Quake Contests

2009-07-21 12:17:40 am

Oh shit. I gotta check my demos >__> I'm still stuck on 3.015

2009-07-21 03:29:23 am

lag. check my demo for me will you.
for this demo I went to joequake software, lowest resolution, used picmip and mipscale commands.
judging from my demo I´m at medium 1.3 when I start.

Stubgaard

2009-07-21 03:32:47 am

Hey Ho Let's Go

If I run JoeQuake in software it crashes the instant I try to run wot.bsp, the same happens to Mandel.

I'm beginning to think I'm jinxed for this contest (slow starttime and not being able to run crappy software resolutions) ;-)

Stubgaard

Edit history:

Stubgaard: 2009-07-21 04:40:40 am

2009-07-21 03:52:52 am

Hey Ho Let's Go

I just ran a quick test to see what starttime/finishtime I would get with the different engines by just walking into the exit.

FINISHING TIME:

WinQuake - 0:05.29334
GLquakebjp - 0:05.33312
GLquake - 0:05.38251
JoeQuake-GL - 0:05.39774

The difference between WinQuake and JoeQuake-GL is .1! That's a lifetime for a run like this. Unfortunately JoeQuake Software crashes when I try to run wot.bsp as mentioned in my previous post, so I couldn't test that.

Lag: Can I get you to run the demos through lmpc and see what the actual starttimes are?

Attachment:

walkingdemos.zip

dex

2009-07-21 05:15:58 am

Invisible avatar

You don't need to use lmpc, demtool has the same option :P. Let me check it out...

Lag.Com

2009-07-21 05:16:58 am

sda loyalist

Player	Engine	Time
Relomy	winquake	1.31410813
Stubgaard	winquake	1.31874371
Relomy	joequake-gl	1.31885040
Lag.Com	joequake	1.32078755
Lag.Com	winquake	1.32390308
Stubgaard	glquakebjp	1.33320308
Lag.Com	joequake-gl	1.33496201
Lodis	joequake	1.33526790
Lag.Com	d3dquake	1.33712661
Rutger	?	1.34996331
Lag.Com	glquake	1.37468386
Stubgaard	glquake	1.38311446
Stubgaard	joequake-gl	1.39495251
Ajax	?	1.50608778

Seems like software beats hardware. By the way, that glquakebjp demo seems to have a ton of demo errors (or at least unrecognised fields) in it. Also, I think I just solved the 'Ann Ahl' mystery!

[table]
[tr][td][b]Player[/b][/td][td][b]Engine[/b][/td][td][b]Time[/b][/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Relomy[/td][td]winquake[/td][td]1.31410813[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Stubgaard[/td][td]winquake[/td][td]1.31874371[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Relomy[/td][td]joequake-gl[/td][td]1.31885040[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Lag.Com[/td][td]joequake[/td][td]1.32078755[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Lag.Com[/td][td]winquake[/td][td]1.32390308[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Stubgaard[/td][td]glquakebjp[/td][td]1.33320308[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Lag.Com[/td][td]joequake-gl[/td][td]1.33496201[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Lodis[/td][td]joequake[/td][td]1.33526790[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Lag.Com[/td][td]d3dquake[/td][td]1.33712661[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Rutger[/td][td]?[/td][td]1.34996331[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Lag.Com[/td][td]glquake[/td][td]1.37468386[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Stubgaard[/td][td]glquake[/td][td]1.38311446[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Stubgaard[/td][td]joequake-gl[/td][td]1.39495251[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Ajax[/td][td]?[/td][td]1.50608778[/td][/tr]
[/table]
Seems like software beats hardware. By the way, that glquakebjp demo seems to have a ton of demo errors (or at least unrecognised fields) in it. Also, I think I just solved the 'Ann Ahl' mystery!

dex

2009-07-21 05:20:58 am

Invisible avatar

Guess no need for me to post my results Roll Eyes

Stubgaard

2009-07-21 05:21:24 am

Hey Ho Let's Go

Quote from lag:

