Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(93)
Joined: 5/10/2005
Posts: 1204
Infiltration Agent 1:10: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JXEmyuNW2g
WR on this level is 1:11. Agent times are a lot more maxed than the times in the harder difficulties, which is why I could only improve this by 1 second.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(93)
Joined: 5/10/2005
Posts: 1204
FionordeQuester wrote:
uninteresting levels with none of the exploration and interesting environments that Turok 1 had. The voice acting was also considerably worse,
Strange how the voice acting could be "considerably worse" than in Turok 1 since the only voice acting in Turok 1 was when he said "I am Turok" :P
But anyway, nobody has said this game is good so I don't know where you got that from. I thought it was pretty good though but I'm just a nobody. It's strange, but in many ways Turok 2 actually had better graphics even though it's an older game. The controls were bad (laggy) though and the levels were empty, large and boring, so I thought turok 2 was the worst, and the first was the best.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(93)
Joined: 5/10/2005
Posts: 1204
kuwaga wrote:
On millions of planets nobody is there to observe that the giant coincidence of life didn't happen.
Yeah, I also used to wonder why people brought up that argument. It seems so ridiculous because there's no life on other planets (where's the "perfection" on those planets?). Considering how many quadrillions (and much more) of star systems there are, there's nothing strange that there happens to be life in at least one of them. But it depends on what viewpoint you look at this from.
Of course the possibility of life being created is small, but only if there is life, life will be there to observe this "giant coincidence". So it really isn't so unbelievably coincidental as it may seem.
How do you know that the possibility of life being created is small when nobody knows how life is created? The anthropic principle that you bring up doesn't seem to give any evidence that life is here by coincidence rather than some other reason. It says that "life exists on earth because the circumstances happened to be right and the circumstances happened to be right because otherwise we wouldn't be here to observe this." Isn't that circular reasoning (begging the question)?
How likely is it that among an infinite number of universes there exists at least one where a being capable of observing itself exists?
It's hard to say what the likelyhood is because nobody knows how life is created.
Patashu wrote:
Nothing a human does is uncaused, because its environment 'caused' the human first, and anything it decides to do is a result of a particular pattern of its neural activity,
So you're saying that humans have no free will? Why then care what this pattern of neural activity that is me is saying to you? Btw, I'm not saying that what humans do is uncaused, I think that it's humans that are the cause. Of course, it could be equally true to say that we have no free will, but determinism is not scientific because it's unfalsifiable.
rhebus wrote:
It is based on a false premise, that movement can only be caused by moving objects.
Could you post any source for the claim that it says that it has to be an "object" that causes objects to move? I've read the definition for the unmoved mover (like on wikipedia for example) and I've never seen anything like that.
(which in turn are caused by objects, which do not have to be in motion)
Did you miss the part where I explained that objects consist of moving objects/particles inside them, so they are in motion, and thus cannot cause the "first" movement.
We have shown you repeatedly, and in diverse ways, exactly why you are wrong, and you ignore it or brush it off.
Well, did you really expect me to just agree with you? When has that ever happened in a discussion between two opposing views? I've also shown why you are "wrong" (different), but showing someone that they're wrong doesn't make them change their beliefs (usually). It's not that any of us are more wrong, it's just that we have different beliefs. My thoughts couldn't possibly be closer to truth than yours because truth is also just a thought.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(93)
Joined: 5/10/2005
Posts: 1204
You've probably misunderstood the first mover argument. The first mover can't be any kind of object because then you start with movement, because objects/matter consists of moving particles, so what caused their movement?
I agree that objects can move without another object moving them though. Humans for example can move because we are a subject that can cause movement. Infact, I wouldn't say that objects can cause other objects to move, it's always a force that causes objects to move. But forces can't be first mover either because there can't be a force without an object.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(93)
Joined: 5/10/2005
Posts: 1204
marzojr wrote:
Jump off of a 10-story building to see how "weak" it is.
well, it's pretty strong at 20 meters from the earth, but not at 2 million km...
