Emulator Coder, Published Author, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3602)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4739
Location: Tennessee
I'll add that when judging a doom submission, the movie is replayed in native doom (typically by running Doom in DosBox) as part of the verification process. If the movie were to exploit modifications/features of prboom for instance, it would not play back in an unmodified doom.
I'm aware that this doesn't particularly address any of your questions.
Emulator Coder, Published Author, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3602)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4739
Location: Tennessee
You might be unaware of its existence because...it doesn't exist.
The newcomer tag is a tag, not a tier. Notice for instance, that all publications tagged with it are in the Star tier in addition to being TAGGEd as recommended for newcomers.
Emulator Coder, Published Author, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3602)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4739
Location: Tennessee
For anyone curious as to why certain genres are not vaultable.
Our reasoning when creating the vault was that we want to set a limit on triviality. However, the vault needs to be minimally subjective. Rather than just have "must be non-trivial" and us argue about it endlessly for all eternity we attempted to put as many non-subjective rules in there to minimize how often that would be a problem.
Most board game speedruns are trivial. No matter how many times Warp argues otherwise, I assure you it is. I could do a NES battle chess or chessmaster TAS in a matter of 15 minutes or so.
There are exceptions to rules. However, the thinking is that if the game were non-trivial, wouldn't it have some entertainment value? (The minimum requirement for moons isn't very high). So we are only talking about the subset of TASes that are not too trivial but not entertaining enough for moons. That's a small intersection, and one that to me is an acceptable causality if it means the vault being quiet and non-subjective.
All this was about the vault rule, not about a new tier, but yeah, I thought this was a good place to post this information.
Emulator Coder, Published Author, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3602)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4739
Location: Tennessee
Warp wrote:
IMO the current tiers should be about game completions, and this new tier (if it's created) can be free of such requirement. It clarifies things, and makes it much easier to say "this goes to the demo tier".
Said tier could thus also host runs of games that have no clearly defined ending or completion.
To be clear, you are proposing a change to the moon and star tiers not stating the way they have been.
Emulator Coder, Published Author, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3602)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4739
Location: Tennessee
I think my point is being indirectly addressed.
The difficulty here is, what movies are "showcases" that are NOT "moons" and what criteria do we have for judges and audience to distinguish them?
Warps point is interesting. Right now Vault has the "must complete the game" criteria.
However, moons (and stars) do not have this verbage, they simply need to be entertaining TASes. As such, playaround type movies are published in Moons (or stars).
We could require game completion on Moons and Stars, then showcases would have a clear differentiation. Or, all showcases are just moons anyway so what's the point. I'm not seeing other options here.
Emulator Coder, Published Author, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3602)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4739
Location: Tennessee
My concern based on reading the current proposal is with judging. How is a run deemed a "Showcase" and NOT a "Moon" (Let's assume there was a case where one had a lot of yes votes and got good viewer response).
I think distinguishing between Vault and Showcase could be solved by simply adding a rule that a showcase movie must NOT be vault eligible.
Emulator Coder, Published Author, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3602)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4739
Location: Tennessee
jlun2 wrote:
Hey I found another way to do the above crash from my post, this time without TAS Studios.
1. Open BizHawk
2. Open a ROM
3. Make a movie
4. Advance one frame
5. Make a savestate
6. Advance another frame
7. Change to read only
8. Load savestate
9. Change to write mode and back to read only
10. Advance a frame
Emulator Coder, Published Author, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3602)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4739
Location: Tennessee
I think punchout games are the exception to the rule (I can't think of any other games that meet this criteria) in that in-game time is the only one that should matter.
Real time is meaningless in those games, and nobody (TAS or realtime) strives for it, even as an alternate goal. Not to mention aiming for realtime creates a more trivial and less impressive TAS.
And imo, my clock stopping glitch run should be vaulted.
For a vast majority of games this isn't the case though. I think it should be on a case by case basis, where it rarely is the case.
Emulator Coder, Published Author, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3602)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4739
Location: Tennessee
This is a really cool idea, and I think it has a lot of intriguing possibilities for emulator development as well as RTA verification. a RTA attempt submitted as an input file would definitely give it more validity, and can be scrutinized more.
Emulator Coder, Published Author, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3602)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4739
Location: Tennessee
Zord wrote:
This TAS thing is pretty cool, but apparently it also destroys competing on normal games
I think this thread does a good job at debunking this common myth (well, used to be common, I haven't the argument in quite some time).
If you notice, TASing and TASing techniques are not a significant resource for cheating in realtime Speedrunning. If you want to cheat, there are more effective ways than using what we do.
Emulator Coder, Published Author, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3602)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4739
Location: Tennessee
hegyak wrote:
Give it a star and obsolete the Warpless.
I couldn't disagree more.
This run has some amazing moments, all of which will also be in a warpless improvement. This movie validates the original reasoning of doing warpless as opposed to 100%. The vast majority of the content added by this category are levels where the authors struggle to provide entertaining content (and give up and order a pizza <_<).
This is a cool run, I enjoyed it, and we can publish it. But I think the warpless is more entertaining overall, and a better category choice, obsoleting it would be a bummer.
Also, how much time would it have cost to get 99 lives? The time it takes to get a leaf, and take some damage? Given this is a 100% category anyway, surely this is a worthy sacrifice of entertainment for some major style points
Emulator Coder, Published Author, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3602)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4739
Location: Tennessee
You re-encoding anything is not necessary. Our publishers are going to make their own publication encode either way, and will adhere to strict standards as to when to end the encode. Providing your own encode when submitting is great, but adhering to those same standards isn't necessary.
Emulator Coder, Published Author, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3602)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4739
Location: Tennessee
Truncated wrote:
feos wrote:
14256 is the frame where the ending song first loop ends.
But here rises a question: should we use that for all Doom submissions? It's not easy for the author to figure out the exact length, I did it by trimming the dump at different frames and comparing.
Neither way is consistent:
1) Cutting the movie at the last input doesn't allow the demo viewers to see the ending, and forces the publisher to extent the demo just to encode the ending. But it's the best practice regarding the site's time calculations.
2) Including the entire ending might be hard for the runners.
3) Including only a part of it just feels wrong.
(I numbered the options.)
I think option 1 is the best. We want to make it as easy as possible for players. Most of them are not regulars at TASvideos, and we already have a wall of rules which makes it hard for newcomers to join. It is better to make extra work for encoders (or, realistically, me, since I am the only one who answered the call to edit the movie).
In the publication description, put a note along the lines of "Note: The encode has been extended to include the full ending music. This is not present if you play back the movie in Doom."
Just wanted to go on record in saying I 100% agree with everything in this post.
Emulator Coder, Published Author, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3602)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4739
Location: Tennessee
Hâthor wrote:
zeromus wrote:
Hathor, reboot.
Still the same :/
I tried to use Process Monitor but it doesn't help me as much as i expected...
Your error message mentions Jabo. Jabo is the one thing in BizHawk that currently uses directx (it is a closed source plugin, we have no choice about that). Did you by chance update or uninstall directx since it last worked?
Try other N64 video plugins and see if that changes anything.
Emulator Coder, Published Author, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3602)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4739
Location: Tennessee
andypanther wrote:
Having a computer platform with various, not necessarily compatible sub-platforms similar to the Gameboy, seems like the best idea to me.
We don't do this with game boy? We separate it to GB, GBC, SGB, and GBA.
Maybe you are thinking about the fact that we combine these lists when we put a link on the Movies page? If we made the system "DOOM" we could easily make a combined link on the page.
I know realize people maybe getting confused with giving a publication a particular system id, and what GROUPS of systems we combine when making a link on a wiki page.