Player	Engine	Time
Stubgaard	winquake	1.31874371
Relomy	joequake(gl?)	1.31885040
Lag.Com	joequake	1.32078755
Lag.Com	winquake	1.32390308
Stubgaard	glquakebjp	1.33320308
Lag.Com	joequake-gl	1.33496201
Lodis	joequake	1.33526790
Lag.Com	d3dquake	1.33712661
Rutger	?	1.34996331
Lag.Com	glquake	1.37468386
Stubgaard	glquake	1.38311446
Stubgaard	joequake-gl	1.39495251
Ajax	?	1.50608778

Seems like software beats hardware. By the way, that glquakebjp demo seems to have a ton of demo errors (or at least unrecognised fields) in it. Also, I think I just solved the 'Ann Ahl' mystery!

Sickening how much difference there is between the engines!

So, care to spill the beans on the Ann Ahl mystery?

[quote="lag"]
[table]
[tr][td][b]Player[/b][/td][td][b]Engine[/b][/td][td][b]Time[/b][/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Stubgaard[/td][td]winquake[/td][td]1.31874371[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Relomy[/td][td]joequake(gl?)[/td][td]1.31885040[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Lag.Com[/td][td]joequake[/td][td]1.32078755[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Lag.Com[/td][td]winquake[/td][td]1.32390308[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Stubgaard[/td][td]glquakebjp[/td][td]1.33320308[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Lag.Com[/td][td]joequake-gl[/td][td]1.33496201[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Lodis[/td][td]joequake[/td][td]1.33526790[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Lag.Com[/td][td]d3dquake[/td][td]1.33712661[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Rutger[/td][td]?[/td][td]1.34996331[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Lag.Com[/td][td]glquake[/td][td]1.37468386[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Stubgaard[/td][td]glquake[/td][td]1.38311446[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Stubgaard[/td][td]joequake-gl[/td][td]1.39495251[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Ajax[/td][td]?[/td][td]1.50608778[/td][/tr]
[/table]
Seems like software beats hardware. By the way, that glquakebjp demo seems to have a ton of demo errors (or at least unrecognised fields) in it. Also, I think I just solved the 'Ann Ahl' mystery!
[/quote]

Sickening how much difference there is between the engines!

So, care to spill the beans on the Ann Ahl mystery?

Mandel

2009-07-21 05:27:17 am

Mumma

That's a mighty and weird table. But the differences are so "significant", at least for a short contest like this one. I suppose time varies between restarts of maps as well though?

I can't imagine that Jardrup's engine would produce a single error. I bet it's just that the demo uses a different protocol. Bengt himself has a tool to convert demos from various protocols, called ConvDem.

And do tell who Ann Ahl is! It sounds like a Swedish name (There seems to be 38 persons with that name in Sweden) but I think it's a joke by someone!

Lag.Com

2009-07-21 05:33:26 am

sda loyalist

Yeah, the start time varies by a little tiny bit in my retries, .001~.004 in most engines. Demos on say, menk.bsp are likely to have a further .1 penalty or something. You're probably right about the bjp thing. I guess lmpc is too old to recognise this newer format properly. It still parses enough of it to play, at least.

I think I'll let him come forward on his own. Roll Eyes

lolfu_

2009-07-21 07:13:33 am

uh. I may be missing something, but it doesn't really seem valid to compare demos on different clients on different computers.
A faster computer should have an advantage really, and get a faster start time...

Relomy

2009-07-21 07:34:08 am

sv nice

Quote from lag:

Player	Engine	Time
Stubgaard	winquake	1.31874371
Relomy	joequake(gl?)	1.31885040
Lag.Com	joequake	1.32078755
Lag.Com	winquake	1.32390308
Stubgaard	glquakebjp	1.33320308
Lag.Com	joequake-gl	1.33496201
Lodis	joequake	1.33526790
Lag.Com	d3dquake	1.33712661
Rutger	?	1.34996331
Lag.Com	glquake	1.37468386
Stubgaard	glquake	1.38311446
Stubgaard	joequake-gl	1.39495251
Ajax	?	1.50608778

Seems like software beats hardware. By the way, that glquakebjp demo seems to have a ton of demo errors (or at least unrecognised fields) in it. Also, I think I just solved the 'Ann Ahl' mystery!

