Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(79)
Joined: 8/5/2007
Posts: 865
Harsh judgment here, but I support the judges' (usual) erring on the conservative side of accepting movies.
Yeah, you heard me right. Bobo "Carmen Sandiego in 2 hours and Beetle Mania in 45 minutes" the King.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(79)
Joined: 8/5/2007
Posts: 865
MESHUGGAH wrote:
henke37 wrote:
I take it that you did luck manipulation to make all the digits appear right next to the head of the snake.
Yes, they were manipulated in the closest location to pick them up in the fastest possible time by inserting "semi random" input. The RNG is based on input which rolls throughout the whole movie. The RNG is modified (1-2 times) within a frame with 3 additional memory value which is depends from the RNG...
I've used different techniques (a lua script to randomize input, spotting different frames to modify only the column or row of the digit, etc) but the fastest technique was manipulating the digit "close" to the head of the snake and later "fine tuning" them to the closest spot.
edit: the reason I didn't finished my lua script for this is because the RNG's locations (3 RNG (helper) value, RNG pos x pos y) is changing from level to level. Sometimes the RNG is called multiple times (for example when you manipulate it in to a wall), sometimes it glitches out (needs perfect luck manipulation for it, and the game will freeze. Doesn't helps in this TAS).
I think this is great information (with a little more detail) to include in your submission text.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(79)
Joined: 8/5/2007
Posts: 865
Perhaps the simplest definition I can come up with for completing a game is "a favorable dead end". It's a dead end because TASes are about entertainment and at the finished state, no further input should show the viewer something new. It's favorable to exclude "fastest crash" and "fastest death" runs.
Note that I'm not saying that input is no longer read or accepted. It's just that new input shouldn't show the viewer something new. The viewer should get a sense at the end of the video that "something good has happened". That might be as simple as a "THE END" screen or as vague as looping back to the first level. The important thing is that further input will not advance the game to a novel state (given the run's restrictions, e.g., 100% vs. any %).
It's the matter of defining or even merely recognizing "favorable" and "novel" states that makes this difficult.
Let me cook up an example. Star Fox was mentioned, and I think it has some interesting properties. With the slot machine ending, after the letters in THE END have been oriented upright, there is nothing meaningful to show the viewer. I would argue that the game has clearly reached a state where no more input will be novel, even though the game still accepts input. The real gripe here is that the state isn't really favorable, since enemies continue to attack you occasionally. Eventually, they kill you, you return to the start of the level, die repeatedly until you run out of lives, and then get the bad Game Over screen.
On the other hand, let's look at the "standard" ending. It's a little Easter egg that if you wait on the "THE END" screen for about ten minutes, the game plays a cute little reprise of the main Star Fox theme a few times. I can't find a video of it online and I certainly can't find it in any encodes because no encoders want to record an extra ten minutes that most people won't be interested in. Nevertheless, the game's state does progress. We even have someexamples of this.
Well, that's really more of aesthetic choice by the encoders, isn't it? But suppose that music could only be triggered by pressing a button. It's just a little Easter egg tune that requires one button press, but it does put the game in a novel state. What should we do in that case?
I don't think I can weigh in any more than that. I believe it ultimately comes down to a broad consensus and/or the opinion of the judges on a case-by-case basis (which is really what we all know and are saying). Nevertheless, it may be worthwhile to frame each case as a question of the favorability of the ending and the novelty of further input.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(79)
Joined: 8/5/2007
Posts: 865
Let me return to the "why does water shoot faster out of a hose when you cover it partially with your thumb" question.
I think I owe you all an apology, but please read this carefully. I offer the following summary:
1) I was too antagonistic when I posted it here.
2) There is a reason that the volume flow rate should be approximately constant.
3) That reason still needs to be justified. The problem can be explained using either the Bernoulli equation or the continuity equation, but you must do so carefully in both cases.
For the first part, yes, I dove into this topic a little too headstrong. I am more familiar with the math problems topic, where people typically post fabricated and solved math problems and then drop hints until the solution is guessed. I was trying to do that here but, looking back, I see that this topic tends to work more with unsolved problems. Anyway, I was trying to guide discussion toward the solution, but I did a poor job of recognizing I was pissing you all off. I'm sorry.
