Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(758)
Joined: 9/29/2008
Posts: 964
Location: 🇫🇷 France
After enough tries, I had come to the same conclusion as to the cause of the problem -- the wider hitbox.
By "enough tries" I mean I actually tried varying the X pixel and subpixel position before and after entering the wall (the former by changing Tail's speed/jumping here and there, the latter by jumping inside the wall), scanning the whole range of possible combinations -- and even going once with a spindash, once without, for each pixel/subpixel combination.
I really think can't Sonic can do it :-)
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(758)
Joined: 9/29/2008
Posts: 964
Location: 🇫🇷 France
I have seen the Tails version of that video some time ago; however, I didn't know that it was possible with Knuckles. All my attempts of replicating with Sonic + Tails failed (I manage to get Sonic up in the wall, but I failed every time to zip past the left edge of the wall). But I will try some more, maybe it will work.
Edit: Same thing: I can get Sonic and Tails both onto the wall and I can zip Tails past the left edge of the screen, but Sonic always loses all speed just after he gets out past the left edge of the wall.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(758)
Joined: 9/29/2008
Posts: 964
Location: 🇫🇷 France
Yes, if Upthorn and Nitsuja are OK with it. The thing is, I think that posting it for some consideration before submitting is better form than submitting it outright.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(758)
Joined: 9/29/2008
Posts: 964
Location: 🇫🇷 France
Here is an updated version of the Sonic + Tails Any% run. It improves Marble Garden 1 (to 0:30::29, a 0:6::52 improvement), Carnival Night 2 (to 0:42::11, a 0:26::42 improvement) and Launch Base 1 (to 0:37::41, a 0:18::38 improvement). Some lag and luck differences reduce the frame by a further few frames, while a good ~6 seconds are lost in real time due to the Carnival Night 2 score tally; the net result is an improvement of 2784 frames in the movie (0:46::24).
Edit: Forgot to mention: The shortcut in Marble Garden 1 is due to "Mr Sweed", while the shortcut in Launch Base 1 is due to Orkal.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(758)
Joined: 9/29/2008
Posts: 964
Location: 🇫🇷 France
The "correct" category would, of course, be "100% completion"; I do not think it should obsolete the Knuckles run.
mmbossman wrote:
I have not watched this, but were a run submitted that utilized SRAM, I would probably find it much more entertaining and publication worthy.
Before making any decisions taking the "New Game+" idea in account, please remember that, at its present state, GMV movies cannot contain embedded SRAM or save states. Such movies can start from a save state, but that save state must be shipped with the movie and extracted to the correct position or the movie won't work.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(758)
Joined: 9/29/2008
Posts: 964
Location: 🇫🇷 France
The prejudice of programmers regarding Hungarian notation came about due to overuse of it. The Windows API is a notorious offender, but there are many other notable cases (one example, given by the Wikipedia article, being a variable named "a_crszkvc30LastNameCol"). Hungarian notation can get so bad that it is one of the "weapons" suggested in the (humorous) article "How To Write Unmaintainable Code".
Finally, there is also the case that variables may change their type over the course of a program's life (maybe because the programmer found a more efficient/faster data storage method), but the overall concept remains the same (and with the same semantics), forcing the programmer to replace all instances of the prefixed name with the new prefix.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(758)
Joined: 9/29/2008
Posts: 964
Location: 🇫🇷 France
arflech wrote:
Also the ANSI-C version of Bisqwit's code can at least be compiled into a much smaller executable with TCC; I got 3KB with TCC, while compiling the C++ programs with GCC (TCC does not support C++) and then compressing with UPX yielded half a megabyte.
Did you remember to strip the executable when compiling with GCC (pass a -s option in the command line or run strip on the executable)? That is a common mistake which results in executables that are larger than needed, as GCC includes some debugging information by default.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(758)
Joined: 9/29/2008
Posts: 964
Location: 🇫🇷 France
moozooh wrote:
I really don't see how it's wrong to publish two encodes with this in mind.
Having two encodes, one of which uses the script, is entirely different from having it published as a single encode using the script (as klmz suggested). I object to the latter (as does adelikat and Kles, if I understood them correctly): the published version should be uncut. Having a secondary encode, that removing the special stages (and maybe score tallies), being linked to at the run's page is a different matter. Even then, I would prefer to modify the script so that it removes only special stages, (possibly) the score tallies and (maybe) the Hyper Sonic flashing.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(758)
Joined: 9/29/2008
Posts: 964
Location: 🇫🇷 France
adelikat wrote:
Even more so at the idea of publishing it in such a state.
I strongly agree with that statement: please sternly reject any suggestions or "demands" about chopping up the run like that for eventual publication.
