To be honest, new stuff is found all the time. If a restart is made every time something new is found, there will never be anything. Is it not okay to not restart and let someone else in the future incorporate the latest finds in a new TAS (which, again, probably won't incorporate all found tricks)?
Well, like people have said, it's just too complex to find an optimal solution even using a script. You would have to exhaustively examine very possible option.
I change some settings and I try to run the rom but it still crashes.
To be exact, it is a programming error, not a user error. You should copy the log from the event viewer and post here so the developers can help troubleshoot the problem.
Skipping the entire game is certainly at first a wow-factor. Imagine showing it off a to a friend, game "X" done under 2 minutes. WOW! But then it doesn't become so fun anymore...
And that's where full game TASes come in. By showing off various glitches and superplay for a longer time period, it makes for more entertainment. If arbitrary code execution could be used to liven it up, then why not? It doesn't necessarily need to mean glitching through stages. It could be used for more WTH happened factors. Visual weirdness also works.
To be honest, I wouldn't watch the cutscenes in any case (fast forward!), so iw doesn't make any difference if it's english or japanaese for me. All I'd like to see is a TAS--optimized or otherwise! That's enough for me. And I really don't see a "must" anywhere. Who says a TAS must must absolutely, without a doubt, aim for absolutely the fastest time and nothing else is acceptable?
I have a question about response. If the "moment of making a strobe" lasts X amount of time, couldn't you press left for X/2 units of time, and right for X/2 units of time, to make both the strobe's poll of left and of right both return "on"? Even if the strobe is a nanosecond, it's still a finite amount of time which could, in theory, be divided by 2.
No, that is not how hardware works.
At each "probe", the system will read the inputs, or more precisely, it will let the signals from the controller pass through the "gates". These gates tend to at some time t0, let through the signal at its input. Then for some time t, it will block the input from propagating through it until t time units have passed again.
Therefore, if you change inputs at t0 + t/2, it will not be reflected in the output. Only the input signal at the time t0 + k*t will be registered.
This is how "gates" (typically known as flip-flops) works. There is no middle-ground (in this "probing" context).
Anything is better than nothing, methinks. It is much better to do evolutionary improvements than revolutionary improvements (i.e. do the ground first, then improve it with time).
Looking forward to it and good luck!
Can we seriously just stop being assholes and be friendly? Who cares who does what? Give constructive feedback or if you don't want to, don't do anything at all.
There is an infinite amount of color we can generate.
Everything is finite, including colours.
niamek wrote:
So, it would be hard to a computer to be able to remember all those different color, then color the right pixel with the right color... And to color the entire screen with different color.
As noted, that is not true. Take a resolution of 8K, the highest resolution available today. That is 8 million pixels where each pixel takes 3 bytes. That is 24 million bytes, or roughly 23 MB. Hard to remember? Hardly when systems have GB of memory today!
niamek wrote:
It was simpler to color just with three color than with an incredible amount of color.
No. Take 3 colours of 1 byte each and you need to 3 bytes to store all information. You can thereby create up to 16 million colours.
But then again, we could also store 16 million colours by giving each colour a unique value and store them in 3 bytes. Same thing. Same storage. No difference.
But of course, you are right in that it's infeasible to use a million different colours inside a monitor or TV.
niamek wrote:
It's basically just this: open an application such as GIMP, photoshop, etc. Open a new file 1x1 pixel. Zoom the pixel so you can see the big square. And see if you can color with other color than the primary color. Since we can do that, a single pixel is not composed of only blue, red and green.
This seems like you did the argument backwards.
Assuming that you could zoom onto a single pixel (which you cannot, btw), if you can then colour that pixel with any colour, then the pixel cannot only consists of one colour: red, green or blue. It must consist of all three to create the desired colour.
You cannot zoom into a single pixel because what you get is a "logical" pixel and not a "physical" pixel. A logical pixel is basically the smallest possible element in an image, but since it's larger then a physical pixel, it must consists of many physical pixels. You cannot take a physical pixel on your monitor/TV and enlarge it. It's a physical thing.