My explanation using Bernoulli's principle is as follows: According to Bernoulli's equation, the fluid should reach the same height (the height of the water level in the water tower), regardless of the nozzle size. That isn't what happens, though. Because Bernoulli's principle follows from conservation of energy, energy must not be conserved. It is the frictional losses in the pipes/hose that cause the spray to be so comparatively feeble. Place your thumb over the mouth of the hose and you slow down the water. We know that viscous forces are (to first order approximation) linear with the fluid's shear velocity differential, so by slowing down the water, you decrease those viscous forces. As a result, less energy is lost in the pipes, more energy reaches the mouth of the hose, there is more pressure on your thumb, and the water shoots out much farther.
But I know that answer is unsatisfactory to many of you, some of my peers and professors included. You all want to use the continuity equation to solve it and, upon further reflection, it turns out you can if you justify it carefully.
My professor guided me in this direction: Imagine an analogous situation in circuits. Bernoulli's equation follows from conservation of energy and is therefore an approach that analogously assumes a given voltage. The continuity equation is a statement about the volume flow rate, which is analogous to current. If the continuity equation applies in this situation, the current at the mouth of the hose should be roughly constant. My professor prompted me by asking how a constant current source could be constructed. My answer was that you begin with a large, constant voltage source (which is easy to come by), connect a very large resistor to it, then hook your system (which has a much lower resistance) up in series to the large resistor. Applying Ohm's law to the whole system, we get
I=V/(Rlarge + Rsystem) ~ V/Rlarge = const.
From there, I realized how it could be applied to this problem-- we have a very similar situation. The water tower is a large source of potential. Even though it should creep very slowly, the water loses a lot of its energy to viscous forces in the pipes throughout the city leading up to your house. Finally, it loses comparatively little energy along the hose. Putting this all together in analogy to the circuit problem, the volume rate of flow should be nearly constant. Place your thumb over the mouth of the hose and the water speeds up.
So that, I believe, is the complete answer. Yes, the volume rate of flow is roughly constant, but you still can't blindly apply the continuity equation. In both derivations, you must consider the viscous forces that sap energy from the water as it flows down the pipes. I still prefer the explanation with the Bernoulli equation because it is so straightforward and you can quickly say after the fact that if the water doesn't reach the level of the water tower, it must have lost energy along the way (to viscosity). In contrast, you need to consider viscosity as a first step and carefully analyze the system before using the continuity equation.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(79)
Joined: 8/5/2007
Posts: 865
Warepire wrote:
FractalFusion wrote:
I know the run is supposed to be 27 minutes long, and Youtube says it is 22:55 long because of scenes that play at 200fps, but shouldn't we be doing something about this instead of pretending that nothing is wrong?
The load times are not emulated correctly and the loading screens are way too fast.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(79)
Joined: 8/5/2007
Posts: 865
I'd like to weigh in, supporting Warp's sentiment. We should carefully make a distinction between runs that show elements of the end screen without "convincing" the game that the end has been reached.
Warp was spot on with his "executes arbitrary code" example. There are probably over a dozen different plausible ways the game could end that have at least an illusion of completion. The end screen could be displayed while the game soft crashes. The words "The End" could appear on screen, but not centered and with the player retaining control. The ending music could play over glitched graphics. A save file that shows 100% completion could be created without ever demonstrating the ending. The game's entire ending could be reprogrammed from scratch and executed with an "executes arbitrary code" run. Each of these scenarios might plausibly be called completion, but they all have faults. Unfortunately, this is just something the judges will have to decide on a case by case basis; I see no way to draw the line unambiguously for all games.
With all that said, however, I would be inclined to give this movie a Yes vote. Even if it's not exactly an ending, it sure looks like one.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(79)
Joined: 8/5/2007
Posts: 865
Nach wrote:
jlun2 wrote:
I guess if this gets accepted, if it looks pretty much exactly the same, then put the previous author(s) of the runs as authors of this run instead. So people like me won't exploit this and the site can still have runs done with the latest emulators.
Um, please do go ahead and replace runs with not so accurate emulators with very accurate emulators.
Just realize which emulators are not so accurate and which are very accurate. Since this obsoletion only applies that way, and not from not so accurate to another not so accurate.
I vehemently reject your characterizations of VBA and BizHawk.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(79)
Joined: 8/5/2007
Posts: 865
MESHUGGAH wrote:
I wonder how many TASers will think about resyncing/remaking already existing [insert your favourite emulator] runs everytime the [insert your favorurite platform]Hawk core updates...