Edit: A clarification: I'd rather that the run end up not being published than see it published chopped up with that script; the main publication should, by all means, be the entire uncut version of the run.
adelikat wrote:
If a movie needs a lua script to remove boring content, that sounds like a good candidate for rejection, not special modification.
The main issue in this case are the special stages: they comprise about half the run's length (some 25-27 minutes all told), and they are boring no matter what is done to make them fun. However, there is nothing that can be done about it other than not doing a 100% run... which is a goal of the run, hence cannot be done in this case.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(758)
Joined: 9/29/2008
Posts: 964
Location: 🇫🇷 France
True wrote:
I've seen this run twice, so feel less inclined to watch again... What was changed?
Very little: there was a horizontal position underflow at the very beginning of Lava Reef 1 which was removed. The run is identical up to the point where the fire shield monitor pushes Sonic into the ground, at the end of Lava Reef 1, and it is identical after I finish manipulating Sonic's position at the start of Lava Reef 2 (about 0:00:45 or so in in-game time, IIRC).
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(758)
Joined: 9/29/2008
Posts: 964
Location: 🇫🇷 France
mmbossman wrote:
Just going off of what was said here. If this does prove to be true, the best solution I can think of is to hex in a version of the act in question without the underflow present. That way the goals will remain intact, and this run will have a much greater chance of being published.
The hex-edited version is ready (available here). Should I PM it to one of the admins, and if so who would be the best to send to?
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(758)
Joined: 9/29/2008
Posts: 964
Location: 🇫🇷 France
mike89 wrote:
I've been one of the more vocal detractors of your goals in IRC, not so much in the topic, because it enables you to hide behind "you get to see more of the level" when really you still don't see much of it at all.
See, *this* is valid criticism of the goals! For what is worth, when I have enough time to start working on a full Hyper Sonic run, I will probably revise this run to eliminate that goal.
mike89 wrote:
And if we want to get technical about it, you actually underflowed the horizontal position at the start of Lava Reef 2. Whoops!
Hehe, so someone *did* notice it :-)
As for the warning: maybe something along the lines of this:
Warning: The awesomeness of Hyper Sonic may hurt your eyes or trigger seizures on susceptible people.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(758)
Joined: 9/29/2008
Posts: 964
Location: 🇫🇷 France
Nicos wrote:
should it stay alongside the 100% knuckles run or should it obselete it ?
I'd say stand alongside it; the runs are different enough to warrant that, I'd say.
Nicos wrote:
second question is: since knuckles isn't used, shouldn't the run be on the "simple" sonic 3 rom and not on the sonic & knuckles + sonic 3 one ?
Using Knuckles or not isn't the determining factor here; the levels after Launch Base are from Sonic & Knuckles; these levels, plus the Super Emeralds (and Hyper Sonic, by extension) can only be reached from the composite ("locked-on") rom.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(758)
Joined: 9/29/2008
Posts: 964
Location: 🇫🇷 France
DrJones wrote:
Voted no for using a random set of goals.
No offense, but I like to ask you what is it that you see as "random" in the goals: they are essentially "no death", the set of "standard" Sonic TAS goals, 100% completion and "no warp from start to end of levels". And even "no death" is present in most of the Sonic TASes.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(758)
Joined: 9/29/2008
Posts: 964
Location: 🇫🇷 France
Andypro wrote:
I was initially thinking of giving this a "meh" vote because I noted several things that were suboptimal - mostly toward the beginning of the run in angel island and hydrocity.
You do know that this (along with what points you think were suboptimal in those levels) is exactly the kind of feedback that would have been useful when I was posting wips at the other thread, right?
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(758)
Joined: 9/29/2008
Posts: 964
Location: 🇫🇷 France
Solon wrote:
I disagree with the second goal on the grounds that it leaves a little too much room for skipping "most" of an act without skipping the whole thing. Flying Battery 2 and Sky Sanctuary come to mind.
This restriction is the one that best fits the "glitch categories" without being too arbitrary: it is essentially "everything is OK but teleporting from start to end of level". This is what makes these two levels you mention so annoying, actually... they are borderline cases (being "mostly" skipped), and I expect them to draw most of the fire in this regard. The Lava Reef 2 boss can be added to the list of borderline cases -- but since the last one is essentially 2 minutes of dull, repetitive gameplay, I don't expect anyone to actually complain about it...
Now, what exactly could be done to "fix" those borderline cases?
Well, Sky Sanctuary can only be "fixed" by an arbitrary choice -- no abuse of vertical screen wrapping. Such a restriction would force the revision of Marble Garden 1 and IceCap 1. That or the even more arbitrary choice of disallowing it only for Sky Sanctuary.