Gravity may be weak compared to the other fundamental forces, but it is always attractive; the other forces have charges that cancel out on macroscopic scales (or even intra-atomic scales, for strong and weak nuclear forces) and end up being almost throughly negligible on the inter-planetary scale.
i think all forces are equally strong (they are the same force), gravity just seems to be less strong because it extends further (infinite). that's also why strong nuclear force is stronger than electromagnetism.
Both Neptune and Pluto were discovered through theory before they were observed.
yeah, i knew that already.
Moreover, you have it backwards: the solar system isn't stable because the positions and speeds of the planets are "just right", but they are "just right" because the solar system would have disintegrated long ago if they were not.
you can say it both ways, but neither of them explain why the solar system is stable. it's begging the question.
Tell that to Pluto.
pluto is not a planet
No, something did not have to move them apart. They could have started like that.
you mean two objects could just appear out of nowhere a distance apart from each other? that's not what the big bang theory says at least. it says it all just started with one object, so what you're saying seems to contradict established science (big bang).
Busted. I was going to reply to the rest of your post, until I reached this. This alone shows that you are not really sincere about wanting to learn anything, and should be regarded in this thread as just a troll.
oh, sorry. i thought my question made a lot of sense and the unmoved movers didn't have anything to do with ID, because some people, like rhebus, believe that two objects that are attracted by gravity are unmoved movers. i find the thought about an "ID putting the planets in perfect orbits" superfluous because i think there's another natural force that keeps them in their orbits, so i have no need for an ID.
When you fill the balloon (representing the expansion of the Universe), the distance between the dots will increase, even though the dots themselves haven't moved in the surface of the balloon.
the ink does not move, but the dots move (the particles that the dots are made of).
rhebus wrote:
This is what I meant by saying I suspect you may not wish to learn about physics, but rather complain about your perceived problems with it.
i thought the thread title "physics questions" meant that i can question physics on this thread. maybe i was wrong though? by questioning physics, i also learn a lot about it. if i learned enough about it, i could make less dumb statements/questions about it.
Warp wrote:
he has a strong belief in many of the purported extraterrestrial and supernatural phenomena that are so popular among pseudoscientists, ufologists,
strange, because i actually don't believe in supernatural phenomena. or well... i think it's possible that there are things like ghosts for example, but if they exist, aren't they part of nature, and thus not supernatural?
marzojr wrote:
I am always reminded of this video when I encounter this mindset.
ironic video. i could make the same kind of video and direct it towards materialist science. i'm not saying materialist science is worse than spiritual science (religion, "pseudoscience" etc), i'm saying they are equally right/wrong.
So in order to work as it does, the garbage-dump mind must embrace gullibility and, at the same time, be skeptic of skepticism...
yeah, i think to be a true skeptic, you have to be skeptic even of skepticism. i don't think i'm more right than anyone else, i just think we have different opinions/worldviews. thanks for calling me a garbage-dump mind and such things just because i have different thoughts than you. maybe you should take my thoughts less seriously.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(93)
Joined: 5/10/2005
Posts: 1204
Patashu wrote:
The only reason why an object that gets too close to a planet crashes is because friction in the atmosphere makes it lose speed,
shouldn't gravity cause it to lose speed too, and make it crash? that's what gravity does, right... it attracts things towards itself, and when both are close enough, the motion stops.
rhebus wrote:
Gravity, on its own, doesn't need any such thing. Two bodies at rest will start to move due to gravity. They are each other's first movers.
but they will just move towards each other and then the motion stops. and something had to move them apart from each other in the first place, for them to be able to move towards each other.
Look at the orbits of comets: they are highly elliptical, but they are in no danger of either leaving the solar system, or of hitting the sun.
it's a little strange that such a weak force like gravity can hold them in their orbits. but some comets will leave the solar system. it will take a long time though.
Finally, all of the planets have elliptical orbits. None of the orbits are perfect circles. So, based on your argument, should all of the planets have already hit the sun or left the solar system?
i think if only gravity and speed is holding them in their orbits, they should have all crashed or left the solar system (lol), because it would be too big of a coincidence for the speed and distance to be just right for them to stay in their orbits for billions of years. everything in the universe should be in one giant ball of matter. but i guess that's kinda what the big bang theory says was in the beginning.
the orbits of planets are slightly elliptical, but i would call them circles because they're almost perfect circles. i say the earth is round too, even though it's not perfectly round (nothing in nature is). btw, i don't think the orbits have anything to do with ID.