Mine is JoeQuake-gl.

Here's a demo on WinQuake. The time isn't bad, but it isn't my best. I wonder how the starting times compare.

[quote="lag"]
[table]
[tr][td][b]Player[/b][/td][td][b]Engine[/b][/td][td][b]Time[/b][/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Stubgaard[/td][td]winquake[/td][td]1.31874371[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Relomy[/td][td]joequake(gl?)[/td][td]1.31885040[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Lag.Com[/td][td]joequake[/td][td]1.32078755[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Lag.Com[/td][td]winquake[/td][td]1.32390308[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Stubgaard[/td][td]glquakebjp[/td][td]1.33320308[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Lag.Com[/td][td]joequake-gl[/td][td]1.33496201[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Lodis[/td][td]joequake[/td][td]1.33526790[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Lag.Com[/td][td]d3dquake[/td][td]1.33712661[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Rutger[/td][td]?[/td][td]1.34996331[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Lag.Com[/td][td]glquake[/td][td]1.37468386[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Stubgaard[/td][td]glquake[/td][td]1.38311446[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Stubgaard[/td][td]joequake-gl[/td][td]1.39495251[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Ajax[/td][td]?[/td][td]1.50608778[/td][/tr]
[/table]
Seems like software beats hardware. By the way, that glquakebjp demo seems to have a ton of demo errors (or at least unrecognised fields) in it. Also, I think I just solved the 'Ann Ahl' mystery!
[/quote]

Mine is JoeQuake-gl.

Here's a demo on WinQuake.  The time isn't bad, but it isn't my best.  I wonder how the starting times compare.

Attachment:

wot_relomy_winquake.dem

Lag.Com

2009-07-21 08:42:48 am

sda loyalist

Predictably, slightly quicker start than Stubgaard's winquake.

Stubgaard

2009-07-22 03:30:57 am

Hey Ho Let's Go

dex solved my issue with not being able to run Quake properly in 72 fps. It turns out it gives me a .02 advantage in JoeQuake-GL as opposed to when I was running in 60 fps.

Stubgaard

2009-07-31 08:22:39 am

Hey Ho Let's Go

From the contest page:
http://speeddemosarchive.com/quake/contests/shamhell-revisit.html

19 entries, not bad! Even some oldtimers felt obliged to contribute to this contest. The competition was fierce, with Jozsef Szalontai claiming the grand prize, followed closely by Daniel Hansson and Adam Lewandowski. Only a sniff of air seperated top three (and the rest of the field for that matter). Rumors has it that someone recorded a 2.88, but we never received that demo, unfortunately.

It wasn't intentional by any means, but it soon became apparent this contest would turn into a hard-fought duel based on the different Quake engines. It seems WinQuake had the edge by a small margin compared to, say, JoeQuake. We're talking tenths of a second - which normally doesn't sound like a whole lot - but for a short run like this, it's the difference between success and failure. Some would claim a bit of unfairness is involved in this contest - and we agree - so that's why we've divided the tables into three categories based on the finishing time, the duration of the demo, and the start-time (when the demo starts recording). The time that truly counts is the finishing time though, and we've based the results on that.

* Download all the demos (.zip format): http://speeddemosarchive.com/quake/contests/demos/wot-revisit.zip - 5.2 MB
* A video of the winning demo in "insane quality" (.mp4 format): http://speeddemosarchive.com/quake/videos/wot_jozsef_iq.mp4 - 2.8 MB
* High quality video (.mp4 format): http://speeddemosarchive.com/quake/videos/wot_jozsef_hq.mp4 - 1.1 MB
* ...and low quality video (.mp4 format): http://speeddemosarchive.com/quake/videos/wot_jozsef.mp4 - 287 KB

Results : Finishing Time (exit)