Likewise, Flying Battery 2 can be "fixed" in one of two arbitrary ways: no wall zipping or disallowing the "anti-gravity" glitch. The latter is an arbitrary choice whose sole effect is to double the length of Flying Battery 2. It is arbitrary because, without Tails around, it is the *only* level where it is possible -- so I might as well be more honest about the effect of this restriction and simply express it as "do not skip most of Flying Battery 2".
As for disallowing wall zipping in full: I might as well throw the run away and start over -- there are zips in 13 out of the 24 acts where zipping is possible (although since zips would not be helpful in Hiddden Palace or Sky Sanctuary, so you might want to see it as 13 out of 22 acts). And if I were to start over, I would eliminate the restriction on overflowing the x position instead of disallowing wall zipping. So yeah, not going to happen.
In the end, the restriction on overflowing of the x position leaves some possibilities of abuse open, but it keeps some worse abuses at bay. And it is far less arbitrary than other restrictions that could be used to "fix" Sky Sanctuary and Flying Battery 2.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(758)
Joined: 9/29/2008
Posts: 964
Location: 🇫🇷 France
New WIP. IceCap 1 is down to 1:19::34 (improvement of 68 frames) and Doomsday is down to 1:34::56 (improvement of 16 frames). Flying Battery 2 desynched, leading to a 1-frame increase in timer to correct.
I will see about submitting it next weekend, unless someone can see somewhere I could improve the run; everything else I tried failed (of decreased one act's time at the expense of a bigger increase of the next act's time).
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(758)
Joined: 9/29/2008
Posts: 964
Location: 🇫🇷 France
GreenaLink wrote:
Unless I'm mistaken, I can see an improvement to the Sonic And Tails Low% Run.
Yes, I already spliced the improvement. I will re-do it because I noticed the version of Carnival Night 2 that I spliced is suboptimal, but that exact video you linked to was linked in this post. I found it out pretty much the same way as you did, BTW.
Edward_Tohr wrote:
And Youtube'd.
Strictly speaking, you are jumping the gun; I still think that there may be improvements here and there (though I don't anticipate them being much dramatic).
(emphasis added). Care to take a guess as to how many of the claims in the articles you linked to have been rebutted -- years ago -- in that link I had posted earlier?
nfq wrote:
it might seem contradictory, but it's not. in the beginning the bible also says that men and women were created at the same time, but later it says that eve was created later (from the rib). that's not a contradiction either, if you understand it.
My point was that a literal interpretation is impossible. If you hand-wave the contradiction in any way (as you do), then you have proved my point -- you are not interpreting it literally. The very fact that there is need for apologetics shows that the bible cannot be literally true -- not all of it. And if at least part of it is false (including the passages you alleged were "written by the devil" -- you then get stuck in the guessing game of trying to find what, if anything, is true.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(758)
Joined: 9/29/2008
Posts: 964
Location: 🇫🇷 France
New WIP. Levels changed are Hidrocity 2 (down to 0:58::42; finally found the right combination to skip Knuckles more efficiently), Marble Garden 2 (reduced by 1 frame, but I have no clue how or why -- changing Hidrocity 2 did that), Launch Base 1(1:36::41, more efficient shortcut), Launch Base 2 (desynched due to changes in Launch Base 1, re-playing it reduced 3 frames), Flying Battery 1 (1:20::42, new shortcut), Flying Battery 2 (1:16::47, improved zip at start, improved skipping of Robotnik), Doomsday (desynched due to above changes, reduced by 6 frames). Note that, for Doomsday, I am using the time when the timer stops -- not the time of last hit.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(758)
Joined: 9/29/2008
Posts: 964
Location: 🇫🇷 France
nfq wrote:
if you believe in evolution, then you also have to believe that life started from non-living matter.
I submit that anyone that believes in the bible must believe that life was created from non-living matter. Adam, for example, was created from mud and some hocus pocus.
nfq wrote:
science doesn't always require proof. look at the theory of big bang and evolution for example.
Let me see:
marzojr wrote:
Here are a few relevant articles (and series of articles): 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution, [...]. Not that I think you will read any of them or that they will change your mind.
(emphasis added) QED.
To that link, I will add this: Evidence for the Big Bang, along with the same prediction (BTW, stock creationist arguments get stock replies).
Warp wrote:
As I said, nobody takes the bible literally. Every single person has an interpretation of it. There's no such a thing as a "biblical literalist". There are only interpretations.