For one, it is now known that it is quite possible for there to be an unmoved mover as explained above.
not really, because like i said earlier there had to be something that moved them apart in the first place, right? so how could they be unmoved movers?
(I hope that, whether or not you believe in ID, you are posting in a thread called "physics questions" in order to learn something about physics, and not just to try to prove physics wrong.
yeah, i'm just posting my thoughts. i don't claim them to be the truth, haha.
Warp wrote:
The reason why we only have 8 planets and a bunch of smaller rocks, and the solar system being relatively "empty" (rather than being littered with small rocks all over) is because only the objects which happened to have stable orbits in this n-body system remained, the rest collided with them or were flung out of the system.
could be, but there's no evidence of that because if it happened that way, then the evidence crashed into the sun.
i think the theory of gravity becomes even more problematic on galactic level, but i'm not sure i'm gonna get into that now.
(He attributed it to supernatural forces.) Later work in astrophysics solved the problem
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(93)
Joined: 5/10/2005
Posts: 1204
Warp wrote:
If you think you had a physical funnel shaped like that and you put a small ball on it and give it an initial velocity, unless this velocity is just perfectly right and its direction perfectly perpendicular to the central depression, it will make an elliptical path
Good point, but if you can't accept such perfection, how come planets are a perfect distance away from the sun in this gravity based solar system model? If the speed was slightly more, the planets would be thrown out from the solar system and if they were slightly closer they would spiral/fall into the sun (like in your example about the ball). That's why I think there's other factors/forces except gravity and speed that make planets stay in their path. Another problem with gravity is that you need an intial cause/bang that causes everything to move.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(93)
Joined: 5/10/2005
Posts: 1204
marzojr wrote:
but gravitons have never been observed and there is no quantum field theory of gravity yet. This means that, for now, your question would still make as much sense as it does now if you substitute "invisible pink unicorns" for "gravitons" :-p.
But spacetime curvature hasn't been observed either, so couldn't that be called "invisible pink unicorn curvature"? We have observed effects of gravity, like gravitational lensing, but not the curvature of spacetime. Mathematically it's a good theory though, and it makes good predictions. Btw, shouldn't the orbits of planets be circular, and not elliptical, according to the spacetime curvature theory (because of the uniform curvature of spacetime around celestial bodies)?
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(93)
Joined: 5/10/2005
Posts: 1204
Warp wrote:
Why is Hawking radiation a well-accepted hypothesis even though it heavily mixes GR and QM?
Who knows, but I have a better question... why is gravity said to be a curvature of spacetime, when it contradicts the theory of gravitons and a superforce? Einstein wanted to unify gravity and electromagnetism, so why did he create a theory that says that gravity behaves in a completely different way than other forces?
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(93)
Joined: 5/10/2005
Posts: 1204
NinG wrote:
Does it desync at the very beginning or at what point?
the beginning when you type the names syncs, but when you start controlling jenna, it desyncs.
i probably got some kind of curse, because when i got my old testrun from my old computer which had been deleted from the harddrive, i had to use a recovery program, so i was pretty sure it was corrupted and wouldn't work, and it didn't. however, to my surprise someone got it to work... but because i believed so hard that it would not work, now any golden sun 2 TAS won't work. everything else works fine. belief is a very strong thing... it can cause TASes to desync or become cursed.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(93)
Joined: 5/10/2005
Posts: 1204
I don't know if there's anything scary about it... it's just that you need an IQ comparable to Albert Einstein in order to understand the encoding guidelines: http://tasvideos.org/EncodingGuide.html
The complexity of it could be a little scary though. But even if you understand it, it still takes some time/work. If the encoding was easier and faster, using a more automated process, more people would be willing to encode. Just when I read the "requirements" in the guide, I notice I need like 10 different things... couldn't it all be done with one or two encoding software, like avidemux? Or something like Windows Movie Maker, heh... that's easy to work with. To add subtitles, I just click add text, so it's much easier than this: http://tasvideos.org/EncodingGuide/PreEncoding.html
Edit: noticed that andymac and others already said pretty much the same thing.