RANK	PLAYER	TIME
01.	Jozsef Szalontai	0:02.9184
02.	Daniel Hansson	0:02.9222
03.	Adam Lewandowski	0:02.9439
04.	Thomas Bergendorff	0:02.9466
05.	Pif de Mestre	0:02.9508
06.	Mathias Thore	0:02.9606
07.	Thomas Stubgaard	0:02.9627
08.	Karol Urbanski	0:02.9667
09.	Paul Davies	0:02.9723
10.	Mattias Öman	0:02.9831
11.	Rutger Baks	0:02.9833
12.	Flavio Quadros	0:02.9983
13.	Jaakko Alakopsa	0:03.0187
14.	Rui Neto	0:03.0337
15.	Mads Peter Stubgaard	0:03.1315
16.	Laurent Mertens	0:03.1476
17.	Anders Nordensten	0:03.2003
18.	Marek Bartoszek	0:03.2161
19.	Philip Chute	0:03.4205

Results : Duration (actual playing time)

RANK	PLAYER	TIME
01. (---)	Jozsef Szalontai	0:01.5930
02. (---)	Daniel Hansson	0:01.6018
03. (12th)	Flavio Quadros	0:01.6087
04. (---)	Thomas Bergendorff	0:01.6113
05. (3rd)	Adam Lewandowski	0:01.6250
06. (5th)	Pif de Mestre	0:01.6252
07. (6th)	Mathias Thore	0:01.6262
08. (11th)	Rutger Baks	0:01.6333
09. (---)	Paul Davies	0:01.6374
10. (7th)	Thomas Stubgaard	0:01.6406
11. (13th)	Jaakko Alakopsa	0:01.6412
12. (8th)	Karol Urbanski	0:01.6528
13. (10th)	Mattias Öman	0:01.6665
14. (---)	Rui Neto	0:01.6817
15. (---)	Mads Peter Stubgaard	0:01.7390
16. (17th)	Anders Nordensten	0:01.8144
17. (16th)	Laurent Mertens	0:01.8198
18. (---)	Marek Bartoszek	0:01.8292
19. (---)	Philip Chute	0:02.0007

Results : First-time (time when demo starts recording)

RANK	PLAYER TIME
01. (8th)	Karol Urbanski	0:01.3138
02. (10th)	Mattias Öman	0:01.3166
03. (---)	Adam Lewandowski	0:01.3189
04. (2nd)	Daniel Hansson	0:01.3204
05. (7th)	Thomas Stubgaard	0:01.3220
06. (1st)	Jozsef Szalontai	0:01.3253
07. (5th)	Pif de Mestre	0:01.3255
08. (16th)	Laurent Mertens	0:01.3278
09. (4th)	Thomas Bergendorff	0:01.3352
10. (6th)	Mathias Thore	0:01.3344
11. (9th)	Paul Davies	0:01.3349
12. (11th)	Rutger Baks	0:01.3499
13. (14th)	Rui Neto	0:01.3520
14. (13th)	Jaakko Alakopsa	0:01.3775
15. (17th)	Anders Nordensten	0:01.3859
16. (18th)	Marek Bartoszek	0:01.3868
17. (12th)	Flavio Quadros	0:01.3896
18. (15th)	Mads Peter Stubgaard	0:01.3925
19. (---)	Philip Chute	0:01.4197

From the contest page:
http://speeddemosarchive.com/quake/contests/shamhell-revisit.html

[i]19 entries, not bad! Even some oldtimers felt obliged to contribute to this contest. The competition was fierce, with [b]Jozsef Szalontai[/b] claiming the grand prize, followed closely by [b]Daniel Hansson[/b] and [b]Adam Lewandowski[/b]. Only a sniff of air seperated top three (and the rest of the field for that matter). Rumors has it that someone recorded a 2.88, but we never received that demo, unfortunately.

It wasn't intentional by any means, but it soon became apparent this contest would turn into a hard-fought duel based on the different Quake engines. It seems WinQuake had the edge by a small margin compared to, say, JoeQuake. We're talking tenths of a second - which normally doesn't sound like a whole lot - but for a short run like this, it's the difference between success and failure. Some would claim a bit of unfairness is involved in this contest - and we agree - so that's why we've divided the tables into three categories based on the finishing time, the duration of the demo, and the start-time (when the demo starts recording). The time that truly counts is the finishing time though, and we've based the results on that.