I will also submit that anyone that claims to interpret the bible literally must pick and chose what parts he is going to interpret literally and what parts he must discard or hand-wave or explain away. Why? Well, already in genesis there are two different, irreconcilable accounts of creation: they differ by chronology, giving different temporal orders for the creation of man and animals. They cannot both be true: man cannot have been created before and after animals were created. Hence, creationists must pick which they believe is the correct one and which will be hand-waved away with unhealthy doses of apologetics.
Warp wrote:
nfq wrote:
the bible says that animals bring forth after their kind
Where exactly?
It is not like it really matters; "kind" is rather vague in the bible, opening the way for creationists to interpret it as meaning "anything that makes evolution false": some "kinds" compose single species, others compose whole genera, with any given kind changing to be broader as a speciation event happens. This "fluidity" of kinds is important, make note of it.
But the kicker is that the bible does not state anywhere that the "kinds" are fixed; that comes from Plato. "Kinds" changing over time would be entirely consistent with evolution, removing one anti-evolution argument from the table: consider how fluid the concept is to creationists already (see, I said it was important...).
I was already familiar with that website, being one of those I found a few years back when I was looking into evolution (funnily enough, creationists have been helpful to science in some regards). The reason I didn't mention it is because it is factually incorrect; it oversimplifies and misstates scientific positions and knowledge, and then attacks the resulting strawman; it uses and reuses known discredited claims, painting them with new colors and hoping nobody will notice -- and even pro-creationist bastions such as Answers in Genesis, Creation Ministries International and Creation Wiki disavow the arguments used in TrueOrigins. Some of the claims have been discredited for years, and on the "black lists" mentioned for years before the argument was used in a TrueOrigin article was written. But they still wrote and posted the articles nevertheless.
Moreover, the integrity and honesty (or the lack or either, thereof) of the TrueOrigin folks can be seen directly by the way they creatively edit FAQ questions supposedly taken verbatim.
nfq wrote:
i doubt it would be an impossibility. scientists are not infallible. they are just humans.
It is exactly because they are just humans that it is impossible. Consider that scientists are not only encouraged to be skeptical of claims of others (including other scientists), but actually get famous for proving other scientists wrong. Factor in that you have scientists of all countries, and from all ethnic and religious backgrounds. Consider that many of them would oppose anything said by US scientists just because they are american, and would jump at any and all chances of proving them wrong. Result: persistent, systemic lies in science are impossible. Certainly not spanning over 150 years.
In creationism, on the other hand, they are possible: in particular, the idea that "evolution is on the verge of collapse" has been around for almost as long as evolution itself. And it is no more true now than it was 150 years ago.
nfq wrote:
I fixed that for you.
When he lumps together everything that has "evolution" in the name he is being dishonest: "evolution", in science, generally means "change over time". In the biological context, it means how life changes. In other contexts it means different things. Moreover, biological evolution presupposes the existence of life -- once life exists, it will change as described in evolution. To say otherwise is ignorance or dishonesty.
Moreover, neither he nor any other creationist ever tried to lump "temporal evolution" in with all the other "evolutions", despite it being an important concept in physics. I guess it is because they know it would destroy their argument by showing how silly it is...
The comment is highly misleading, being an evolution-sprinkling strawman itself: cosmic evolution != big bang, "chemical evolution" != nucleosynthesis, "organic evolution" != abiogenesis, "kind" = biblical term with no real life equivalent.
While cosmic evolution exists and is studied scientifically, it includes the big bang theory, and others, but the big bang theory does not depend on it. The big bang theory is a consequence of physical law (General Relativity) and is testable -- it has been used to predict the cosmic microwave background radiation field before it was detected. So the comment was wrong about this.
Nucleosynthesis has been observed in the real world (nuclear reactors, particle accelerators, the Sun) and its mechanisms are well understood from quantum physics. Moreover, the Big Bang nucleosynthesis theory predicts, with good accuracy, the relative abundances of hydrogen and helium atoms directly from physical laws. So the comment was wrong about it as well.
Stellar and planetary formation and evolution are based on the physical laws and observed in the Universe at large. There are stars in all stages of formation around the Universe, and their properties can be accounted for with current models of stellar interior -- properties such as luminosity, color, radiant spectrum, etc. So, yeah, the comment was wrong again. What a shocker.
Abiogenesis is still in its infancy. It is based on physical and chemical laws, and has proven some interesting things about self-replicating molecules. Also, the formation of organic compounds by inorganic compounds has been observed in controlled conditions -- the same kind of conditions which were previously predicted by the theory. See the pattern about the comment being wrong?
"Macroevolution" is a successive number of "microevolutionary" changes. It has been observed -- speciation, transitional fossils -- particularly when you factor in that "kind" is a meaningless term that sometimes lumps together species of entirely different genera. So the comments are 0 for 6.