Sorry to post so soon after my last post, but you raise a good point.
Is there any precedent in which a new run, virtually identical to the last and submitted by a different person, was accepted because it made use of an updated version of an emulator with an incremental change? Is there a precedent of rejection?
I think that's relevant because my guess is most voters saw "BizHawk" and thought, "Hey, that's the wave of the future, and the gold standard among emulators!"
No, it's not. At least not yet for the GameBoy.
I think accepting this run would set a terrible precedent, allowing runners to plagiarize strategies (though not actual input) to obsolete quality runs on quality emulators. Please reward runners' hard work and do not reward copycats who get by on technicalities.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(79)
Joined: 8/5/2007
Posts: 865
Masterjun wrote:
Spikestuff wrote:
I feel like voting NO not because of the time but because vba doesn't have any flaws.
VBA has the accuracy of 38.3% where Bizhawk (Gambatte) has 89.4%.
VBA is not listed as preferred or accepted, not even obsoleted emulator for GB(C) TASes.
Hold everything. If I am interpreting the page you linked to (under "accuracy") correctly, VBA is substantially worse than BizHawk... at emulating the GameBoy's sound. Your percentages are horribly, horribly misleading. BizHawk's greatest substantial advantage over VBA is in the "Mem Timing 2 / Modify Timing" category, where BizHawk succeeds and VBA fails. Other than that, the emulators are identical. That, to me, does not alone warrant preference of BizHawk over VBA.
Combine that with the fact that this run does nothing strategically different from the existing run (amounting to near-plagiarism), and I'm lead to give this run an emphatic No vote. No, nothing personal, Masterjun, but this is not the right time for this run. When VBA is meaningfully obsoleted by BizHawk and those pesky OAM issues get sorted out, I'll endorse your run.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(79)
Joined: 8/5/2007
Posts: 865
Warp wrote:
Bobo the King wrote:
It can be shown that the water will leave the mouth of the hose with the same speed, regardless of how wide it is.
You mean, like, contrary to observation and evidence? How do you "show" it?
Pick location 1 to be at the water's level in the tower. Pick location 2 to be just outside the mouth of the hose. Take the ambient pressure to be atmospheric and all heights relative to the mouth of the hose.
Bernoulli's equation states that
P1 + pgz1 + 1/2 pv12 = P2 + pgz2 + 1/2 pv22
where P is the ambient pressure and p is the density (the other variables should be clear from context). We know that both P terms are one atmosphere, so they cancel. We know that z2 is zero and, as long as the water tower has a very large cross-sectional area, v1 is negligible. This leaves
pgz1 = 1/2 pv22
Solving for v2, we find
v2 = sqrt(2gz1).
This is an expression for the speed at which the water leaves the hose. It is independent of the cross-sectional area at the mouth of the hose. This strongly implies that the volume flow rate is not constant-- instead, it appears that the flow rate increases directly proportional to the area of the open end. So which of the two analyses is (more) correct? How can the flow rate be constant when it's completely contradicted by Bernoulli's equation? If Bernoulli's equation applies, why does the water leave the hose faster when you place your thumb over it? (You're right, Warp: experiment is the ultimate arbiter here. I'd be very interested in whether the flow rate indeed stays constant as you change the aperture size. I don't have a hose and nozzle handy, but I encourage you to time how long it takes to fill up a bucket when the nozzle setting is changed. If the time is not nearly constant, it would seem to contradict the prevailing theory here.)
Note that this analysis doesn't change substantially if the pressure is instead maintained through, say, mechanical means as opposed to gravitation. All that's important is that the reservoir's pressure is independent of what goes on at the mouth of the hose (which I'd say is a very safe assumption).
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(79)
Joined: 8/5/2007
Posts: 865
You guys need a little help with this. Both amaurea and Derakon have elements of the right answer, but your answers are either incomplete or take things in the wrong direction.
Consider Bernoulli's principle. Suppose there is a large water tower supplying water to the hose. It can be shown that the water will leave the mouth of the hose with the same speed, regardless of how wide it is. This is in direct contradiction with your explanation that the volume rate of water leaving the hose is constant (or nearly so). How do you reconcile the two theories? Which one (if either of them) is correct?