* Download all the demos (.zip format): http://speeddemosarchive.com/quake/contests/demos/wot-revisit.zip - 5.2 MB
    * A video of the winning demo in "insane quality" (.mp4 format): http://speeddemosarchive.com/quake/videos/wot_jozsef_iq.mp4 - 2.8 MB
    * High quality video (.mp4 format): http://speeddemosarchive.com/quake/videos/wot_jozsef_hq.mp4 - 1.1 MB
    * ...and low quality video (.mp4 format): http://speeddemosarchive.com/quake/videos/wot_jozsef.mp4 - 287 KB
[/i]

Results : [b]Finishing Time[/b] (exit)

[table]
     [tr]
     [td]RANK[/td]
     [td]PLAYER[/td]
     [td]TIME[/td]
     [/tr]
     [tr]
       [td]01.[/td]
       [td]Jozsef Szalontai[/td]
       [td]0:02.9184[/td]
     [/tr]
     [tr]
       [td]02.[/td]
       [td]Daniel Hansson[/td]
       [td]0:02.9222[/td]
     [/tr]
     [tr]
       [td]03.[/td]
       [td]Adam Lewandowski[/td]
       [td]0:02.9439[/td]
     [/tr]
     [tr]
       [td]04.[/td]
       [td]Thomas Bergendorff[/td]
       [td]0:02.9466[/td]
     [/tr]
     [tr]
       [td]05.[/td]
       [td]Pif de Mestre[/td]
       [td]0:02.9508[/td]
     [/tr]
     [tr]
       [td]06.[/td]
       [td]Mathias Thore[/td]
       [td]0:02.9606[/td]
     [/tr]
     [tr]
       [td]07.[/td]
       [td]Thomas Stubgaard[/td]
       [td]0:02.9627[/td]
     [/tr]
     [tr]
       [td]08.[/td]
       [td]Karol Urbanski[/td]
       [td]0:02.9667[/td]
     [/tr]
     [tr]
       [td]09.[/td]
       [td]Paul Davies[/td]
       [td]0:02.9723[/td]
     [/tr]
     [tr]
       [td]10.[/td]
       [td]Mattias Öman[/td]
       [td]0:02.9831[/td]
     [/tr]
     [tr]
       [td]11.[/td]
       [td]Rutger Baks[/td]
       [td]0:02.9833[/td]
     [/tr]
     [tr]

[td]12.[/td]
       [td]Flavio Quadros[/td]
       [td]0:02.9983[/td]
     [/tr]
     [tr]
       [td]13.[/td]
       [td]Jaakko Alakopsa[/td]
       [td]0:03.0187[/td]
     [/tr]
     [tr]
       [td]14.[/td]
       [td]Rui Neto[/td]
       [td]0:03.0337[/td]
     [/tr]
     [tr]
       [td]15.[/td]
       [td]Mads Peter Stubgaard[/td]
       [td]0:03.1315[/td]
     [/tr]
     [tr]
       [td]16.[/td]
       [td]Laurent Mertens[/td]
       [td]0:03.1476[/td]
     [/tr]
     [tr]
       [td]17.[/td]
       [td]Anders Nordensten[/td]
       [td]0:03.2003[/td]
     [/tr]
     [tr]
       [td]18.[/td]
       [td]Marek Bartoszek[/td]
       [td]0:03.2161[/td]
     [/tr]
     [tr]
       [td]19.[/td]
       [td]Philip Chute[/td]
       [td]0:03.4205[/td]
     [/tr]
   [/table]

Results : [b]Duration[/b] (actual playing time)

