Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(182)
Joined: 4/15/2013
Posts: 331
Location: In the attic
I don't know about you guys, but I thought the TAS community was dying on September 13, 2013 (also known as, "The Empty Queue Incident.")
But, yeah, I do feel that the community has been quietening down a little, especially on the forum side: about a year ago, I was reading the forum every morning. Nowadays, though, I only visit about twice a week because I feel as though fewer posts are being made.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(182)
Joined: 4/15/2013
Posts: 331
Location: In the attic
Mothrayas wrote:
Not withstanding the assumption that time in the exterior universe functions the same as time does in our universe, this assumes that the simulation necessarily runs in real time (from our point of view). There's no real reason to assume that needs to be the case.
(...)
Even if it would run at real time, the assumption that it is 'impossible' seems based on physical constraints that do not necessarily apply in the exterior universe. Really, with the exterior universe's properties being as much undefined as they are, practically anything would be possible.
So, in a nutshell, the time taken to compute the simulation is irrelevant? Hm, okay.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(182)
Joined: 4/15/2013
Posts: 331
Location: In the attic
Vsauce's "Would Headlights Work at Light Speed?"
Somewhere near the end of the video, Michael puts forward the idea that our universe may be "a simulation created by some other intelligent species", but then proceeds to point out that a possible dismissal for this could be the existence of irrational numbers.
However, I myself have my own theories as to why this "simulation" may not be possible:
- Does this mean that there is another, different universe exterior to our own? Is it a 4-dimensional universe?
- If so, how large is the computer running the simulation? Is it perhaps several times larger than our 'observable' universe?
- How is the computer actually able to simulate a universe with ~10^80 atoms, each consisting of a number of quarks and electrons, at a step rate of (1/tP) step/second, where tP = Planck time?
- Now, let us make some assuumptions:
1. Hydrogen is by far the most abundant element in the universe, so for ease of calculation we will approximate that the universe consists of 10^80 hydrogen-1 atoms. This comes out as 4*10^80 particles to simulate (each atom consisting of three quarks, and one electron.)
2. The computer acts as a Laplace's Demon, advancing the simulation based on the positions and velocities of every particle in the universe. Because position and velocity are vectors, they could be internally represented as six addresses for each particle, or 24 for each atom.
3. Assuming that the computer represents data as 64-bit double-precision floating point, the amount of RAM required would be 6 * (4E+80) * 64 = 1.536*10^83 bits. Unless the 'exterior universe' the computer exists in has its own shortest measurable time, even shorter than tP, it would be impossible to manipulate this many bits in one Planck time.
Tell me what you think, guys.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(182)
Joined: 4/15/2013
Posts: 331
Location: In the attic
Good job, very well played. I'm definitely going to vote yes on this one.
If improving the same TAS twice in two months doesn't get Notable Improvement, I'll eat my hat.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(182)
Joined: 4/15/2013
Posts: 331
Location: In the attic
Would it actually save input time? I can see how it would save real time, but when you consider how TAS timing works, only the placement of the first shot has any chance of saving movie time.
If you'd managed to post that question while this run was still on the bench, it would have been a simple case of replacing the movie file. But it's too late now, I guess...
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(182)
Joined: 4/15/2013
Posts: 331
Location: In the attic
Yadra121 wrote:
Yeah, this has been "discovered" several times by several people, but yeah, no real use I guess.
I'd just like to point out that it's also possible in AotR's tutorial level, but, again, I haven't found any real use for it in that case. <offtopic>It might have some applications in AotR 100%</offtopic> but to me it just seems like a glitch that LOOKS game-breaking, but really isn't.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(182)
Joined: 4/15/2013
Posts: 331
Location: In the attic
ars4326 wrote:
Haha, I could have totally used this in my Japanese 101 class.
I'm biased here, but I found this one entertaining. I am curious though, why they used the katakana alphabet instead of the hiragana. As I understand it, katakana is reserved for phonetically transcribing foreign words, not native Japanese ones (kaban, kuruma, etc.).
It's due to memory limitations. Basically, early Japanese Famicom (NES) games didn't have large enough character sets to accommodate both of the kana syllabaries, as well as the English/Roman alphabet. A good example of this can be seen in Rockman 2, where all the cutscene text is in katakana.
Also, whatever Jigwally is doing with all these board-game type runs... it's getting old pretty fast. Jigwally, if you're reading this, please don't take it the wrong way, but it's not really what our community wants.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(182)
Joined: 4/15/2013
Posts: 331
Location: In the attic
Okay... I've just watched through the test run, and I'd say it's pretty entertaining.
The only real problem I have with it is that you're always falling off edges instead of jumping. If AotR's physics can be applied to this game as well, then you should avoid edge-falling whenever you're traversing steps or ledges, because it slows you down.
Otherwise, this game could make for an awesome run if we fully optimised it.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(182)
Joined: 4/15/2013
Posts: 331
Location: In the attic
Scepheo wrote:
Considering this run will be judged by entertainment anyway (as pacifist is not a vaultable goal choice), you could always change the branch to "no arrows, pacifist". Killing the enemy would not be pacifist, as it is avoidable through the use of arrows, but adding the "no arrows" goal would mean the run at least sticks to it goals. After that, it's up to the audience to judge if the goal makes for an entertaining enough run (as opposed to just "pacifist" or "no arrows").
That's what I'm going to do. The branch name will be 'Pacifist, no special weapons' or something of a similar wording.
Steelbeak '0 kills with 1 arrow'
The userfile linked above is just a proof of concept to clear up what you can do if you use a single arrow. I just have to redo Steelbeak in the same style as the old test run, and then it should be finished.
Side note:
XYZ wrote:
Good WIP.
