Super Mario Bros.

andrewg

2007-03-29 01:23:35 am

Hi! I'm andrewg!

well It would be imperfect because it could not be the perfect time with glitches. If you understand what I'm saying.

Lucid Faia

Edit history:

Lucid Faia: 2007-03-29 01:55:19 am

2007-03-29 01:50:36 am

Yeah, I said it.

Quote:

Who said glitches = imperfection?

No one.

We're saying that sdkess's time is perfect under the set of rules it was played under; Twin Galaxies rules. It will never be beaten. Now, it's possible that if someone submits a 5:04 under SDA rules, that sdkess's "perfect" run would be replaced by a run that is "imperfect" only because the rules here are more lenient. In effect, sdkess's run would still be better, despite being a second slower. That's the way I see it, anyway.

andrewg

Edit history:

andrewg: 2007-03-29 02:09:30 am

2007-03-29 02:02:37 am

Hi! I'm andrewg!

I think a 5:08 might be beaten someday.

Well if the improved run only messed up by 2 game units and was 1 second slower than perfect with glitches would you consider it better than scott's run?

Well, I just hope they keep scott's run up here.

You cant get a 5:04 and have a run worse than scott's though... I think you'd have to be matched with scott's run by 8-4 in order to get a 5:04.

Lucid Faia

Edit history:

Lucid Faia: 2007-03-29 02:09:49 am

2007-03-29 02:09:09 am

Yeah, I said it.

What I do know is that we don't count timeunits, we only use them as a rough measurement of how fast we're completing a certain level. Also, both SDA and TG time runs down to the second. Meaning that to them, a 5:08.9 run and a 5:08.1 run are equal - which is a good idea, if you ask me. There are too many intangibles (such as this 21 frame nonsense) that make it impractical to time runs more precisely than that.

But to answer your question, let's compare Scott's and Trevor's runs. Trevor thinks that his run is a bit slower, but it's still a 5:08, and is equal to Scott's run in my eyes.

andrewg

Edit history:

andrewg: 2007-03-29 02:15:37 am

2007-03-29 02:13:50 am

Hi! I'm andrewg!

Yes I agree with you that scott and trevor's times are equal.

I'm just trying to say that if you get a 5:04 by SDA, you would have gotten a 5:08 by TG had you not taken the other pipe.

So in your eyes the run would not be improved, but tied, if someone got a 5:04.

stanski

Edit history:

stanski: 2007-03-29 02:28:35 am

2007-03-29 02:25:25 am

wise fwom yo gwave

Quote:

No one.

We're saying that sdkess's time is perfect under the set of rules it was played under; Twin Galaxies rules. It will never be beaten. Now, it's possible that if someone submits a 5:04 under SDA rules, that sdkess's "perfect" run would be replaced by a run that is "imperfect" only because the rules here are more lenient. In effect, sdkess's run would still be better, despite being a second slower. That's the way I see it, anyway.

If you just include the alternate pipe, your run would have to be identical or better than scotts (remember, his run is about .35 slow or so than perfect), so this would only be an issue if someone did a walljump. The walljump is hard enough that I honestly would rather see a 5:04 with it and some level slightly imperfect (remember, we're talking about imperfections that no one can hardly see at all).

This isn't TG, he made the decision to not use alternate pipe, if someone wants to use it is should obsolete the old run. Yea, tough break, but if he wanted the record here that much he should have used the alternate pipe.

Its the same as the smb3 run, ureta chose to not use the pass through wall, and because of this his run could theoretically be improved by a run that was actually 'worse' by 4 seconds. If a person decides to not use a glitch in their run and submits it here, it is completely their fault when the run is obsoleted.

Oh, and I wanted to say, watch the old 5:06 and the new 5:05 and you will hardly see anything different if you aren't looking at time units while the game is being played.

[quote]

No one.

We're saying that sdkess's time is perfect under the set of rules it was played under; Twin Galaxies rules. It will never be beaten. Now, it's possible that if someone submits a 5:04 under SDA rules, that sdkess's "perfect" run would be replaced by a run that is "imperfect" only because the rules here are more lenient. In effect, sdkess's run would still be better, despite being a second slower. That's the way I see it, anyway.[/quote]

If you just include the alternate pipe, your run would have to be identical or better than scotts (remember, his run is about .35 slow or so than perfect), so this would only be an issue if someone did a walljump. The walljump is hard enough that I honestly would rather see a 5:04 with it and some level slightly imperfect (remember, we're talking about imperfections that no one can hardly see at all).

This isn't TG, he made the decision to not use alternate pipe, if someone wants to use it is should obsolete the old run. Yea, tough break, but if he wanted the record here that much he should have used the alternate pipe.

Its the same as the smb3 run, ureta chose to not use the pass through wall, and because of this his run could theoretically be improved by a run that was actually 'worse' by 4 seconds. If a person decides to not use a glitch in their run and submits it here, it is completely their fault when the run is obsoleted.

Oh, and I wanted to say, watch the old 5:06 and the new 5:05 and you will hardly see anything different if you aren't looking at time units while the game is being played.

andrewg

2007-03-31 01:33:35 am

Hi! I'm andrewg!

ahh, this is really frustrating... but I will keep at it for a little longer.

slowbro

2007-03-31 05:28:59 am

We're all rooting for you.

tmont

Edit history:

tmont: 2007-03-31 10:02:43 am

2007-03-31 09:58:14 am

Not going to school today

Congratulations to Trevor (Square? Jake? whatever the hell your name is over here) on the supposedly, arguably, indecisively "perfect" game! Just noticed the post at TG. You people who can come back to previously ran (runned?) games and bust these new, improved runs out amaze me.

