Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Reviewer, Experienced player
(969)
Joined: 4/17/2004
Posts: 3107
Location: Sweden
mklip2001 wrote:
I'm also not really sure what the point of the bonus rounds is... are you supposed to attack the bars that you just dodge?
You are supposed to hit the pads on the opposite sides of the bars. This makes the bars spin faster, so it becomes harder to avoid them. This gives you chi, which is a way to stock up between fights. However it also gives you points, which have to be counted down, so that's why it's not done in this movie.
You can compare with the movie I made which aimed for entertainment:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xdjeur_genesis-dragon-the-bruce-lee-story_videogames
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Reviewer, Experienced player
(969)
Joined: 4/17/2004
Posts: 3107
Location: Sweden
Game 1:
As noted in IRC, this game is Fighters Destiny for N64 or possibly the sequel FD2. Thanks to Cooljay and KennyMan666 who both pointed this out!
Game 2:
Also as noted in IRC, this game is Incoming. Thanks to Brushy for finding it!
As you might notice, the title isn't a noun which is 4-5 characters long. The developer though, is Rage Software - and I'm certain that I thought Rage was the name of the game back when I played it.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Reviewer, Experienced player
(969)
Joined: 4/17/2004
Posts: 3107
Location: Sweden
It's time for a new round of Name the Game, Truncated can't google worth shit edition. You'd think that by all I remember about these games, I'd be able to find them...
Game 1:
1-on-1 3D fighting game. I'm guessing on some 64bit system or above. Played it around year 2000-2001 I think.
- The game has a health bar but you do not lose automatically when it's depleted. Instead, you start to flash in a purple color for a couple of seconds, and lose the ability to attack. You can still dodge attacks. During this time the opponent must land a hard attack to win. If he fails, you gain back a small amount of health and continue.
- You can also win by ring-out. It was possible to grab the ledge, and hang from it, and then drag your opponent's leg into a reverse ring-out of sorts.
- You can also win by a special one-hit KO attack, which instantly knocks out the opponent even if they are blocking.
- You can also win by a special counter attack, which instantly knocks out the opponent if they are in an attack animation.
I remember three characters:
- A female swiss fighter. She had a spinning double axe kick which could be spammed easily.
- A male wrestler fighter. Had a dropkick one hit KO attack.
- A clown/jester type, which wasn't playable. Appeared in some sort of challenge mode where you had to defeat 100 opponents in a row.
Game 2:
PC. Played around 1995-1996 maybe?
3D shooting game. In every level you played a different vehicle or object.
The first level you manned a stationary turret in first person view, possibly in a winter landscape.
A later level you were a helicopter, maybe in third person view.
In an even later level you manned a plane, with which you had to put out fires somehow, maybe by bombing them with water.
The game was very flashy, with lens flares everywhere and colorful weapons.
I have a vague memory that the name was short, 4-5 letters, and a common noun.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Reviewer, Experienced player
(969)
Joined: 4/17/2004
Posts: 3107
Location: Sweden
I enjoy! Have another yes, and please do more RTS.
I love how small groups of units can be kept alive for what seems indefinitely. I thought more than once that at least one of the four swordmen would die, but no. The main magic of the Humans is usually healing, but who needs it?
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Reviewer, Experienced player
(969)
Joined: 4/17/2004
Posts: 3107
Location: Sweden
Warepire wrote:
I think you misunderstood me, we want to be on IRC, it's just that I don't have time/knowledge to moderate a channel, nor do I have the skills to set one up.
We'd need someone to start it all up at least.
OK, IRC channel #hourglass is now registered on Freenode and ready to be used. I can moderate it, but in my experience the more common problem is usually that noone is talking...
Also, I managed to compile Hourglass and fix a mistake in the code! But I can't upload it because I need a username.
I'll PM you about both these things.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Reviewer, Experienced player
(969)
Joined: 4/17/2004
Posts: 3107
Location: Sweden
Warepire wrote:
Currently only me and Scepheo, keylie also chimes in a little.
Look at the code before saying such things, also not everything that needs to be done requires "mad skillz", being interested gets you a long way, that's how I got into it.
