By default HL1 is limited to 100 FPS. It's not vsynced, so depending on the computer performance the FPS can go below, down to 0 (effectively 4 as FPS below 4 is treated as 4 by the game and isn't useful). The movement is generally faster the higher the FPS, so 100 FPS is optimal for the movement.
There's a massive difference between presenting an 8-minute movie and a 70-minute one.
The purest HL1 TAS would be using some kind of PCem environment, where the FPS would oscillate a bit just like on a real PC and without the ability to suddenly easily change it. However, the current optimal player movement calculation assumes the ability to control FPS exactly. Moreover, it's not clear at all how to adapt the optimal player movement calculation to the case of oscillating FPS which cannot be exactly controlled. Making a HL1 TAS without this optimal player movement calculation is unrealistic.
In-game time is acceptable, though it is explicitly a Moons goal. Tiering shouldn't be a problem with Melee, though, so no worries there.
Movies that aim for in-game time instead of real-time are only allowed for Vault if that goal makes game-play shorter. If optimizing for the in-game time makes actual game-play longer, such a movie is not eligible for Vault.
Thanks feos, but your answer appear contradictory to me. I'm not sure if it's because the term "actual gameplay" means something different than what I expect, or because I was unclear in the first place, so allow me to clarify the 2 routes. Route 1: Warp to the last level, then beat the final boss in 5 minutes. The ending cutscene cannot be interacted with and is 20 minutes long. Total AVI time after the initial warp: 25 minutes, Route 2: Warp to the last level as before, but then leave, take 15 minutes to make a massive detour halfway around the world to acquire a power-up, then glitch the game using said power-up to wrong warp to the final scene of the ending cutscene without defeating the final boss. The ending cutscene now ends almost immediately afterwards. Total AVI time after the initial warp: 15 minutes. As such, isn't route 1 containing less actual gameplay than route 2, thus invalidating route 2 for Vault even though the latter's AVI time is faster? I understand that input time vs interactive state time can both be considered "actual gameplay" and is a matter of opinion, but that logic doesn't apply in this case so I'm still confused here.
I only saw this submission once it was up on the TASVideos YouTube, but I have a lot to add about its optimization and planning. The briefest way I can summarize this run is that the planning it used was naive, or at least quite outdated as compared to current RTA strategies. This has a significant impact on the entire course of the run. For comparison, consider the current RTA record in the same category: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SrKeb3AlKU With a comparable route and further luck abuse I think a more optimized TAS could be about 10-15 minutes faster than this submission. I've listed some specific points for improvement below.
There's plenty more I can say, but with the above comments it should be clear that this run is not optimized, even to the best of current knowledge. This is a very tough game to optimize since there are so many decisions that have impacts throughout the run duration, but I would at least like to see the run be up-to-date with the current best known strategies, glitches, and movement. One last thing that I'd like to add is that the author should connect with the rest of the speedrunning community for this game if they'd like to improve this submission. As far as I know, despite being credited in the notes, myself and the active portion of the RTA communities were not consulted for this TAS which would have aided its quality and planning significantly. As it stands, it needs a full rework from beginning to end. That said, the few runners of this game have invested years in understanding all the different mechanics, time tradeoffs and otherwise. I'd really love to see what the limits of running this game are, and am happy to provide my knowledge towards that, but this run is not it.
Hello, I am a Sonic TASer and I have a question. More obsolete runs were found, so may I ask can me and Shiro take time to obsolete our run.
[13:40:10] <TASVideoAgent> Submission #6956: crazyjesse's NES Bio Hazard in 15:18.27 CANCELLED by crazyjesse: http://tasvideos.org/6956S.html
[13:40:12] <TASVideoAgent> Post edited by crazyjesse (Old: #6956: crazyjesse's NES Bio Hazard in 15:18.27): http://tasvideos.org/forum/p/501739#501739 [a:1]
[13:40:14] <TASVideoAgent> New reply by TASVideos Grue (Old: #6956: crazyjesse's NES Bio Hazard in 15:18.27): http://tasvideos.org/forum/p/502097#502097 [a:1]
[13:43:45] <TASVideoAgent> Submission #6956: crazyjesse's NES Bio Hazard in 15:18.27 ACCEPTED for Vault by ThunderAxe31: http://tasvideos.org/6956S.html
[13:43:47] <TASVideoAgent> Post edited by ThunderAxe31 (WorkB: #6956: crazyjesse's NES Bio Hazard in 15:18.27): http://tasvideos.org/forum/p/501739#501739 [a:10]
[13:44:00] <feos> um
[13:44:25] <TASVideoAgent> Post edited by crazyjesse (WorkB: #6956: crazyjesse's NES Bio Hazard in 15:18.27): http://tasvideos.org/forum/p/501739#501739 [a:10]
Probably a cool find, but we don't officially agree that it's enough to get the previous run obsoleted.
There are two basic opinions as to what kind of TAS ending is better:The author can tweak their movie's ending as a stylistic choice, even after it was accepted (but before it is published). However, a run looking to obsolete a published run needs to do more than just tweak the movie's ending, as we aim to avoid meaningless publications. A run with real improvements is free to use a different ending than previous movies did.
- Minimize input length, the game should reach a stage where it completes itself, no matter how long it takes.
- Game must be brought to a certain completion state as soon as possible, after which no normal game input can prevent the game from completing, even when this lengthens the movie file length considerably.
CD_path_var = file1.ext;file2.ext;file1.ext;file5.extTrue, doing it that way would allow more CDs. If we need to swap to a previous CD, we can just repeat the file path in the list.