Red Alert 2 Run (relaunched [11-14-2008], progress First Post)

2008-12-14 10:09:30 am

Cute and Cuddly Lemming

TheVoid discovered today, that engineers you get from a destroyed Con Yard are slower than ones you build in a Barracks.

Any news on that?

BrutalAl

Edit history:

BrutalAl: 2008-12-20 01:03:02 am

2008-12-19 11:36:10 pm

There are only two Engineer units in the game, ENGINEER (the allied engineer), and SENGINEER (the soviet engineer) and they both have got Speed=4. Also, judging by the Rules, an engineer survivor from a ConYard will always be the allied enginner.

Other than that I can't find anything in the Rules.ini-file that would suggest that an engineer survivor from ConYards would have its Speed modified. The Rules could of course however be overruled by any mission specific Rules.

EDIT:

Quote:

Also TheVoid and I have decided the ingame timer is okay to be used, so 3:01 is the time we take as "record" or "run time".

A very bad idea if you ask me. The time specified at the end of a mission can be highly inaccurate.
Timers shown in-game are frame capped, meaning that if the game for some reason slows down so will the timer. This is NOT the case for the end-time timer, the end-time timer is in real-time, meaning that a slowdown during game-play would result in a worse time than without said slowdown.

This might not sound like too big a deal seeing how the game speed is capped in missions, but that's only half true.
1) This might depend on your system but I get better times if I, during game-play, constantly focus my view over a shrouded area whenever I don't need to actually see or control anything.
2) Not being able to change game speed in a mission is only the default setting. if one runs the game with the command "-speedcontrol" game speed toggling will be enabled in missions, which means you would have to play on "fastest" to make sure your times were optimized.

There is an unofficial recorder software for ra2 that states the number of game-play frames for every recording, this might be a better alternative, I don't know anything about SDAs standpoint on unofficial soft wares for aiding the timing tho. Also, a downside would be that it doesn't playback in ra2 game graphic so the video recording would have to me matched with corresponding unofficial recording to verify the frame count of the recorded attempt.

Another, possibly better alternative, could be to modify the game and add a visible dummy-timer in all the missions, it would be frame capped (and thus as precise as can be) and also visible in the video footage which of course is convenient when verifying the time for the recorded attempt.

There are only two Engineer units in the game, ENGINEER (the allied engineer), and SENGINEER (the soviet engineer) and they both have got Speed=4. Also, judging by the Rules, an engineer survivor from a ConYard will always be the allied enginner.

Other than that I can't find anything in the Rules.ini-file that would suggest that an engineer survivor from ConYards would have its Speed modified. The Rules could of course however be overruled by any mission specific Rules.

[i]EDIT:[/i]
[quote]Also TheVoid and I have decided the ingame timer is okay to be used, so 3:01 is the time we take as "record" or "run time".[/quote]
A very bad idea if you ask me. The time specified at the end of a mission can be highly inaccurate.
Timers shown in-game are frame capped, meaning that if the game for some reason slows down so will the timer. This is NOT the case for the end-time timer, the end-time timer is in real-time, meaning that a slowdown during game-play would result in a worse time than without said slowdown.

This might not sound like too big a deal seeing how the game speed is capped in missions, but that's only half true.
1) This might depend on your system but I get better times if I, during game-play, constantly focus my view over a shrouded area whenever I don't need to actually see or control anything.
2) Not being able to change game speed in a mission is only the default setting. if one runs the game with the command "-speedcontrol" game speed toggling will be enabled in missions, which means you would have to play on "fastest" to make sure your times were optimized.

There is an unofficial recorder software for ra2 that states the number of game-play frames for every recording, this [i]might[/i] be a better alternative, I don't know anything about SDAs standpoint on unofficial soft wares for aiding the timing tho. Also, a downside would be that it doesn't playback in ra2 game graphic so the video recording would have to me matched with corresponding unofficial recording to verify the frame count of the recorded attempt.