I did look at it, but most (all?) of it is way above my head. In any case, I started downloading Visual Studio 2010 Express, so we'll see if I can get Hourglass compiled and running.
amaurea wrote:
I don't think you should underestimate IRC for project coordination and even support. Especially on the Freenode IRC network there are dedicated IRC channels for many open source projects, and in the more active ones one can get interactive help from developers or other users in just a few minutes. I should also mention that there are 62 people on the #tasvideos channel on the same network right now.
I agree with amaurea, IRC is a good choice. There is also a #tasemu channel on Freenode, frequented by the other people here who develop emulators. Setting up an #hourglass channel is easy, but feel free to PM or ask me on IRC (same nick as here) if you want help.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Reviewer, Experienced player
(969)
Joined: 4/17/2004
Posts: 3107
Location: Sweden
Well, I'd love to help, but my C and Asm skills are too weak to be of any use in a project like this. I'd be happy to test when you get to that stage.
Including mouse support will open up a huge new library of possible games to TAS, so I really hope it will get the attention it deserves. How many people are developing this?
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Reviewer, Experienced player
(969)
Joined: 4/17/2004
Posts: 3107
Location: Sweden
Ferret Warlord wrote:
Question for clarification of all this talk about "conventional current."
Let's take a look at this Duracell battery.
The top is, obviously, labeled positive, with the bottom being negative. If I understand correctly, are we saying that, when we put a load between the top and the bottom of this battery, that electrons flow from the bottom to the top?
You are understanding correctly. The electrons flow from the bottom through the load to the top.
In electric calculations, because electricity was discovered before electrons were understood, it was (unfortunately incorrectly) guessed that current flowed from plus to minus. This has continued to this day for backwards compatibility.
Marx wrote:
What if protons flow?
Will it be from top to bottom?
Protons don't usually flow in an electric circuit. The protons make up the cable which the electrons move through, and are stationary.
If an electrolyte is used instead of a cable, it is a bit more tricky. The ions in the electrolyte flow in both directions at the same time, as rhebus talked about earlier.
(Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong everyone, it was a while ago I studied this.)
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Reviewer, Experienced player
(969)
Joined: 4/17/2004
Posts: 3107
Location: Sweden
Bobo the King wrote:
Sticking with the numbering system you've introduced...
1) Again, I think your disagreement is based on philosophical grounds. In more familiar terms, we might ask if chairs exist. "Of course they do!" Well, what qualifies a chair? Is it something on which you rest your butt? Then what is a butt? Is a bean bag chair a chair? It has no specific solid form. How about a stump? That isn't man-made. What if I begin carving a seat into that stump? At what precise instant does it cease to be a stump and become a chair?
I find these arguments absurd and pointless. If you want to go that route, you quickly find yourself in the realm of essentialism. Philosophically, I tend to lean the other way, toward existentialism, which would appear to support and expand on your view. It isn't just that virtual photons don't exist, no human constructs can be meaningfully said to exist! We're all one big gelatinous mess of a wavefunction attempting to derive meaning out of subsets of ourselves, never able to grasp the big picture.
But I'm also a scientist. If I throw a ball into the air at a very specific speed and it consistently returns to my hand in two seconds, do I really need to question the existence of the ball itself? No. I like to get things done. In terms of their predictive power, virtual photons seem to be more real than balls or frictionless surfaces or blocks on inclined planes or other more familiar notions.
Your point is that other notions are useful but not real. Maybe, maybe not. It depends on what you mean by useful. For a scientist, numerical predictions trump all. What about non-mathematical notions? Is love real? It seems to be a construct of the mind, yet we seem to have a decent understanding of how love affects people. Again, this is a mostly philosophical question of where to draw the line and I begin to lose interest when we leave the realm of science and enter philosophy.
I'm very interested, however, in where you draw the line. What is something that you consider useful but not "real"?
2) I should have been more clear. Virtual UFOs make no testable, falsifiable, or substantiated predictions about how physics works. You said this is easy to fix, so what's your proposal? We don't have to discuss it at length.