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(79)
Joined: 8/5/2007
Posts: 865
diggidoyo wrote:
How can it be completely wrong? My google search revealed the following:
"The answer centers on the idea of matter conservation. If a certain amount of water flows into the hose from the spigot, that water must either flow out of the hose at the other end, or accumulate inside the hose itself. Since a garden hose is made of stiff plastic (generally), it won't expand to let more water accumulate, so the water must eventually flow out of the end of the hose. When you put your finger over the tip of the hose, you decrease the amount of space the water has to flow through. Since the same amount of water has to flow out of the hose before and after you place you finger over the end, the water must shoot out faster (to keep the amount of water flowing out a constant). And, thus, since the water shoots out faster, it travels farther."
http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae185.cfm
What physical principle indicates a certain (constant) amount of water must flow out the hose regardless of any constrictions at the mouth? In fact, there is a relevant physical principle that states that the amount of water flowing out is decidedly non-constant. (I won't divulge the physical principle just yet, but you can probably guess it...)
But that's just theory. Limiting cases in experiment also tell you that the amount of outflowing water is highly dependent on constrictions in the system: shut off the valve to the hose. Your cross-sectional area goes to zero and the flow rate goes to zero. When you open the valve just a crack, water comes out at just a trickle, far less than when it is opened entirely. I'd say that's persuasive evidence that the flow rate is not constant.
Keep thinking...
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(79)
Joined: 8/5/2007
Posts: 865
Warp wrote:
One could roughly state that the garden hose emits a certain volume of water per second, regardless of the diameter of the hose. (In practice it's not so precise, but serves as a rough approximation.) I think you can intuitively deduce what that means when the hole is smaller.
That's a very common answer on the internet (all the top links of a Google search for "hose thumb physics" offer it as a solution).
It's also completely wrong.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(79)
Joined: 8/5/2007
Posts: 865
I know there are some really bright physicists here, so I hope this problem is a piece of cake for you. I got into an argument about it this morning with a fellow grad student.
Why does water shoot higher/faster when you place your thumb partially over the open end of a garden hose?
(Think carefully...)
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(79)
Joined: 8/5/2007
Posts: 865
ais523 wrote:
Hmm. I just can't concentrate on watching this TAS all the way through. There are two problems: a) there's so much brilliant stuff going on that you can't keep track of it all, and b) the game's too long. Neither are the runners' fault, of course. But if I just sit back and try to let the game wash over me, I get bored. And if I try to focus on what's going on, I get exhausted.
Perhaps the TAS would be better split into episodes, or something like that.
(And now I don't know how to vote…)
EDIT: (Oh, and my other problem: the music's good for a while, but it gets repetitive quickly, and there's not much the runners can do about that either.)
EMPEROR: Well, Herr Mozart! A good effort. Decidedly that. An excellent effort! You've shown us something quite new today.
[Mozart bows frantically: he is over-excited.]
MOZART: It is new, it is, isn't it, Sire?
EMPEROR: Yes, indeed.
MOZART: So then you like it? You really like it, Your Majesty?
EMPEROR: Of course I do. It's very good. Of course now and then - just now and then - it gets a touch elaborate.
MOZART: What do you mean, Sire?
EMPEROR: Well, I mean occasionally it seems to have, how shall one say? [he stops in difficulty; turning to Orsini-Rosenberg] How shall one say, Director?
ORSINI-ROSENBERG: Too many notes, Your Majesty?
EMPEROR: Exactly. Very well put. Too many notes.
MOZART: I don't understand. There are just as many notes, Majesty, as are required. Neither more nor less.
EMPEROR: My dear fellow, there are in fact only so many notes the ear can hear in the course of an evening. I think I'm right in saying that, aren't I, Court Composer?
SALIERI: Yes! yes! er, on the whole, yes, Majesty.
MOZART: But this is absurd!
EMPEROR: My dear, young man, don't take it too hard. Your work is ingenious. It's quality work. And there are simply too many notes, that's all. Cut a few and it will be perfect.
MOZART: Which few did you have in mind, Majesty?
EMPEROR: Well. There it is.
__________________________________
(Most of the clip, for the lazy.)
Link to video
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(79)
Joined: 8/5/2007
Posts: 865
FatRatKnight wrote:
Bobo the King...
You just saw my uploaded lua file. You have quite the timing, considering I only just now uploaded it.
I found a few more errors in my submission text...
I forgot to mark a scene as slower, though the numbers said so already.
