Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Active player
(296)
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 7469
Location: Arzareth
Dasrik wrote:
Just wondering, is that plane supposed to be a big black box or is that an emulation error?
I don't think it can possibly be an emulation error. I think it is more likely that the distance from which the plane is normally supposed to be observed, through fog, makes it impossible to notice the actual crude shape of the plane.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Active player
(296)
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 7469
Location: Arzareth
Bisqwit wrote:
Your submission message dismantled my prejudice towards this movie. So I'll look forward to actually watching it when I have time.
Okay, after watching it, this movie felt like a reiteration of rygar-timeattackv5-walkerboh.avi. There was nothing interesting added, though the route was different.
I'm voting no.
Also, I suspect that it wasn't optimal. You spent a noticeable amount of time collecting experience before the three-headed bear, even though the mileage they give is far less than that which you get from the ammolums. But as it might have aided killing the first two ammolums faster, it may have balanced out.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Active player
(296)
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 7469
Location: Arzareth
Raiscan wrote:
Bisqwit wrote:
nobody who only reads the forums had any idea that you had quitted.
What you say !!
I don't understand.
Is there bad English in that sentence? I see that I should have written "quit", not "quitted" (irregular verbs again), but is the sentence structure that bad? I don't see a problem. Nevertheless, I'll try to reformulate:
> Nobody, who only reads the forums, knew that you had quit.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Active player
(296)
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 7469
Location: Arzareth
okaygo wrote:
I made it clear I thought in IRC that I wasn't going to be able to do this, college and all.
Follow-ups to issues raised on the forum should be done on the forum, especially if there is potential that people who only read the forums (or just don't happen to be around) will be left in dark what's happening.
Such as you telling that you'll encode this movie: nobody who only reads the forums had any idea that you had quitted.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Active player
(296)
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 7469
Location: Arzareth
JXQ wrote:
midair-glitch [...] really should have been caught in development XD
I can imagine the developer saying: "So what? It's not like anyone can ever use that for anything useful, and extremely unlikely anyone will even notice it."
Your submission message dismantled my prejudice towards this movie. So I'll look forward to actually watching it when I have time.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Active player
(296)
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 7469
Location: Arzareth
I like the antics in this movie better than in the one it replaces.
Voting yes, ignoring for now the question whether Princess runs should be continued to be part of the site's movie set or not.
EDIT: Though I was disappointed that you didn't try to fly over Wart's head.
Maybe Laughinggas did it too many times, so you restored balance this way.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Active player
(296)
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 7469
Location: Arzareth
Baxter wrote:
1)Is there any progress in this topic, or plans for changes? 2)Are more ideas needed? 3)Are the current forum ranks only temporary, waiting for something better, 4)or is it already the way invisioned when this thread was created? 5)Are there still plans with implementing the players movie statistics into the ranks?
1) Until your post, nope..
2) Eagerly.
3) They are.
4) No.
5) Nothing straight implementable.
Your idea basically puts players on a scalar line. I'm not sure if that's the right way to go, but in some way it is the right way to go. :P
At least those ranks aren't awarded manually then.
Also, should it really just be sum(rating^X + nauthors^Y)? Not average? Not weighed?
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Active player
(296)
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 7469
Location: Arzareth
Warp wrote:
Bisqwit wrote:
1: Windows XP, running Cygwin.
I find that surprising. You would prefer WinXP over, for example, Solaris or NetBSD, even though the latters can be made to work almost identically to Linux? If you couldn't use linux you would change the OS type so radically? I'm a bit puzzled.
(I suppose that the basic meaning of my original question was "which other unix-like OS would you like to use if Linux was removed as an option?")
Because of familiarity, I suppose. I'm rather unfamiliar with NetBSD and Solaris as desktop environments. Though I suppose I could learn rather quickly if needed.
However, I would not purchase a copy of Windows XP just to install Cygwin on it. I would rather use some of the other choices you presented.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Active player
(296)
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 7469
Location: Arzareth
Kyrsimys wrote:
Is the "joined" date the date he joined or the date his account name was changed? He used to be called "BombAHead" IIRC.
Perhaps it is the latter.
In that case, he must have gone ahead and created a new account without asking, which I then merged into his old account to prevent orphaning the old posts.