Another, possibly better alternative, could be to modify the game and add a visible dummy-timer in all the missions, it would be frame capped (and thus as precise as can be) and also visible in the video footage which of course is convenient when verifying the time for the recorded attempt.

TheVoid

2008-12-20 03:51:04 am

Quote from BrutalAl:

The Rules could of course however be overruled by any mission specific Rules.

It seems like that. I just checked the same thing in the level Home Front, and there they have the same speed.
I've made a little video of the first level anyway, showing that the Engineer from the destroyed Construction Yard is much slower than any other Engineer you can get in this level.
Why this happens in only the first level, I have no idea...

So if I understand you correctly BrutalAl, manual timing in VirtualDub solves the issue, right? Since that's not based on real-time.

About your last paragraph, I doubt that game modification to add a timer is allowed.

BrutalAl

Edit history:

BrutalAl: 2008-12-20 05:52:55 am

2008-12-20 05:42:12 am

Quote from TheVoid:

So if I understand you correctly BrutalAl, manual timing in VirtualDub solves the issue, right? Since that's not based on real-time.

Nah, that would be just as inaccurate as the time given at the end. How is VD not realtime?
The in-game "speed" can drop (just as if one changed speed manually), making the real-time/end-time longer than compared to an exact execution but without the drop in speed.

Any timer visible during game-play slows down when the game does though. So what I'm saying is only that I think it would be more fair and accurate to try and time it using in-game timers, and not the end/real time.

tekknej

2008-12-20 05:45:42 am

I love YaBB 1G - SP1!

well, QdQstats been used for quake for timing purpose... i dunno if it is any kind of like that...

TheVoid

2008-12-20 06:25:54 am

Quote from BrutalAl:

How is VD not realtime?

Well, I thought that since it counts in frames it's not exactly real-time Wink

I don't know... I'm just a little confused about the whole timing thing at the moment.

Quote:

Any timer visible during game-play slows down when the game does though. So what I'm saying is only that I think it would be more fair and accurate to try and time it using in-game timers, and not the end/real time.

That does sound more accurate to use. I guess we should contact mikwuyma about this.

BrutalAl

2008-12-21 01:20:04 am

Code:

[SENGINEER]
Sight=9
Speed=7

That's the modifications the soviet engineer has got on the first mission (soviets).

Also tried the first soviet mission on game speed fastest just to see what time it would yield. Managed 1½ minute, no sweat.

TheVoid

2008-12-21 02:35:55 am

Heh. I don't think it should be ran on the fastest game speed though, it'll look weird.

BrutalAl, could you contact mikwuyma about the adding a timer thing? You seem to know more of how to implement that Wink

BrutalAl

2008-12-21 10:34:27 am

Hmm, I implemented the in-game timer to see how much time I lost from game slowdowns on soviet 01. Turned out it would differ from the end time with only 1 sec at most. So what was I on about? To be honest it was years ago I believe I noticed this inaccuracy and at that time I had a crappier comp than the one I got now (and the one I got now is far from top of the line), it could very well be that slowdowns with today's computers are next to extinct (or possible that they never existed to begin with because of faulty memory on my side).
Either way, If the above holds true I say we go with what you had decided on before I came barking in here (that and for simplicity sake) and go with the end-time timer.

On another note though, while trying the timing out I "accidentally" managed to beat soviet01 in 2:50 and I believe 2:40 would be possible with the tactic. So I have to ask, is the time 3:01 out of date or did I probably use a better tactic than the current one?

TheVoid

2008-12-21 11:33:54 am

Quote from BrutalAl:

On another note though, while trying the timing out I "accidentally" managed to beat soviet01 in 2:50 and I believe 2:40 would be possible with the tactic. So I have to ask, is the time 3:01 out of date or did I probably use a better tactic than the current one?

Heh... No it's not out of date. Then I'm very curious how you got that time Smiley

BrutalAl

2008-12-21 12:38:55 pm

Uhm, I...