[table]
[tr][td]RANK[/td][td]PLAYER[/td][td]TIME[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]01. (---)[/td][td]Jozsef Szalontai[/td][td]0:01.5930[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]02. (---)[/td][td]Daniel Hansson[/td][td]0:01.6018[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]03. (12th)[/td][td]Flavio Quadros[/td][td]0:01.6087[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]04. (---)[/td][td]Thomas Bergendorff[/td][td]0:01.6113[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]05. (3rd)[/td][td]Adam Lewandowski[/td][td]0:01.6250[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]06. (5th)[/td][td]Pif de Mestre[/td][td]0:01.6252[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]07. (6th)[/td][td]Mathias Thore[/td][td]0:01.6262[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]08. (11th)[/td][td]Rutger Baks[/td][td]0:01.6333[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]09. (---)[/td][td]Paul Davies[/td][td]0:01.6374[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]10. (7th)[/td][td]Thomas Stubgaard[/td][td]0:01.6406[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]11. (13th)[/td][td]Jaakko Alakopsa[/td][td]0:01.6412[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]12. (8th)[/td][td]Karol Urbanski[/td][td]0:01.6528[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]13. (10th)[/td][td]Mattias Öman[/td][td]0:01.6665[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]14. (---)[/td][td]Rui Neto[/td][td]0:01.6817[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]15. (---)[/td][td]Mads Peter Stubgaard[/td][td]0:01.7390[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]16. (17th)[/td][td]Anders Nordensten[/td][td]0:01.8144[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]17. (16th)[/td][td]Laurent Mertens[/td][td]0:01.8198[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]18. (---)[/td][td]Marek Bartoszek[/td][td]0:01.8292[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]19. (---)[/td][td]Philip Chute[/td][td]0:02.0007[/td][/tr]
[/table]

Results : [b]First-time[/b] (time when demo starts recording)

[table]
[tr][td]RANK[/td][td]PLAYER    TIME[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]01. (8th)[/td][td]Karol Urbanski[/td][td]0:01.3138[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]02. (10th)[/td][td]Mattias Öman[/td][td]0:01.3166[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]03. (---)[/td][td]Adam Lewandowski[/td][td]0:01.3189[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]04. (2nd)[/td][td]Daniel Hansson[/td][td]0:01.3204[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]05. (7th)[/td][td]Thomas Stubgaard[/td][td]0:01.3220[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]06. (1st)[/td][td]Jozsef Szalontai[/td][td]0:01.3253[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]07. (5th)[/td][td]Pif de Mestre[/td][td]0:01.3255[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]08. (16th)[/td][td]Laurent Mertens[/td][td]0:01.3278[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]09. (4th)[/td][td]Thomas Bergendorff[/td][td]0:01.3352[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]10. (6th)[/td][td]Mathias Thore[/td][td]0:01.3344[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]11. (9th)[/td][td]Paul Davies[/td][td]0:01.3349[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]12. (11th)[/td][td]Rutger Baks[/td][td]0:01.3499[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]13. (14th)[/td][td]Rui Neto[/td][td]0:01.3520[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]14. (13th)[/td][td]Jaakko Alakopsa[/td][td]0:01.3775[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]15. (17th)[/td][td]Anders Nordensten[/td][td]0:01.3859[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]16. (18th)[/td][td]Marek Bartoszek[/td][td]0:01.3868[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]17. (12th)[/td][td]Flavio Quadros[/td][td]0:01.3896[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]18. (15th)[/td][td]Mads Peter Stubgaard[/td][td]0:01.3925[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]19. (---)[/td][td]Philip Chute[/td][td]0:01.4197[/td][/tr]
[/table]

Attachment:

wot_jozsef_iq.mp4

Mandel

2009-07-31 08:35:48 am

Mumma

Congradurations Jozsef. Good to see you in action again.

j0zz1e

2009-08-03 06:17:32 am

thanks

it's not a comeback though, don't expect new speedruns from me, but entering this contest was quite refreshing, and Stubby also pushed me hard Cheesy

Stubgaard

2009-08-04 04:19:15 am

Hey Ho Let's Go

Quote from j0zz1e:

thanks

it's not a comeback though, don't expect new speedruns from me, but entering this contest was quite refreshing, and Stubby also pushed me hard Cheesy

There's a new contest up in case you hadn't noticed.... ;-)

http://speeddemosarchive.com/quake/contests/155t.html

Time for a new round of the most extreme form of quake speedrunning - a contest in The Stairs of Death by Trinca made by Rui Neto. Your job is clear, run fast or destroy everything. Make monsters feel that you are a great warrior. Eat them as a breakfast. Now go and make sure that you are the best!