Usually, I just rename the account when asked; it is much less hassle.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Active player
(296)
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 7469
Location: Arzareth
Baxter wrote:
1) If a piece of paper was handed to you that disproved the existence of God (like this), and you reread it, and you are absolutely convinced by the piece of paper, what would you do? Would you change certain things in your life? or keep living exactly like you are now? Would you try to share your new found knowledge with others/the world or keep it to yourself?
2) Do you think that clip is offensive?
2) I find it silly.
1) Well, let's assume for the hypothetical situation that I would be "absolutely convinced" by it*, I would seriously re-evaluate certain things. Depending on the results of the re-evaluation (whether I can become convinced of having found the answers to things that bother me), I might start explaining that to others, assuming that doing so wouldn't rob them of the possibility of freedom of many things excluding the then-admitted false belief.
*This is the result I'm given when I put my character in a character simulation in that uncomparably meaningless to prognosticate hypothetical scenario. Since you put the words "absolutely convinced" there. If were to be faced with such evidence, I would probably feel the equivalent of dividing by zero, because it is my firm belief that such "disproof" is impossible to exist.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Active player
(296)
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 7469
Location: Arzareth
Tub wrote:
Bisqwit wrote:
the humans supply God with gratitude and awe of his perfect awesomeness.
Is that what a bored deity would do? Create a species whose sole purpose is to tell the deity how awesome He is? ;-)
Perhaps :) But I think God has a perfectly altruistic motivation. A person who sincerely is praising [about things God does], is also sincerely happy. And God wants people be happy. For brevity, I left that explanation out from the previous message.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Active player
(296)
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 7469
Location: Arzareth
Anaconda wrote:
Do you think that life is pointless? If not, then why is that? To me there seems to be no point in living, unless you can do so forever. I suddenly realized that I can do anything in my life, yet it will never really matter, nor will anything, done by anybody, matter to anyone in the long run, since everybody will still be gone forever at some point. It feels pretty bad when you think about it that way...
Basically, you're asking about the meaning of life. :)
There are countless different views on that question, but I suppose you're asking about mine.
I can present you two views.
One is materialistic. As biological beings, we all contain certain "hardwired" rules in the brain and the rest of the body, that are tuned with the continuous reproduction of the human culture and species as the aim.
There are a few points in the human's life, that form a set of items that once completed, the human feels like they have accomplished their life and fulfilled it. Those are, namely: generation of offspring (i.e. making of children), and passing one's knowledge and ideals of the way of living to the said offspring (i.e. education and disciplining).
Individuals of a biological species have a finite lifetime, but as a species, each species aims to live forever. These rewarding items I listed are the means by which the species ensures (or tries to ensure) that they will, live forever.
In me, the desire to pass forth a copy of my entire knowledge and ideals of the way of living, is very strong. Biologically speaking, I see it as my purpose of life. A subsidiary goal is to improve the knowledge (to make the species better in general), which ironically pushes that major goal further and farther. Still, every time someone learns something useful due to my actions, I feel great satisfaction.
And the other is spiritual. As God would have it, each human being is meant to live together with God, enjoying a happy life that is mutually pleasant: God supplies the humans with everything they can possibly need, and the humans supply God with gratitude and awe of his perfect awesomeness. However, such a relationship does not work if the human is selfish, or works against God's wish. Therefore a sort of preliminary exam was created, to sieve out those who refuse that kind of relationship.
This mortal life is that sieve; in this life God calls us, several times in our life, and whether we accept his call or not, decides whether we get to enjoy the life we were meant to live. If we do, he will join our life with us, here, on Earth, and it will continue forever. If we don't, well, then we have no business in front of his might.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Active player
(296)
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 7469
Location: Arzareth
FODA wrote:
Dear Bisqwit,
Are you familiar with the Spiritism phylosophy? If yes, what are your ideas about it?
"...as a Science, Spiritism is in search of the truth of our spiritual nature, not biased by one person/prophet opinion only."
I wasn't aware that it is a philosophy. I've viewed it as experimenting.
In Christianity and Judaism, spiritism is associated with witchcraft. Christians and Jews believe that by practising spiritism, you may contact actual spirits, but that those spirits are not the kind of spirits you want to be involved with, and that they are most certainly not the souls of the departed. It is extremely dangerous.