3) You lost me here. Admittedly, particle physics isn't really my forte, but your claims seem fishy to me. It does take energy to create a magnetic field and a magnet will lose energy if it radiates some if it away. You may be confused by the fact that the magnetic force can do no work, but that can be reconciled (tediously) by entering a moving reference frame in which the magnetic field is transformed into an electric field. Historically, quantum field theory was developed to reconcile special relativity and quantum mechanics. Practically, the subject produces predictions of things like the magnetic dipole moment of the electron and scattering coefficients. I'm not sure how that ties in with the magnetic field energy.
1) Sure, for things such as chairs you will always get problems on where to draw the line. Elemental particles do not have this problem. They are strictly defined in mass, spin, charge, etc. An electron is never a proton, which is never a photon.
Some things which are useful but don't exist are:
- Personification of inanimate objects (the air "wants" to get out when there's a pressure difference)
- Fairy-tales
- Thinking of electricity as a rope, the voltage as how hard you pull, the resistance how much friction there is, and the current as the speed of the rope.
2) You added "testable, falsifiable, or substantiated" now. At first it was just a prediction, which I said is easy enough to add. For example: virtual UFOs make the universe expand. We know virtual UFOs to be real because the universe expands faster than expected from just gravity. Also, virtual UFOs steal socks in washing machines. We know this to be true because sometimes a sock is missing.
Anyway, I don't see why we should discuss that, because it quickly becomes silly.
3) I can't say I'm well versed in it either (which is probably why I can't get virtual particles) but take this example: an electron. It has an electric charge. That means it will repel another electron. How does it "tell" (see, personification again) the other electron that it's there? By emitting photons, the electromagnetic force carrier. But sending out photons would mean that the electron would lose energy, and we know that the mass and charge stays the same for every electron. So we say that those photons aren't real photons, they are virtual. But now you say that on long range they are real - so where does the energy to send out real photons in all directions constantly come from?
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Reviewer, Experienced player
(969)
Joined: 4/17/2004
Posts: 3107
Location: Sweden
Warp wrote:
Truncated wrote:
1) If virtual photons (or other virtual particles) cannot be observed directly or indirectly, is there any reason at all to assume that they exist?
Electromagnetic force is quantized, and it propagates at c in vacuum.
Yes. I don't see how that is relevant to the quoted section, or what I posted about in general. Can you elaborate?
Bobo the King wrote:
1) But virtual photons can be "observed" indirectly. The perturbative expansion (using virtual photons) of certain physical processes gives the most precise measurements in all of science; we know the fine structure constant out to ten or eleven digits, which is equivalent to measuring the distance from Los Angeles to New York to within the thickness of a hair. You might argue from a philosophical standpoint that virtual photons aren't real, but as I previously said, virtual photons are useful, and so they are in some sense real.
2) Your proposed claim that "virtual UFOs really exist" fails this test because virtual UFOs make no predictions about how physics should work.
3) As for the magnetic (or electric...) force having infinite range, the long range interactions are mediated by the "real" photons. They are directly observable. It's a little bit like the pressure pushing down on you right now. You're only feeling the air around you locally. Do you know that the upper atmosphere exists? Strictly speaking, no, but you can certainly feel its effects! And we might even make broad distinctions about lower atmosphere air and upper atmosphere air, but in truth, we know those distinctions are arbitrary.
1) OK! I disagree with the sentiment "if it's useful, it exists", since I can think of a lot of analogies/ways of thinking which are useful, but does not make them real.
2) Well, that is easy to fix... but I don't think I'll go down that road.
3) If something is sending out "real" photons, it will lose energy. Magnets do not lose energy keeping up their magnetic field. I thought this was the very problem one tried to solve by using virtual photons?
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Reviewer, Experienced player
(969)
Joined: 4/17/2004
Posts: 3107
Location: Sweden
Bobo the King wrote:
Photons do mediate the electromagnetic force. ... There is no definite distinction between real and virtual photons, although we can make a few arbitrary distinctions:
• "Real" photons are observable, virtual ones are not. This criterion is the closest we can come to a definite distinction between the two, since it's what we mean (in practical terms) when we say a photon is real/virtual. If you observed its effects directly, it's real. If neither you nor anyone else observed it directly, it was virtual.
• Real photons last a (relatively) long time, virtual ones pop in and out of existence quickly. That's why we are able to observe them-- they last long enough to reach our eyes.
• Real photons travel (relatively) long distances, virtual photons travel short distances before disappearing. This can be deduced by using the speed of light and the previous point.