From a casual perspective, what comes to mind is this.
What is a vault? What does these vaults do?
Publication? What is publication?
How do I know if a movie is worth publication?
On the other hand, a simple "yes/no/meh" is straightforward. Did I find it entertaining? Sure! Maybe not (meh). No, it was boring. No need to bother with technical details and let the judges do their work.
Why should we have to worry about if it acceptable for publication or not? That is kind of the problem with Warp's suggestion, at least from my perspective.
Redeem yourself through actions, not words. If you keep bringing up apologies, then you're just going to keep remembering people of your past. This is not a good thing. Being humble is good, but rude behaviour is not often simply solved by simply apologising.
However, wounds are healed with time. If you can prove that you can simply be "another" member of the community, to help, to discuss, to have opinions without being rude, people may be willing to forget your past and embrace you as someone new. The first step towards this path is to stop apologising and simply doing what we are all here to do: discuss TASing!
Regardless of whether Thom was right or not, it does not give him/her the right of badmouthing other members. It puts him/her in a bad light.
So please, this is not the place to be discussing this. Let's just get back on topic and continue as normal. No one wants to see this. We want to discuss TASing Majora's Mask here, and that is why we're here.
Also i saw someone by the name of oblvionwalker is doing a tas of mm. Speaking of him what the fucks with him everyone he is suck a dick.
I hope all of you are nice to me i'll try not to be like oblvion.
It's very strange going from ASM to Python. All of the assembly books immediately spoke about the importance of performance, and that one should always avoid using the MULT or DIV instructions, because they can be 100x slower than bit-shifts (I think they are called rotations in some high level languages?).
Shifts are shifts and rotations are rotations. I have not heard of any language that names shifts rotations since they're two fundamentally different things.
So this caused me to start writing Python code using bit-shift operations and avoiding multiply and divide :-P I also wrote very strange code that heavily used other bitwise operators; eg, using XOR to check for equality. The resulting code was not very readable. It's actually been quite difficult to stop thinking the ASM way...
Sounds like you need to start doing high-level programming. The compiler will do a lot of these low-level optimizations for you. But even so, for modern processors, it's not guaranteed that these "optimizations" really will do anything because they are highly sophisticated hardware that are optimized to bring out as much performance out of your code as possible, often in ways you haven't intended your program to be run in.
Thanks for everyone's input. I've started to become interested in how exploits work, and how vulnerabilities are used. If pursue this route, I guess I have no choice but to learn C? :-P
As you've been told, you don't need to learn C.
You need to learn about computer architecture. If you need a language to practice it in, you're better off with C++ IMO.
Well, arbitrary code execution and x-ray glitch are two completely different approaches. I'm not going to argue what categories are going to be named, and I'm not going to be sad if the x-ray run disappears, but I could see them being labelled something like "total control" or "arbitrary code execution" and "glitched" or "x-ray glitch".
Personally, I would vote for this one obsoleting the current glitched any% just by entertainment alone, even if speed differences are irrelevant with so different conditions. But I don't have a perfect solution for the debug code issue.
I would disagree with this. There is nothing wrong with runs that suddenly jump to the ending, but their flaw is that they fail to show off more of the game.
Per my definition, any% is showing off the entire game (with no major skips that skips big portions of the game) as fast as possible. This glitched% does not do that, hence it should not obsolete any%.
Nevertheless, these kinds of runs are fun sometimes, so I do think it has a place on the site entertainment-wise.
As far as I understand, the Golden Torian code is used simply to get the required power bombs and super missiles and beams quicker than normal. Otherwise the run would simply be longer.
Cannot reproduce the issue.
I had luck with recording a clip with both Camstudio and Lagarith. Recorded a little over 2 GB. No problems.
I could import them all into Handbrake, mkvmerge, and virtualdub. I also tried joining them with virtualdub and then encoding. No problems.
There shouldn't be any problems...
The only thing I can think of now is a sample of the actual video to test with...