- Took control earlier than intended by saving and loading (but only from where the MCV auto depolys, should be doable even earlier)
- Built two engineers, the first for capturing an allied building (so I can place my OreRef right in front of the bridge), the second for repairing the bridge.
- Navigate the Miner to the pentagon, win.

You go ahead and tell me what I do different.

TheVoid

Edit history:

TheVoid: 2008-12-21 03:13:11 pm

2008-12-21 02:41:38 pm

Quote from BrutalAl:

You go ahead and tell me what I do different.

Everything you said Smiley

The big difference which causes all the improvement is the mouse glitch you're using, which I didn't use in the 3:01 run because that was an Individual Level run.

EDIT: I should check the "build Ore Refinery next to captured building" part though, maybe that is indeed faster.

EDIT: Ok, that's indeed faster. I just had a 2:57 which wasn't even a really good attempt Smiley

Thanks.

BrutalAl

Edit history:

BrutalAl: 2008-12-21 04:33:10 pm

2008-12-21 03:40:07 pm

Yeah I just checked how much time the load-trick saved me, 5 sec sharp, so would have been a 2:55 with out.

Quote:

Ok, that's indeed faster. I just had a 2:57 which wasn't even a really good attempt Smiley Thanks.

Further info then; What I did was let both Engineers exit from my soviet Barraks.
As a variation you could try letting the first one capture the allied barraks and then have the second engineer (which is set on hold until then) exit from that building, could (should?) be even faster.

TheVoid

2008-12-21 04:13:36 pm

Yes that should work. There's a Pickup Truck with money on the way to the first GI's. That one needs to be collected otherwise just after you've captured the Allied Barracks you'll run out of money, and the only building that can be sold is the Soviet Barracks which can't really be done fast without losing time. So collecting that money crate in the meantime solves the issue.

BrutalAl

Edit history:

BrutalAl: 2008-12-22 11:50:11 am

2008-12-22 08:41:29 am

Ok, I've definitely been noticing some inaccuracies in timing now, had some widely varying attempts (as far as timing goes).

attempt#1: in-game was 2:53.0*, real-time stated 2:52.
attempt#2: in-game was 2:54.0*, real-time stated 2:48.
attempt#3: in-game was 2:51.5*, real-time stated 2:49.

So a run that in reality was 1 second worse gave me an end/real-time that was 4 sec better.

*In-Game timers run approximately twice as fast as real-time (as long as you play the mission at intended game speed). Also, In-Game timers start at 0, unlike the end/real-time timers that start as 10 sec.
E.g: A displayed In-Game time of 5:26 translates into (5:26)/2 + 10 = 2:53. (Which should, if it wasn't for inaccuracies in the game speed, mach the end/real-time).

EDIT: However, they (in-game timers) can of course start at whatever you set them to.
EDIT: Added attempt#3
EDIT: added the word "approximately" before "twice"

ExplodingCabbage

2008-12-22 11:03:25 am

I suspect you're wrong about some detail here. Presumably (and if I'm wrong then disregard this post) the game and thus the in-game timer can only slow down, not speed up, from the speed you set them to, which means that the (adjusted, final) time you get from the in-game timer should always be LESS than the real time.

Doesn't mean the in-game timer isn't the better method, though, just means something in your understanding of how it all works is wrong.

BrutalAl

Edit history:

BrutalAl: 2008-12-22 01:48:21 pm

2008-12-22 11:44:44 am

Only if they actually intended the game to run at exactly 2x real-time when set to default mission speed (and without slowdowns). But since the real-time can be lower my guess would be that it's not exactly 2x but perhaps rather 1.9x or maybe even lower.

EDIT:
Here's a link to a modified (timer added) soviet mission 1; http://www.megaupload.com/?d=Z4O1JCYT
Just place it in the RA2 directory and start a new campaign and the game will load it instead of the one on the CD. TheVoid (or anyone else for that matter), try it and see if you get any notable differences from attempt to attempt?