1) If virtual photons (or other virtual particles) cannot be observed directly or indirectly, is there any reason at all to assume that they exist? (What's stopping anyone from saying "virtual UFOs really exist, they just cannot be directly or indirectly observed"?)
2 and 3) The magnetic force has infinite range. How can it be mediated by virtual particles, if they last a short time and do not travel infinitely far?
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Reviewer, Experienced player
(969)
Joined: 4/17/2004
Posts: 3107
Location: Sweden
netwizard wrote:
Do you have any progress? What are you working on at the moment? Make a video of level 1-1 please, just for me, it won't take much time I suppose? I'm dying to see how much improvement this fire-punch pattern trick and maybe some other tricks you must have found give. Please?
Sorry netwizard. RT-55J has college like he said, and I started working full-time again after being on parental leave before. I only got as far as past the first screen lock in 1-1. I can upload it but it's not too different from RT-55J's test movie, 42 frames ahead.
I will pick it up again some time in the future. If anyone else wants to give it a stab in the meantime, feel free. I can give you access to everything we have so far (tricks, damage calculations, frame data, etc.)
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Reviewer, Experienced player
(969)
Joined: 4/17/2004
Posts: 3107
Location: Sweden
feos wrote:
1. Should difficulty be exclusively mentioned as a branch or just as a movie tag?
2. Also, how about starring this movie?
1. No idea.
2. I considered this.
It has a lot going for it. Lots of action, supposed to be impossible, obviously impressive shooting, crazy bullet hell bosses. The major point against it (which some people also pointed out) is that the constant piledrivers can get a bit repetitive, and might seem cheap, and it's hard to see what's going on. I considered that maybe my fandom of the game was clouding my judgment, so I didn't set it to star, but I'm glad the discussion came up.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Reviewer, Experienced player
(969)
Joined: 4/17/2004
Posts: 3107
Location: Sweden
As I already said in the topic for this game, this TAS is amazing. Impossible joke difficulties are great for TASes. I vote YES, of course.
One thing which perhaps should be mentioned in the submission text is that the Ice weapon blocks enemy shots, which is how you manage to beat the UFO without taking damage.
Aqfaq wrote:
Looks like the bodycount almost equals the framecount.
The game helpfully lists the number of killed enemies at the end of the run. While the kills are not quite as many as the frames, it is still over 7 enemies killed per second, including menus and cutscenes. :O I'm pretty sure that's a record.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Reviewer, Experienced player
(969)
Joined: 4/17/2004
Posts: 3107
Location: Sweden
Tseralith wrote:
Aaaand here it is! The conclusion of Hyper Princess Pitch and the fight with the "impossible" Mecha Santa, on the "impossible" difficulty Reallyjoel's Mom.
Before you ask, yes you can skip the cutscenes. I just wished to keep them in for this particular video, though the one I'll submit will skip them all.
Heh, I chuckled at the screen in disbelief when the Mecha Santa fight started and he did his Multi Hand Storm. It might not be impossible but it's surely "impossible".
Great work on this in any case. I loved it! :)
Do you want to skip the ending cutscene so you can type in your name faster? Is there any meaningful content after typing in your name? To me, it seems that the run could be stopped after you deliver the last hit to Mecha Santa, which means that the ending could be included in the encode.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Reviewer, Experienced player
(969)
Joined: 4/17/2004
Posts: 3107
Location: Sweden
So, back to discussing the game which this thread is actually about:
Tseralith, any progress on the last stage? When can we hope to see a completed run?
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Reviewer, Experienced player
(969)
Joined: 4/17/2004
Posts: 3107
Location: Sweden
feos wrote:
- Maximum weapon level is 6. The strongest is green, but it flies by 1 (maximum charge damages 144 hp). Red is weaker, but flies by 3 on higher levels. Blue is just some kind of trolling.
Unless I messed up in my measurements earlier, the strongest weapon is actually red, both in normal damage and charge damage. This is true for all weapon levels except for charged red 3. That however depends on all projectiles hitting. If you are attacking a distant target, green is better.