1. This contest will end Midnight CET, Monday, August 17th, 2009.
2. Send your demos to quake @ speeddemosarchive . com
3. Name your demo and the accompanying textfile in the format 155t_er/nh_playername.dem/txt. Someone named Rosalie may send in 155t_er_rosalie.dem, for example.
4. QdQstats must be used to get the exact time.
5. Two categories are contested this time - Easy Run and Nightmare 100%.

[quote="j0zz1e"]
thanks :)

it's not a comeback though, don't expect new speedruns from me, but entering this contest was quite refreshing, and Stubby also pushed me hard :D
[/quote]

There's a new contest up in case you hadn't noticed.... ;-)

http://speeddemosarchive.com/quake/contests/155t.html

[i]Time for a new round of the most extreme form of quake speedrunning - a contest in The Stairs of Death by Trinca made by Rui Neto. Your job is clear, run fast or destroy everything. Make monsters feel that you are a great warrior. Eat them as a breakfast. Now go and make sure that you are the best!

1. This contest will end Midnight CET, Monday, August 17th, 2009.
   2. Send your demos to quake @ speeddemosarchive . com
   3. Name your demo and the accompanying textfile in the format 155t_er/nh_playername.dem/txt. Someone named Rosalie may send in 155t_er_rosalie.dem, for example.
   4. QdQstats must be used to get the exact time.
   5. Two categories are contested this time - Easy Run and Nightmare 100%. [/i]

Stubgaard

Edit history:

Stubgaard: 2009-08-04 04:48:45 am

2009-08-04 04:36:36 am

Hey Ho Let's Go

I ran some more straight-forward-walking tests with the different Quake engines, this time on the 100m map. The outcome doesn't differ much from those we ran on the contest map, but surprisingly enough an older version of JoeQuake is faster than the newest build. The times listed below are the average finishing times.

ENGINE	BUILD	FPS	TIME
winquake	v1.09	-	15.64
joequake-gl	v1329	72 FPS	15.66
joequake-gl	v1329	60 FPS	15.67
glquakebjp	v1.33	-	15.67
joequake-gl	v1862	72 FPS	15.72
glquake	v0.98	-	15.72
joequake-gl	v1862	60 FPS	15.74

GinKo_

2009-08-04 09:20:18 pm

I don't think testing it endlessly is the right way. But in any case, I did a bunch of tests myself =P

To me, it just looks like a matter of loading time. The faster the computer, the smaller the map, the earlier the timer starts. I actually checked the exact starting times, like Lag did, of a lot of demos, and got some interesting results.

My demos from up to the end of 07, which were recorded on my older coputer, all started at 1.39999998s. I grabbed a demo from you (Stubgaard) and one from Mandel, all from early 07, and the starting time is that same 1.39999998s. That was the 1329 build. Recent demos show various starting times, above and below that 1.4 mark.

Still, it's not really random. All my demos from my older pc with newer JoeQuake had an aprox time of 1.44167

Lagging my (current, newer) computer and comparing different maps I got different numbers, but they came in packs. A demo in the huge map menk, for instance, gives a starting time of aprox 1.44167! As I lag down the pc, it takes a while before it drops to an even slower start. A demo in a regular sized map will give me 1.41.. with some precision, smaller maps like wot give me 1.389.. and so on. With the game lagged to it's minimum fps, I get a time of 1.700000.. With hfr very low, it's very close to 1.300000...

So, what do we get from all this? The game has its weird ways of loading the game and starting the timer (probably rolling some frames before it really starts; the difference from the numbers I got weren't exactly multiples of 1/72, but whatever). We could keep testing to find out what engines are faster to shave some hundreths of a second, but instead of wasting our time with reverse engineering, it may be wiser to just ask someone who actually understands something (Lag.Com) to look at the code Smiley

It may be very engine dependent (soft/opengl, etc), but he should be able to shed some light.