TheVoid

Edit history:

TheVoid: 2008-12-23 03:53:54 am

2008-12-23 03:30:51 am

I just tried the level quickly one time, why is the in-game timer counting down from 1 hour? Shouldn't it count up from 0 Smiley

Well, at the end of the level my end timer was 2:51 and the in-game timer stopped at 54:19. If I'm correct that calculates to a 3:00.5, which isn't accurate even close Grin

EDIT: Second try. End time was 2:44 (!) Smiley

In-game time was 54:45. So that would be a 5:15/2+10 = 2:47.5.

EDIT: Third try and I was recording (Just to see if it would influence anything but I don't think so). End time was 2:45 and in-game timer was 54:31. So that's a 2:54.5.

Pendrokar

2008-12-23 03:43:33 am

When running Emperor: Battle for Dune which is a newer Westwood game. I tried to set the game speed that had closest speed to the countdown timers(looking with real-time). There was no game speed that would be the same as real time. You should forget about real-time and just set the game speed that is closest to real-time! Time on endgame.

BrutalAl

Edit history:

BrutalAl: 2008-12-23 06:26:09 am

2008-12-23 04:14:27 am

Quote from TheVoid:

why is the in-game timer counting down from 1 hour? Shouldn't it count up from 0 Smiley

It should, in a perfect world. There is to my knowing no timer that can do that though so I just went with the next best thing, but if you can recall one that does let me know and I'll have a look at it.
If not, it might still be possible to construct one by adding more actions and events to the timer trigger. I'll look in to it and at the same time see if it somehow would be possible to add fractions while I'm at it.

EDIT: Ok, I managed to construct a timer that counts upwards and it seems to be accurate (which it by all means should be). There are of course one major difference when counting upwards instead of downwards.
When counting downwards a time of 1.01 sec will be displayed as 3(/2) seconds, i.e. rounded upwards by default.
But when counting upwards a time of 1.01 sec will be displayed as 2(/2) second, i.e. rounded downwards by default.
However, just as long as this is kept in mind it's easy to adjust it any way one wants though.

and here is the latest mod (upwards counting timer added); http://www.megaupload.com/?d=6U0Q8GBV

I took the freedom to have it start at 20(/2) seconds to better match the end-time (even though we know dividing by 2 obviously isn't a 100% accurate real-time translation). If we for some reason would want it to be rounded up by default we'd just have to set it at 21 secs. Or if we won't care about trying to match it with the end-time we could just have it start at 0.

EDIT: Just had a, rounded up, 5:34(2:47.0) run Grin

(wasn't single segment tho, saved just before triggering the pentagon reinforcements)

[quote="TheVoid"]
why is the in-game timer counting down from 1 hour? Shouldn't it count up from 0  :)[/quote]

It should, in a perfect world. There is to my knowing no timer that can do that though so I just went with the next best thing, but if you can recall one that does let me know and I'll have a look at it.
If not, it might still be possible to construct one by adding more actions and events to the timer trigger. I'll look in to it and at the same time see if it somehow would be possible to add fractions while I'm at it.

EDIT: Ok, I managed to construct a timer that counts upwards and it seems to be accurate (which it by all means should be). There are of course one major difference when counting upwards instead of downwards.
When counting downwards a time of 1.01 sec will be displayed as 3(/2) seconds, i.e. rounded upwards by default.
But when counting upwards a time of 1.01 sec will be displayed as 2(/2) second, i.e. rounded downwards by default.
However, just as long as this is kept in mind it's easy to adjust it any way one wants though.

and here is the latest mod (upwards counting timer added); http://www.megaupload.com/?d=6U0Q8GBV

I took the freedom to have it start at 20(/2) seconds to better match the end-time (even though we know dividing by 2 obviously isn't a 100% accurate real-time translation). If we for some reason would want it to be rounded up by default we'd just have to set it at 21 secs. Or if we won't care about trying to match it with the end-time we could just have it start at 0.

