tails could easily have gotten. Moreover, it will be a lot faster since Tails can be used to raise those doors.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(752)
Joined: 9/29/2008
Posts: 964
Location: 🇫🇷 France
The script in this thread has it built in, as well as a script (disabled by default) to skip boring stuff; the HUD can also be toggled on or off, and you can execute these components independently by using the scripts on the 'sonic' subfolder (that is, you can run any of 'sonic/fast-forward.lua', 'sonic/kill-hyperflash.lua', 'sonic/kill-original.lua', 'sonic/kill-super-music.lua' on their own) as long as they can find the other files (if you don't move anything around, it will work).
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(752)
Joined: 9/29/2008
Posts: 964
Location: 🇫🇷 France
It is interesting that the description box of that field is plagiarized from the Wikipedia article on the holographic principle -- a straight copy/paste from the first 3 paragraphs as they were on the date the video was posted (see here). But yeah, the initial blurb of text is enough to trigger all alarm bells. The title screen set of all the rest.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(752)
Joined: 9/29/2008
Posts: 964
Location: 🇫🇷 France
nfq wrote:
I don't see why it would need to "assume a hypothesis that there is an external world".
Reading comprehension fail; abort, retry ignore?
Please try reading what I wrote again more carefully:
marzojr wrote:
[the solipsistic assumption] must assume at least as much as the hypothesis that there is an external world [...], so it is not simpler
I did not say it "needs to assume an external world", I said it must assume at least as much as the assumption about an external world. The portion in italics is crucial.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(752)
Joined: 9/29/2008
Posts: 964
Location: 🇫🇷 France
p4wn3r wrote:
This issue is known in philosophy as the "Demarcation problem" if you want to know more about it.
Philosophers of science hate to hear it, but there are few things less useful for the practice of science than the philosophy of science; most scientists know (or care) very little about it, and for those that do know (or care about) it, it does not affect how they do science. In fact, knowledge of statistics and cognitive biases is much more useful for the practice of science than philosophy of science.
The main problem with philosophy of science is that most philosophers that engage in it are neither scientists nor do know much of how science actually works.
Please note that I am not discarding the insights that can be gained from philosophy of science, or discouraging it; I am just pointing out that it has to be taken with a (large) grain of salt.
But there is more:
p4wn3r wrote:
I don't agree with him, but to be completely fair, I never found pragmatic arguments like this really convincing, because their premise generalizes to way too many things.
This may be a shocker for you, but the entire edifice of science is pragmatic: if something works and is useful, it is used; if it doesn't work or is not useful, it is discarded. This is included:
p4wn3r wrote:
For example, take Max Planck's case at the dawn of quantum mechanics
Here is a prime example of scientific pragmatism: the "trick" he used to fit the curve was done on pragmatic grounds ("it works"); it was later recognized as useful when Einstein used the idea to explain the photoelectric effect ("it works"), which ultimately led to quantum mechanics ("it works"). The entire rationale for accepting and using quantum mechanics is this -- "it works": it does a better job at predicting the outcome of experiments than the alternatives.
Likewise, special relativity was published by Einstein on pragmatic grounds -- Einstein himself knew that there were several problems on the foundations of special relativity that he could not satisfactorily solve at the time; he published it anyway because he judged it the only pragmatic way forward (again, "it works"). He latter addressed these issues in general relativity, but only after the insights gained from Minkowski about how special relativity make the world into a 4-dimensional space-time.
It is pragmatism all the way down.
p4wn3r wrote:
We can't really know whether the behavior of the universe is independent of our perception because everything that we know from the universe comes from perception, and when your perception changes, you feel things around you differently too.
Meanwhile, the measurement instruments keep inconveniently measuring the same things and giving the same results regardless of your changes in perception.
Warp wrote:
p4wn3r wrote:
For example, there's an ongoing debate discussing whether evolution is falsifiable
Is this an actual debate among scientists, or is it just creationists inventing problems that aren't there (and claiming that it's a "debate")?
It is the latter, of course: the only noise over the falsifiability of evolution comes from people that know nothing about it. Evolutionary biologists, and other scientists that make research that depends on evolution, make falsifiable predictions based on evolution every day, then proceed to test them.
Warp wrote:
Natural selection is falsifiable. Simply show extensive studies on how the environment does not affect in which direction species change.