As seen in the contest, my loading times are quite bad, but that never stoped me =D Although it was a weird feeling a couple of days ago, when I missed a record for .07s... Ignorance is bliss?

I don't think testing it endlessly is the right way. But in any case, I did a bunch of tests myself =P

To me, it just looks like a matter of loading time. The faster the computer, the smaller the map, the earlier the timer starts. I actually checked the exact starting times, like Lag did, of a lot of demos, and got some interesting results.

My demos from up to the end of 07, which were recorded on my older coputer, all started at 1.39999998s. I grabbed a demo from you (Stubgaard) and one from Mandel, all from early 07, and the starting time is that same 1.39999998s. That was the 1329 build. Recent demos show various starting times, above and below that 1.4 mark.

Still, it's not really random. All my demos from my older pc with newer JoeQuake had an aprox time of 1.44167

Lagging my (current, newer) computer and comparing different maps I got different numbers, but they came in packs. A demo in the huge map menk, for instance, gives a starting time of aprox 1.44167! As I lag down the pc, it takes a while before it drops to an even slower start. A demo in a regular sized map will give me 1.41.. with some precision, smaller maps like wot give me 1.389.. and so on. With the game lagged to it's minimum fps, I get a time of 1.700000.. With hfr very low, it's very close to 1.300000...

So, what do we get from all this? The game has its weird ways of loading the game and starting the timer (probably rolling some frames before it really starts; the difference from the numbers I got weren't exactly multiples of 1/72, but whatever). We could keep testing to find out what engines are faster to shave some hundreths of a second, but instead of wasting our time with reverse engineering, it may be wiser to just ask someone who actually understands something (Lag.Com) to look at the code :) It may be very engine dependent (soft/opengl, etc), but he should be able to shed some light.

As seen in the contest, my loading times are quite bad, but that never stoped me =D Although it was a weird feeling a couple of days ago, when I missed a record for .07s... Ignorance is bliss?

Lag.Com

2009-08-05 01:33:47 am

sda loyalist

I've had a quick look... as most programs do, JoeQuake (and probably the other clients) use time(), i.e. the system clock, to calculate the start time. What I don't understand is why it starts at 1.4 or whatever when most levels take MUCH less than that to load. I guess the easiest thing to assume would be that the timer starts on 1.0 then adds loading time. But I don't know why it starts on 1!

Droog_Andrey

2009-08-08 07:18:31 pm

Thunderbolt Forever :)

Quote from Stubgaard:

There's a new contest up in case you hadn't noticed.... ;-)

http://speeddemosarchive.com/quake/contests/155t.html

I've just sent both er and nh demos, please check if they are ok...

Thanks a lot :-)

Droog_Andrey

2009-08-20 10:47:24 am

Thunderbolt Forever :)

http://speeddemosarchive.com/quake/contests/155t.html

Hey people, that's not fair.

I sent 0:10.02146 ER and 0:26.19606 NH, but you listed an old 11.2 ER and no NH at all.

Of course they are slow, but that's my work...

Trinca

2009-08-20 12:36:11 pm

Quake and Sex owns

I´m in vacations :/ and my computer crash... fuckkkkkkkk i had two demos... Sad

i didn´t sent then in day 14 because i took my computer with me, but it crashed Sad

and now i didn´t sent any... buaaaaaaaaaaaa

:| maybe bext time! i had some nice demos Sad

Relomy

2009-08-20 12:58:55 pm

sv nice

Quote from Droog_Andrey:

http://speeddemosarchive.com/quake/contests/155t.html

Hey people, that's not fair.

I sent 0:10.02146 ER and 0:26.19606 NH, but you listed an old 11.2 ER and no NH at all.

Of course they are slow, but that's my work...

"Some demos were corrupted so they had to be left out of the results. Andrey Kulsha's keyboard demo has to be viewed with Bengt Jardrup's engine."

Maybe the first sentence has to do with your other one.