Edit2: another problem is that audio gets off sync for long movies when you capture with mupen64, which makes it impossible to make encodes for long movies.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(93)
Joined: 5/10/2005
Posts: 1204
Looks great. The torrent could be replaced with this now. Did you use variable framerate in this? I noticed it said it was about 24 FPS. This game has a pretty bad framerate. Common in N64 games.
By the way, mmbossmans Turok 1 encode had some graphical issues too, because a bad graphics plugin was used (gln64). That could also be remade if someone has time, because those repetitive textures actually add to giving motion sickness. The actual textures look much better. Motion sickness wasn't really a problem in Turok 3 because she walks as fast as a snail. I've noticed that in a lot of new games... wonder why everyone walks/runs so slow in new games. In old games like Turok 1, Doom, Quake, Duke 3D, Unreal, they always ran so fast. It's more fun to speedrun of they run fast.
I'm not sure what you mean by using the grappling hook 'all the time'? But I guess it was nothing..
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(93)
Joined: 5/10/2005
Posts: 1204
good work. for some reason the movie doesn't sync for me though (i had that problem before too). did you use any specific settings in the emulator that i should enable? i agree that strong characters would make it really boring.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(93)
Joined: 5/10/2005
Posts: 1204
Squ4ll- wrote:
I would love to see someone tackle this game or its sequel (sort of) Rush 2: Extreme Racing USA
lol, how many rush games are there :P i thought there were only two. i should have done my alkatraz TAS in rush 2 instead, it seems to have better graphics. i'll have to look into that game too some time and see if there's something interesting to TAS there.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(93)
Joined: 5/10/2005
Posts: 1204
NitroGenesis wrote:
This may be grued, but I'd like to say that I liked watching this movie. It had a nice sense of speed, and the graphics were good too.
thanks, i thought the graphics were pretty good too, especially on the ordinary tracks. not so much on this level. the framerate suffers from the graphics a bit though, even dropping down to 10 FPS occasionally. common problem in n64 games.
Priam wrote:
It looks sloppy to me; you wreck once and scrape against walls repeatedly, and at least once drift for no apparent reason.
i scraped against the wall to reduce my jump height so that i don't hit the wall above (compare how high i jumped on the jump before that one where i didn't scrape against the wall). i'm not sure if it even slowed down my speed actually, so it's much better than slowing down before the jump.
also, i explained in the submission text why i wrecked my car in 5th obstacle: it saves time. either i would have to wreck my car or slow down to get through there, and slowing down was (much) slower than wrecking my car.
It might be my lack of experience with this game here, but I'm sure I'm not the only one who hasn't played SF Rush 2049, and without a reason why it's better (or even that it's OK) it looks messy and hand-done.
yeah, i guess should explain things more detailed in the submission text.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(93)
Joined: 5/10/2005
Posts: 1204
FatRatKnight wrote:
that can be fixed by replacing the file with one that begins from power-on. This would take some effort by the author to try to have things sync up, however.
are you sure you don't mean a Hellish amount of effort? i've tried to do it, but the smoke seems pretty hard to manipulate.
As long as you can match the time, I don't think anyone would notice the tire smokes are in a different pattern.
lol... but i think the different pattern of smoke causes it to desync (because that's the only thing that's different). N64 games are pretty complex, so such a little detail can cause a desync, and it's hard to get to sync, because who knows how many patterns of smokes there are. the game has variable framerate, so if something is different it can cause it to skip or duplicate frames in different places, causing a desync.
here's the m64 with syncing spikes, but desyncing smoke, if someone knows how to get it to sync: http://dehacked.2y.net/microstorage.php/info/1653860035/new-spikessynchrem1.m64 (i even changed to the same colors of the car, same music etc, although i don't think those should affect the sync)
the patterns of smoke can be manipulated by starting the level once and then going back to the menu.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(93)
Joined: 5/10/2005
Posts: 1204
I still might get the movie to sync from power-on. I already got the spikes to sync, now all I need is to get the smoke to sync (the smoke from the cars tires; compare pics on previous page).