It is so much falsifiable that one can reasonably argue that it has been falsified as far as being the sole mechanism to remove randomness and define fitness in evolution; it is still the main driver of evolution, but there are several other selection mechanisms that sometimes run counter it.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(752)
Joined: 9/29/2008
Posts: 964
Location: 🇫🇷 France
Warp wrote:
One thing that in my opinion speaks a lot in favor of the world actually existing is that it behaves consistently.
I completely agree with you; in particular, the whole theory of relativity (even Galileo's version of it, which was for mechanics only) are a testament to that -- the notion that the world is consistent regardless of who is observing from where. This is why I mentioned the consistency of the world as one of the things that must be explained for the solipsistic model to stand a chance.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(752)
Joined: 9/29/2008
Posts: 964
Location: 🇫🇷 France
nfq wrote:
Thanks for the ad hominem, and it's good you brought up falsifiability again, because earlier I mentioned (twice) the unfalsifiable assumption about a world outside our mind, which modern science seems to assume to be true. That can't be falsified because we are in our minds and we can't get "out of our minds" :P to observe some hypothetical external world, and all experiments take place in our mind. Mind-based science doesn't have this assumption about the world, which would make it more scientific as far as falsifiability goes.
This solipsistic assumption you describe is not as safe to escape unfalsifiability as you think:
it must assume at least as much as the hypothesis that there is an external world (mechanisms for how minds can exist outside of brains, as are all minds we can observe to exist; how these minds came to be; how these minds can be intelligent, self-aware and able to generate a shared illusion of a consistent external world; etc), so it is not simpler;
It is just as unfalsifiable as the assumption that there is an external world outside your mind;
it is more harmful to you if wrong.
The first bullet is just gravy; the second bullet is important, but it the last one that is the killer one (pun intended): if you assume that there isn't external world and act like it, but you are wrong, you can get severely injured or dead; if you assume there is an external world and you act like it, but you are wrong, nothing bad comes out of it.
So for all practical purposes, it is irrational and dangerous to assume that there is no external world outside of one's mind.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(752)
Joined: 9/29/2008
Posts: 964
Location: 🇫🇷 France
p4wn3r wrote:
I believe you missed his point. He criticized you because the word "science" usually implies that the field in question accepts realism, so with this in mind, there can be no science that rejects the postulates that a common reality exists, natural laws exist, and they can be found using systematic testing (*). His point was that using the term "science" to give more credit to spiritual knowledge implicitly implies that scientific knowledge is superior.
That is correct. I can't imagine what went through nfq's mind to think that the two sentences were logically disconnected from one another to only bother replying to the latter sentence -- the trust of the point is exactly the devaluing of the meaning of the word 'science' that happens when one attempts to label all fields of "knowledge" with it in a desperate attempt to grasp legitimacy that people like him seems to feel to be otherwise forever beyond the grasp of those fields. Then second sentence just adds to it by pointing out that he demeans all of those other fields in the process (irregardless of whether they deserve to be called sciences).
p4wn3r wrote:
(Personally, I think saying that other fields are worthless just because of that term is kinda pushy, but it's what he said.)
This is the general feeling I got from people that try to frame non-science as science; I am quite happy with clearly separating the two and enjoying the benefits (if any) of either. I just get peeved when someone tries to take ass-pulling and attach a label of 'science' to it in a desperate grasp to gain legitimacy without having to earn it.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(752)
Joined: 9/29/2008
Posts: 964
Location: 🇫🇷 France
nfq wrote:
The debate about religion vs science is actually just a debate about two sciences: a spiritual science and a material science.
When you put it like that, you simultaneously give too much credit to religion and strip the word "science" of its meaning. You also acknowledge in the process just how much important and useful you perceive science to be by trying to frame non-science as science -- you are basically saying fields of knowledge are worthless unless they are science. Nice job :-p
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(752)
Joined: 9/29/2008
Posts: 964
Location: 🇫🇷 France
Tub wrote:
Not sure why you even considered using this as a one-sided argument, or why you think it's bringing this discussion forward.
It is called psychological projection: religious people are especially subject to this because they not only have a very deep emotional investment in their worldview and its inerrancy, but they also emphasize feelings and emotions over logic and evidence as tools to analyze and understand the world.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(752)
Joined: 9/29/2008
Posts: 964
Location: 🇫🇷 France
Brian_pso wrote:
Wow, every new WIP is getting me more and more amazed! One question: You really meant 20 SECONDS in DE2? Or you were to write frames?
Seconds indeed; and it may be more than 20 seconds, I just don't know how much yet -- I learned not to try to optimize Death Egg until everything before it is done.
Edit: and since Microstorage is back, I updated the link in my previous post.