In this version I like Moliarty battle for solving this in one round and dislike Megavolt for disappear of falling.
What about this route? I don't think it is glitch.
http://tasvideos.org/userfiles/info/20111382951453684
a) The death glitch in the Megavolt fight (if that's what you're talking about) was actually slower - I only left it in the test run because it looked hilarious (speed-entertainment trade-off).
b) What!? You can walk over that roof as well? My gosh, I didn't realise that. Shame it's still not possible without AG though.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(182)
Joined: 4/15/2013
Posts: 331
Location: In the attic
http://tasvideos.org/userfiles/info/20105242395548292
Every level except Steelbeak is now done. I'm thinking of making a proof-of-concept run of SB. Problem is, I don't know if I should just go with what feos says, or just blank out and leave this run at that stage.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(182)
Joined: 4/15/2013
Posts: 331
Location: In the attic
Archanfel wrote:
So EgxHB, if your main goal is Pacifist run - i highly recommend to use arrows weapon and avoid killing this innocent guy or change your branch to "No extra weapons".
Fact is, I had already figured out that it was possible to use an arrow to climb over a chimney and skip over some of the enemies (who I previously had to take hits from because there are low ceilings above them).
So, I'm now faced with a dilemma - should I allow arrows in Steelbeak, or not use them, and still kill the lance guy?
Let me outline the circumstances:
a) Allowing arrows only in Steelbeak would be arbitrary. Allowing them only to get over the chimney, but nowhere else, would be even more arbitrary. Archanfel, if what your're saying is the latter, then I don't really agree with you there. The whole reason why I disallowed arrows in the first place was to make this run more different from the any% TAS.
b) If I kill the lance guy in the corridor, you're right, that's un-pacifistic. But, in the test run, you can see that I manipulate the lance guy to drop a health pack, which allows me to take more damage-boosts later in the level (two balloon ducks, and one cyborg duck). The first balloon duck is avoidable (i.e. the damage is just to save time) but the second balloon duck and the cyborg have low ceilings above them, which means I must get hit by them. Of course, you could always die at the checkpoint to get your health back, which means you can get hit three times before the checkpoint, then die so that you can get past the cyborgs.
For now, I'm going to finish off stages 4-6. I have to idea what to do about the final stage, I'll let you guys persuade me either way.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(182)
Joined: 4/15/2013
Posts: 331
Location: In the attic
Akisto wrote:
as soon as someone gets a WR on emulator its called "not the WR" which is dumb because apparently you are allowed to get WR's on VC ==== Emulator since VC runs faster for example DKC2 OoT(although most peopel run ique) SM64 etc etc. but apparently VC WR is allowed how? because it was developed by nintendo?
Virtual Console is an 'official' emulator. Because VC is running on more advanced hardware, it reduces lag in a lot of games. But, one big difference between VC and any computer-based emulator is that on VC you don't get throttle or savestates, which makes it a lot harder to cheat.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(182)
Joined: 4/15/2013
Posts: 331
Location: In the attic
Beed28 wrote:
Err, okay, I can't seem to beat the race in Harbour Speedway. No matter how many speedrings I go through or supercharging I do, I can't seem to beat the seagull in first place. I reload from my save state, but I can never come first. o_O
Welp, goodbye 100%. Well, it was a nice run, at least. At least it didn't reset at the Sorceress.
EDIT: Tried two more attempts, and I still can't beat that seagull in 1st place. I remember being able to do it when I played the game on a console long ago. Any advice?
Have you tried using the rockets you get from the red stars? As far as I can tell from playing the game myself, it's not possible to win the race without using those rockets on the birds between 5th and 2nd. I have no idea why it works like that, but it somehow prevents the booby in first place from moving too far ahead.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(182)
Joined: 4/15/2013
Posts: 331
Location: In the attic
ALAKTORN wrote:
By the way many of Werster’s Pokémon WRs have apparently been invalidated because now emulators are banned for those games. Just found it funny, lol.
(...)
A real player wouldn’t consider an emulator run to be a WR, sorry. lol
First point: Are you able to elaborate on that? About emulators being banned for Pkmn games, I mean.
Second point: This is a similar opinion to what I wrote on page 1. When I wrote that 'emulator can't be compared to console', I was simply making a generalisation since I didn't really know about that being not necessarily true in the case of MMX.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(182)
Joined: 4/15/2013
Posts: 331
Location: In the attic
Spikestuff wrote:
Do I hate or Do I love you?
Also update the title of this to include the Crash Version of this game (If you're questioning what I mean, we have Huge Adventure and N-Tranced together.)
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(182)
Joined: 4/15/2013
Posts: 331
Location: In the attic
Samsara wrote:
EgxHB wrote:
I must ask, is there really any point to posting your OWN videos in this thread?
topic title wrote:
Put all crappy youtube videos in this thread
There's nothing wrong with a little self-promotion, right?
AWW, G.D. IT!
I REALLY shouldn't have made that post - I just got a little butthurt, that's all. We all get a little bit butthurt sometimes, I guess.
Oh, right, gotta get back on topic...
Link to video
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(182)
Joined: 4/15/2013
Posts: 331
Location: In the attic
And now... Lost Fleet: The Game!
http://tasvideos.org/userfiles/info/19837507904422572
Note to self: Don't put games you barely know in your future projects.
So, here's a quick summary of what you have to do:
There are five worlds in this game, and in each one you have to complete five minigames and then a boss. However, in the first four worlds, you have to complete THREE levels in each minigame! As you can probably guess, this game is the epitome of Vault tier.
@Solarplex: I sent you a PM. Not sure if the link in the PM works though, I'll let you use the one above in case it's no longer on front page.