EDIT: Just had a, rounded up, 5:34(2:47.0) run ;D (wasn't single segment tho, saved just before triggering the pentagon reinforcements)

ExplodingCabbage

2008-12-23 07:14:21 am

Suggestion: if there exists doubt (and I'm not sure if there does or not) about the accuracy of the in-game timer, try doing a skirmish where all you do is send your MCV to a fixed location on the map and exit the moment it arrives. Then repeat, but this time look at the shroud the whole time after sending off the MCV. Time both experiments in real-time and with the in-game timer. Hopefully, real-time will be significantly different and in-game time will be almost identical.

BrutalAl

2008-12-23 09:06:02 am

The in-game timer is doubtfully precise (it changes with game speed and general slowdown, highly noticeable in online games), easy and accurate way to confirm that is to build something, have it recorded, and observe the money decrease with the same amount per timer-second.
What's uncertain is what and how much slowdown different things cause, since units are generated even behind shroud (just not visible due to the shroud), lack of shroud might possibly not the biggest slowdown factor but perhaps rather number of units and buildings on screen are. What's for sure though is that end-time totally disregards at whatever speed the game is running.

One thing tho, isn't one of the reasons for emulators being disallowed that slowdown can occur on them which makes execution easier? One could be an arse and argue the same about the situation in-game time vs real-time for this game.

ExplodingCabbage

Edit history:

ExplodingCabbage: 2008-12-24 12:06:30 pm

2008-12-23 09:19:49 am

That's an interesting point actually. Perhaps you should film yourselves playing to avoid accusations of such dishonourable conduct.

Edit: Just realised how retarded this idea of mine was. Trying to slow down the game massively and then edit the video to cover it up would be impossibly hard anyway, making filming yourself unnecessary and pointless.

The 5/6 ratio seems like the way to go.

BrutalAl

Edit history:

BrutalAl: 2008-12-23 01:13:02 pm

2008-12-23 11:55:38 am

I was thinking more in the lines of you'll have an easier time getting perfect executions if you're playing on a slower comp, though the slowdown seems to be only 1-1½ sec per minute (as long as the computer isn't way too old), which is highly negligible as a handicap if you ask me, it can be compared to the pal/ntsc-ratio which is as low as 5/6 and they compete in the same category as long as a timer is present in game.
Either way, I for one want to see the best tactics with the best executions prioritized over best tactics on fastest comp.

EDIT: soviet01 in 5:24 (2:42), rounded up, segmented (no load-glitch)

BrutalAl

2008-12-23 05:50:16 pm

Just sent mikwuyma this PM, hope I was speaking for everyone involved

Quote:

At the end of each mission in Red Alert 2 (Ra2) the game states how long it took you to finish the mission (a timer is displayed). This timer is in real-time and thus totally disregards at what speed your game actually was running.

The game has got support for in-game timers (timers displayed during game play) these are 100% accurate, i.e. if the game was to slow down just slightly, seemingly unnoticeable, so would the timer.

Here's the thing
The game isn't very good at running at a fixed speed, during normal game play one can and will suffer some slowdowns. Playing on a very old system will of course make these slowdowns very sever, but even when playing on a fairly new computer not only will you suffer some slowdowns but they will also be inconsistent in their magnitude from one attempt to another.

EXAMPLE (actual attempts):
In-Game timer End-Time/Real-Time (displayed after mission end)
#1 2:53.0 2:52
#2 2:54.0 2:48
As you can see, the attempt that actually was 1 second better was 4 seconds slower in real-time*.

SUGGESTION
Any Ra2 run, be it individual levels or a single segment of the whole game, should be timed using In-Game timers for 100% accuracy.
Yes, you'll have an easier time getting perfect executions if you're playing on a slower comp (due to over all more slowdowns), though the slowdowns seems to be only 1-2 sec per minute (as long as the computer isn't way too old), which is highly negligible as a handicap if you ask me. And I for one do not want to see a poor execution on fastest comp obsolete a better execution on a slower comp.