I didn't dash under a bullet in 2-2, I ducked under.
I was successful in the backflip at end of 3-3. Wonder why I remembered differently...
I also need to set up an IRC client on this laptop at some point...
RGamma, thanks for the encode! Although, you didn't include the high score entry. Not as though it's important, but now people have a YouTube way of seeing this run now.
And that's how I found your upload. I'm currently on the #TASVideos channel asking about the topology of the human body and it announced your upload.
Good to hear you're back at work, and with a new laptop no less! I'll check out your subtitles in a day or two, or whenever an encode pops up.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(79)
Joined: 8/5/2007
Posts: 865
An outstanding run that unfortunately will live in the shadow of the Yoshi's Island run while it's on the workbench. Because it's FatRatKnight's work, you know it's of the highest quality. Easy yes vote.
Will we see a version of this run with commentary?
Edit: Just saw you uploaded a Lua commentary file (haven't looked at it yet). You wondered about how encoders will handle it. I know YouTube has features allowing the video to be paused for a few seconds at a time. As long as it can be turned off, I hope that encoders use that feature.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(79)
Joined: 8/5/2007
Posts: 865
Hey, FatRatKnight, I'm really excited to see this run! I've still got the FFL run on the back burner and I hope to pick it back up... this summer. It's been a crazy year and what's currently impeding my progress is that I'm one semester away from my degree.
Just thought I'd update you.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(79)
Joined: 8/5/2007
Posts: 865
dwangoAC wrote:
Just to bring things full-circle, I still think this run should be accepted based on the technical merit and the entertaining to read submission text. Furthermore, I nominate this thread for a currently nonexistent "Notable Submission Description" flag.
Thanks for making this,
A.C.
******
You're welcome! Thank you for the kind words!
Heisanevilgenius wrote:
I have to admit, the submission text has me impressed. I'm not sure I want to sit through it, though.TASVideoAgent wrote:
And if this is published, I defy you to produce a less entertaining game.
You don't. As for Desert Bus, that's technically a minigame.
Derakon wrote:
Having read the text, my understanding is that even understanding the RNG only buys you comparatively minor gains (in terms of a 2-hour movie) without more work. The main potential for improvements is in "RNG pathing" -- where you go more slowly early on in exchange for payoffs down the road. Bobo's bot does not try to go very deep into the potential search space because it rapidly becomes prohibitively expensive CPU-wise (similarly to trying to find optimal inputs via brute-force). Apparently (assuming Bobo's estimates are accurate) a run that used one more level of optimization could be generated by someone willing to dedicate a week or two worth of computer time.
True on all counts. I've considered some minor improvements to the bot. The biggest change I would make is to not record a movie as I run the bot but instead use the bot to find the best path, then execute that path in another bot. Recording a movie while botting turns out to be a major resource hog.
Heisanevilgenius wrote:
Is there a way to skip straight to the last mission and get Carmen? Kinda like the Dr. Mario TAS that starts on level 20? That way it wouldn't be as repetitive.
Passwords can be entered, but I think it would be a less impressive achievement. An ideal run with a password would look like this:
• Hold very briefly at the title screen to manipulate luck
• Enter (no) name
• Enter password as fast as possible (there may be some nontrivial password decoding in this step)
• Accept case
• Enter warrant and time jump once (possibly in reverse order)
• Capture Carmen
Your mistake is in assuming that nabbing Carmen is any more interesting or difficult than capturing any of the other suspects.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(79)
Joined: 8/5/2007
Posts: 865
So... I've returned the argument to where it was about a dozen posts ago? I feel like there's a nontrivial way to ask this question.
How about a system that represents only the rationals uniquely with a finite number of symbols? There seems to be enough trouble with those alone. Would it also help if I demand the numbers be defined algorithmically? (I'm not sure how to define "algorithmically", but I propose it just to get around your suggestion that we define each number as a collection of symbols. Maybe "algorithmically" can be defined such that the symbols can be truncated at any point to produce an approximation which gets more precise with each successive symbol.)
Also, I take issue with your discarding 0.99999... because of the ellipsis. Trailing zeroes are implied at the end of any terminating decimal-- otherwise, we could represent 0.123 as 0.1230, 0.12300, 0.123000, and so on. Thus, I demand that every number be represented as an infinite sequence of digits. This forces a choice strictly between 0.1230000... and 0.12299999...