Edit: Oh. It's already been said. And I guess I could've figured out your name by clicking a few buttons.

andrewg

Edit history:

andrewg: 2007-03-31 06:30:30 pm

2007-03-31 04:19:51 pm

Hi! I'm andrewg!

I think i'm submitting a run very soon for this... I have to test my timings on things... all looks well though Wink

So I need you guys to answer a question for me.

How long does it take exactly from when you press start to when you have control of mario in seconds?
How many frames is it?

Frezy_man

Edit history:

Frezy_man: 2007-03-31 05:32:21 pm

2007-03-31 05:31:39 pm

bläää

what? Did you get the same time as Kessler and Trevor?

Someone else have to answer that question.

SqueamishCow

2007-03-31 07:46:01 pm

156 frames (~2.6 seconds)

andrewg

Edit history:

andrewg: 2007-03-31 09:10:13 pm

2007-03-31 09:08:59 pm

Hi! I'm andrewg!

Is there a way I can figure out how long scott's run was exactly by TG timing, before VCR lag and the beginning time was removed?

so from when he presses start to when he touches the axe, without removing VCR lag.

Or do you know how much VCR lag time was deducted from scott's current time? frames and seconds.

stanski

Edit history:

stanski: 2007-03-31 09:50:57 pm

2007-03-31 09:16:07 pm

wise fwom yo gwave

EDIT: 168 frames because the TAS found some way to speed up the transition between pressing start and first input (he presses up-down and A at one point for no reason it seems, so thats probably it). Thats 2.8 seconds.

And VCR lag time is the time when you press record to when the video actually begins recording. I don't think i've ever heard of it any other way, and this wouldn't affect timing the run at all. Can you explain what you mean better? If you are saying the video doesn't play back as fast on vcr, then that is incorrect as far as I know.

I'll open up scott's run in virtualdub real quick and time it for you.

Edit: 18,489 frames (then divide by 59.94): 5:08.458

andrewg

Edit history:

andrewg: 2007-03-31 10:28:01 pm

2007-03-31 10:11:32 pm

Hi! I'm andrewg!

scott said his time was 5:08.7 before, and I think the playback is slower on a VCR.

I wanted to know if it was like 5:08.75 or something or what it was exactly.

http://www.twingalaxies.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2075&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=135

trevor mentions VCR lag.

I think that's right at least.

if scott got a 5:08.7, how could SDA time it as 5:05.622?

I'm very puzzled... whatever I guess.

what time do I have to get on my stopwatch in order to know if I have a 5:04?

SO if I timed my run from when I press start, I think the SDA time should be 3.1 seconds faster?

stanski

2007-03-31 10:58:16 pm

wise fwom yo gwave

I just timed scotts run and got 5:08.458 exactly. Scott might have timed his own run wrong. I know for a fact that I didn't, Virtualdub doesn't lie.

And I really really doubt that a VCR adds that much time. If a vcr added .8, screw attempting the game 500 times, just buy a damn dvd recorder.

andrewg

2007-03-31 11:01:11 pm

Hi! I'm andrewg!

I dont think it's .8, I think that's an exageration. I thought there was something like .4 seconds lag.

I dont think scott would have his own himing off by that much, but you never know.

stanski

Edit history:

stanski: 2007-03-31 11:04:12 pm

2007-03-31 11:04:04 pm

wise fwom yo gwave

.4 would still mean that you could get a 5:07 just by recording onto dvd. Honestly, what are the physics behind a vhs lagging behind? There seems to be no logical reason.

And if you don't believe my timing, open it up in virtualdub yourself. I took exactly the frame he pressed start until exactly the frame he touched the axe, and it comes out to 18,489 frames. Seems straightforward enough to me for timing it?

Remember, scott also said 370 doesn't save any time in 1-1. He does make mistakes Tongue

mattdotzeb

2007-03-31 11:14:39 pm

I love YaBB 1G - SP1!

Hi. I'm new here. I'm one of Andrew's friends. I just wanna say congrats to Scott and congrats to Andrew for his amazing time! He got a 4:38 today while I was watching him! It was crazy. I don't know too much about Mario, but I've seen enough people play to know that its impressive. Well, good luck beating it everyone! Grin

andrewg

2007-03-31 11:17:13 pm

Hi! I'm andrewg!

Isn't there DVD lag? also, I dont think scott's time is that low still.

SqueamishCow

2007-04-01 12:45:14 am

Scott later said he was wrong about 1-1, he did save time over the old run.

Quote:

After comparing my video to Trevor's, I did save time on 1-1...

* takes foot out of mouth *

I now see where my mistake was made during testing/timing for this level, but I'm mad at myself for being an idiot. This error could have really cost me if I had accepted a slower finish on the first freaking level.

andrew g

2007-04-06 04:44:45 am

Still going for this....

andrewg

2007-04-06 04:47:05 am

Hi! I'm andrewg!

yeah, this is really tough. Maybe I should improve my full completion again...

Lucid Faia

2007-04-06 04:48:05 am

Yeah, I said it.

Of course, the one time you DO nail that walljump, Bowser will kill you with hammers. It's inevitable. =(

andrewg

Edit history:

andrewg: 2007-04-06 04:58:19 am

2007-04-06 04:52:55 am

Hi! I'm andrewg!

walljump = too difficult to do after a perfect SS, so I'm not going to do it. I dont think anybody could pull that off. Unless they spent an insane amount of time. Even then they might not be able to do it, it just seems too difficult. :-/

Everytime I get to the end it seems like bowser has been jumping backwards. Oh well... but it looks cooler i guess. Smiley

Do you think anyone could do that? I seriously doubt it. People are insane sometimes though.