As for the button codes, I don't see why they couldn't be used. Tasvideos has TASes that use codes, for example the Ristar "bonus stages" TAS uses a cheat to unlock the bonus stages, just like I use a cheat here to unlock the obstacle course.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(93)
Joined: 5/10/2005
Posts: 1204
Kitsune wrote:
If you're going to run something, do the whole game. Do the races against the AI. But geez, not a single track.
It would take a long time to do the whole game, I don't really have motivation for that, and I'm not sure the other races are so interesting since they are just races against the AI, so I would be driving alone there all the time, ahead of the AI. But a "playaround" could be interesting where you could do some insane stunts on the way, kinda like in this other video I made: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRlyNSJXMi0p4wn3r wrote:
That said, I'd vote No because I don't think nfq's reasons for using a savestate are strong enough.
Really? I thought I had good reasons... xD
Mr. Kelly R. Flewin wrote:
Hvaing played Rush a LOT.. I know just how brutal that track is. I've beaten it a total of once... with cheats on no less. So this is simply amazing! I agree cheats are a bit... eh.. but still solid entertainment for me considering the complexity.
Thanks, I'm glad there's some who liked it.
Mr. Pwnage wrote:
Is the Super Speed cheat on for this run? It's a fairly tame 5% speed boost, and notably doesn't disqualify your time from being on the record list, so if you're already going into the menu to get the parts, it's worth considering.
Hmm... I wonder if they used that in the world record? I didn't have it on because I considered it cheating because it's not something you can normally get without activating the cheat (unlike other things like the car parts). I don't really like using that kind of cheats, but I would use it if they used it on the WRs.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(93)
Joined: 5/10/2005
Posts: 1204
I made one that starts from power-on, but the moving spikes are 1 fukking frame behind (which causes me to crash/desync on them) for some reason compared to the one that starts from save state. m64
Comparison:
http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/4791/oldtas.pnghttp://img543.imageshack.us/img543/2980/newtas.png
I've tried adding and deleting empty frames before I press A to start the Obstacle course, but they didn't affect the spikes position, so I'm not sure what causes them to be at slightly different place... I can try do some random stuff which could affect them.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(93)
Joined: 5/10/2005
Posts: 1204
Well, the cheats are just button codes that I use to unlock things, like the car parts, tires, engines, the obstacle course etc... (kinda like in Ristar Bonus stages TAS where you put a cheat to unlock the bonus levels) if I didn't unlock them using cheats I would have to drive 2049 miles to get the best engine/speed for example.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(93)
Joined: 5/10/2005
Posts: 1204
sgrunt wrote:
It's not clear to me what the purpose of using a save state here is.
I used it because I had already activated the cheats that unlocks the parts/levels/etc and the cheats were pretty annoying to activate so I didn't want to activate them again when I started this TAS, so it was easier to just use a save state. I did it partly for the lulz too.
But I'll see if I can edit the movie so that it starts from the beginning... shouldn't the TAS movie editor be able to edit m64 files properly? I'll make an m64 that starts from the beginning which then activates the cheats. Then I paste that input before the input of this m64, and I'll have an m64 that starts from power-on. Should work, right?
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(93)
Joined: 5/10/2005
Posts: 1204
Sorry about not having a "verification movie", this is the first time I heard about something like that. There doesn't seem to be any luck factors on the level (I think the hanging spikes at the beginning for example start at the same position every time), so a verification movie should be possible... simply by starting the game from power-on and activating the "all parts", "all levels" and "all cars" (I didn't use any special car here, but it might have to be turned on for it to sync) cheats, going to the obstacle course menu and choosing the same parts for the car, then it should sync.
I tried to edit this movie before though, using "tas-movie-editor-v0-12-2i" where I went back in the menus to turn off the music, but it didn't sync then for some reason. Not sure why, maybe I don't know how to edit movies or perhaps there are small luck factors like those moving things in the beginning which have to be timed for it to sync.