PROBLEM
In-Game timers aren't always displayed (it's unfortunately actually rather uncommon for them to be displayed during a whole mission).
It is however very easy to add in-game timers to every mission by simply modifying each mission.
I know that SDA ain't too keen on unofficial mods but...
1) it is only cosmetic
2) the modifications needed are very simple, only (and the same) 3 lines of text per mission, and due to this simplicity It is by belief that an SDA official could ensure that these where the only changes made.
3) the game would benefit from it greatly

To avoid the potential problem of anyone deliberately causing sever slowdown I suggest a real-time/in-game ratio-limit of 5/6 be enforced.
Not only would this ensure that no one could lower their game speed to gain unfair benefits, but it would also be in line with SDA standard which states that PAL and NTSC runs compete in the same category IF there is an accurate timer (adjusts with game speed) present, even though pal run at 5/6 ntsc speed.

*In-game timers run in a speed that is approximately 2x faster than regular seconds (if you play the mission at the intended default speed) so I've divided their actual value by 2, to make them more real-time alike.

EDIT: Yeye, double post, so sue me.

Just sent mikwuyma this PM, hope I was speaking for everyone involved

[quote]At the end of each mission in Red Alert 2 (Ra2) the game states how long it took you to finish the mission (a timer is displayed). This timer is in [i]real-time[/i] and thus [i]totally disregards at what speed your game actually was running[/i].

The game has got support for [i]in-game timers[/i] (timers displayed during game play) these are [i]100% accurate[/i], i.e. if the game was to slow down just slightly, seemingly unnoticeable, so would the timer.

Here's the thing
The game isn't very good at running at a fixed speed, during normal game play one can and [i]will[/i] suffer some slowdowns. Playing on a very old system will of course make these slowdowns very sever, but even when playing on a fairly new computer not only will you suffer some slowdowns but they will also be [i]inconsistent in their magnitude[/i] from one attempt to another.

EXAMPLE (actual attempts): 
          In-Game timer     End-Time/Real-Time (displayed after mission end)
#1       2:53.0                 2:52
#2       2:54.0                 2:48
As you can see, the attempt that actually was 1 second better was 4 seconds slower in real-time*.

SUGGESTION
Any Ra2 run, be it individual levels or a single segment of the whole game, should be timed using In-Game timers for [i]100% accuracy[/i].
Yes, you'll have an easier time getting perfect executions if you're playing on a slower comp (due to over all more slowdowns), though the slowdowns seems to be [i][b]only 1-2 sec per minute[/b][/i] (as long as the computer isn't way too old), which is [i][b]highly negligible as a handicap[/b][/i] if you ask me. And I for one [i]do not[/i] want to see a poor execution on fastest comp obsolete a better execution on a slower comp.

PROBLEM
In-Game timers aren't always displayed (it's unfortunately actually rather uncommon for them to be displayed during a whole mission).
It is however very easy to add in-game timers to every mission by simply modifying each mission.
I know that SDA ain't too keen on unofficial mods but...
[b]1)[/b] it is only cosmetic
[b]2)[/b] the modifications needed are very simple, only (and the same) 3 lines of text per mission, and due to this simplicity It is by belief that an SDA official could ensure that these where the only changes made.
[b]3)[/b] the game would benefit from it greatly

To avoid the potential problem of anyone deliberately causing sever slowdown I suggest a real-time/in-game [i][b]ratio-limit of 5/6[/b] be enforced[/i].
Not only would this ensure that no one could lower their game speed to gain unfair benefits, but it would also be [i]in line with SDA standard[/i] which states that PAL and NTSC runs compete in the same category IF there is an accurate timer (adjusts with game speed) present, even though pal run at 5/6 ntsc speed.

[i]*In-game timers run in a speed that is approximately 2x faster than regular seconds (if you play the mission at the intended default speed) so I've divided their actual value by 2, to make them more real-time alike.[/i][/quote]
EDIT: Yeye, double post, so sue me.