The blue weapon blows, yeah. I think the idea of the blue weapon was that it should be weaker but have shorter charge time, so it's not completely trolling you.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Reviewer, Experienced player
(969)
Joined: 4/17/2004
Posts: 3107
Location: Sweden
Derakon wrote:
Radiant wrote:
This is possibly our first TAS for a game difficulty mode that's designed to be utterly impossible?
Adelikat did a TAS of Reallyjoel's Dad mode in Hero Core, which sticks you in a room with every single boss in the game active simultaneously. I don't think it got submitted for publication though.
That was nitsuja, actually. Post: http://tasvideos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11376#276482
Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFvOzLX-bm4
He made a TAS of the full game too, which I can't find on Youtube. Not sure why they weren't submitted.
But yeah, Hero Core in Reallyjoel's Dad mode is a good example of another difficulty level which is intended to be impossible.
sack-bot wrote:
Is it just me, or is suplexing overpowered?
It's indeed a very good move: it both makes you invincible to most bullets, but also instant-kills whatever walks into you. The downside however is that you need to stop firing to perform it, and you remain stationary while it's being performed. This makes you very vulnerable, especially if you miss your intended target. So under normal conditions, this still isn't nearly enough to get through more than one or two rooms in ReallyJoel's Mom difficulty.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Reviewer, Experienced player
(969)
Joined: 4/17/2004
Posts: 3107
Location: Sweden
So, this game has a glitch where you can skip the sewer level by using the horn at the start to clip to the end. It was used in this years AGDQ.
Movie here, at about 2:34:30
http://www.twitch.tv/speeddemosarchivesda/b/493913706
Movie link is maybe temporary, but the runner mentions that it's also up on Youtube somewhere.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Reviewer, Experienced player
(969)
Joined: 4/17/2004
Posts: 3107
Location: Sweden
Zarmakuizz wrote:
While training myself in War Queen difficulty (this TAS made me try the game), I noticed that Stage 1's map miss a row under the "boss row".
Right you are, thanks for letting me know. I updated the map and the previous post, here is the new version:
http://postimg.org/image/48amtfmyr/
Looking forward to seeing how Mecha Santa can be tackled.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Reviewer, Experienced player
(969)
Joined: 4/17/2004
Posts: 3107
Location: Sweden
ars4326 wrote:
Lol, spelling my first name in Japanese was more natural than figuring out how to romanize "a-r-s" :D
Now that you mention it, I looked back over the 2nd stage and realized that I could likely take out one of the enemy Lords earlier with Scott (and POSSIBLY Zolum with good RNG manipulation and A.I. teamwork). I also didn't test whether or not Elwin and Hain could one-shot the Commanders while in the water...
I also restarted the run due to figuring out a faster method of taking out the first Commander with Elwin in Stage 1. This, and other small improvements, saved me about 250 frames.
edit: I believe I've found another possible improvement in S1, which would save me about another 280 frames. This would really require some RNG juggling to make happen, but I'm going to give it a shot!
エイ・アール・エス :) It wouldn't fit anyway.
Good luck with the restart!
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Reviewer, Experienced player
(969)
Joined: 4/17/2004
Posts: 3107
Location: Sweden
ars4326 wrote:
Things are going smooth since I've picked the project back up. While battle manipulations aren't as "random" as Warsong, I'm still able to get the kills that I need (as long as my attack power is high enough). 'Player' attack phases and dialogue boxes still give me frame-by-frame manipulation in determining battle outcomes, which is a big plus. And I'm LOVING the enhanced speed this game has; along with the ability to have battle animations turned off.
Progress should be steady from here on out. I already have a rough idea of the people I want to focus on, and their particular classes towards the end.
I'm guessing killing all the soldiers instead of going directly for the commanders in the second stage is for leveling purposes?
I am also guessing I now know what a in ars stands for. :)
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Reviewer, Experienced player
(969)
Joined: 4/17/2004
Posts: 3107
Location: Sweden
oneeighthundred wrote:
IIRC, Mortal Kombat always registers one player's actions first, and attacks will interrupt the next player, so it's not possible to do simultaneous attacks.
Hmm, really? I must be misremembering then, or perhaps I am thinking about MK2. In any case, projectiles can hit both players simultaneously. But blocking is probably a better option like you said. Even normal attacks do chip damage, so it should be easy to manipulate it from the enemy.