References: 2.Kings 21:6; Samuel 28:5-20; Leviticus 19:31; Acts 8:8-24.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Active player
(296)
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 7469
Location: Arzareth
Warp wrote:
1) If you were forced to use some other OS than linux to do everything, which OS would you choose?
2) If you were forced to use an OS which is *not* unix-based, which one would you choose?
1: Windows XP, running Cygwin.
2: Probably Windows XP. However, such forcing would mean that I would not much do anything useful with it.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Active player
(296)
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 7469
Location: Arzareth
Having not seen either of these new submissions, based on the published movie I think that this game is so boring that only a warpful run deserves to be published, if even that.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Active player
(296)
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 7469
Location: Arzareth
Added support for programs that use DOS functions to read input. Might resolve some situations where the emulator seemingly halts and stops recording.
Important note: Savestates do not work when a DOS input function is invoked. Attempting to use will lead into dosbox crash. Aside from disabling savestates when the cpu emulation function is re-entered, there is no fix, due to dosbox architecture.
I added this feature just so that I could record a movie of using some DOS tool (non-TAS-related), but I guess it might be useful for others as well so I put it here.
EDIT: Adding some discussion here.
<Dacicus> So how do we know when it's safe to use savestates in the new DOSBox? I.e. when there's no DOS input function involved.
<Bisqwit> Basically it's safe only when you know that a software-triggered interrupt is not currently being handled.
<Bisqwit> The previous version hanged because it only produced frames (and handled input) in the outermost cpu emulation loop. However, DOS input functions re-enter the cpu emulation loop, and input was not checked in that inner loop, leading into a lock. Now I disabled that restriction, but unfortunately it also means that savestates can be created and loaded in different nesting levels of the cpu emulation loop invokation. Doing so will hoewever crash dosbox.
<Bisqwit> I could "fix" it by disabling only savestates in the re-entered loops, allowing input still to be produced, but it would mean that sometimes, savestates would work and sometimes they wouldn't work no matter how hard you try.
<Bisqwit> Of course that would be better than a crash, but I'm not that active at developing this.
<Bisqwit> Considering that re-entering may happen not only because of DOS input functions, but because of timer interrupts and the such as well, that might be a necessary change nevertheless...
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Active player
(296)
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 7469
Location: Arzareth
JXQ wrote:
I want you to be consistent. SMB2(U) was just published with like 10 seconds of improvement possible.
Assuming you're talking about the Princess version (since that's the only one that was "just published"), I wasn't aware of those possible improvements in SMB2 (and still am not).
laughing_gas wrote:
32 frames is practically unnoticeable, especially if it's due to an oversight and not poor tasing. My SMB2 tas could be ~41 frames faster depending on how the frame rule works, due to an oversight, but it was still published.
It depends how the difference in frames happens.
I don't care about numbers, but the audiovisual performance. The difference which Chef Stef pointed out is quite obvious when you look at it.
When the difference is only seen in numbers, I couldn't care less; that would be the nitpicking JXQ mentions.
I recognize Fabian's point, that I may have underestimated the magnitude of work put into making a TAS of SMW or SDW.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Active player
(296)
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 7469
Location: Arzareth
JXQ wrote:
23 seconds of improvement and it's rejected for 32 frames? Bisqwit, you honestly thinks that keeping the old, less-optimized version as the current publication is best for the site?
When EVER did I say "no, I like the old movie better"?!?
I called for a redo, to fix the mistake and resubmit.
It's not like if a movie is rejected, nobody can EVER submit an improvement or that nobody WILL ever submit an improvement.
JXQ wrote:
I'm sure as hell not wasting my time with it.
Then don't.
SMW (and SDW) are popular games here enough that there will likely be someone else who will be up to it.
Also, it is my understanding that these games are not absolutely horribly laborsome to work at. That's why I was willing to bet that there will be someone who wants to fix the mistake and submit.
But to put the question in a more general form: Am I right in understanding that you don't want us (judges) to ever reject movies that are slower than they could be when they're though faster than the published movie?
Or are you sucking a pea into your nose just because it's a submission in which you contributed?
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Active player
(296)
Joined: 3/8/2004
Posts: 7469
Location: Arzareth
This negative feedback, should it be interpreted so that we must not reject movies that fail to realize their potential?
What can I reject then? Always when a submission is rejected, there's a chance that the authors (and possibly audience) will become sulky about it.
It's exactly this why I'm not doing submission management that much anymore.
