Everything about this is awful. No thought was put in whatsoever to making the experience not be boring as hell, no effort was put into optimization whatsoever, and slowdown is apparently no object here.
I thought you meant the TAS, not the game. :o)
I agree with you. Nice work Solarplex, what is your next plan between? :)
NO VOTE!!!!
Why so expressive?
Because of THAT I posted it in GBA topic you could see it. I optimized more than 100 frames in one and half level :/
MUGG wrote:
If I'm not wrong, this is also 96 Exits. Did you make sure your TAS beats this one?
That is a 96 exits but takes all the coins, which the 96 doesn't.
You don't need to be so expressive... I think you should just say that the run is improvable, nothing more. :) I think being expressive in that way is nothing but bad for the newbie motivation or interest in TASing.
Good luck for your next work ScienenceFX! I hope this was a great learning experience for your future TASes!
Hello SM64 People!
So we're hacking away at the documentary and there's a part where we're using SM64 as an example of how TASes tend to evolve over the times. We have a set of 4 movies for the game each of which use a different technique (as I understand) for entering Dire Dire Docks. Here are their movie numbers and links to where it happens.
I think it should be rewritten, since the goal of all these video is to get to the Bowser's level that is behind the Dire Dire Dock level(also that the last one doesn't even enter to Dire Dire Dock)
Nice choice of TAS evolution! :)
If I recall well, you're doing any% run?
It looks amazing so far! :)
PS: A platine run(or better, the "maxi run"!) would be nice. :)
A maximum score run would be extremely tedious. It would be hours of repetition. I may do a maximum score run of a certain level for fun later. This run is a 100% though, since a Platinum medal is awarded at 1200 points in a kingdom. Beating the game only requires 51 medals; an average of 3 per kingdom. But a Platinum is 4.
Oh it's already 100%.
Yeah, I don't know what it takes to try the highest score possible...
Thank you for your answer and looking forward to this run. :)
Watched the first minute and I really loved it!
I really hope there will be a mini map on a atlas encode so we see all the drawbacks. Would be amazing!
Will watch later.
Most levels are way too large even for big modern screens. You will hardly see anything if we scale the picture. Also, it will make the encoding process even more time-consuming.
(upd): nope, in fact, it can make it less resource-consuming, as we’ll have to deal with pre-downscaled map…
How about making a mini? like a radar indicating the position of the player according to the level?
One says that the smallest pixel on the screen is only blue, yellow or red, the three primary color. His reasoning is that, since a computer screen is like 1024 X 768 thingy, that means there is more than 700 000 pixel to color. And if we assign a different color to each pixel, the amount of information is huge. Why don't we see only in blue, yellow or red on a screen? it's because the pixel are so small the eyes can't distinguish it. With yellow and blue (50% 50% for example), in a certain region, we should see green. etc.
One says that, sionce we can color green on a single pixel with GIMP or photofiltre, a pixel is not necessarily only red, yellow and blue.
Good, so it's the subpixel that are blue, red and green!
Ok, I may be a bit obtuse here, but I have hard time understanding what exactly the issue is about (or how that was the answer to said issue).
"His reasoning is that ... if we assign a different color to each pixel, the amount of information is huge."
I'm not sure I understand what the issue is here, or how the "pixels are divided into subpixel" answer helps it in any way.
There is an infinite amount of color we can generate. 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.
It was simpler to color just with three color than with an incredible amount of color.
We aren't experienced in the domain, logic just made the argument... He didn't know about the subpixel apparently, since we thought that a pixel were the smallest thing on a computer screen."Why don't we see only in blue, yellow or red on a screen?"
I don't understand what the problem you are envisioning is (or even what this question is actually asking). Could you please elaborate?
It was a question followed with an answer. My friend that said that a pixel is made of blue red and green. Then, why can we see pink in a square of 4x4 for example? it's because there is like 50% red and 50% blue in that small section of the screen. Since they are small, our eyes can't dissociate the two colors, they "fuse" them into a single color. Something like that."One says that, sionce we can color green on a single pixel with GIMP or photofiltre, a pixel is not necessarily only red, yellow and blue."
Again, I don't really understand what the argument here is.
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.
(I know that the question has already been (apparently) answered. It just bothers me that I can't make head or tails of it.)
So, it's with blue, red and green?
EDIT: I didn't see the wikipedia page before posting, my bad.
Thank you!
So, it's the subpixel that are red, green and blue and not the pixels?
Hello!
I'm posting this here, since two of my friends don't stop arguing and I'm somewhat interested in this debate!
One says that the smallest pixel on the screen is only blue, yellow or red, the three primary color. His reasoning is that, since a computer screen is like 1024 X 768 thingy, that means there is more than 700 000 pixel to color. And if we assign a different color to each pixel, the amount of information is huge. Why don't we see only in blue, yellow or red on a screen? it's because the pixel are so small the eyes can't distinguish it. With yellow and blue (50% 50% for example), in a certain region, we should see green. etc.
One says that, sionce we can color green on a single pixel with GIMP or photofiltre, a pixel is not necessarily only red, yellow and blue.
Anyone experienced can answer me?
TASadvisor: Give tips, review, etc. for some TAS so they can be improved or point out improvements.(So, it would include contributor, researcher,
Lua scriptor(Mentionned by Warepire): Someone known for writting lua scripts of a lot of games, while not tasing these.
Around the 2 minutes mark:
I'd like to know why you didn't catch the two ghosts in one shot?
Also, why did you wander around in the very same arena?
Otherwise, it's an nice run, good job Solarplex!