No, they also had another line of improvements to the original game (2.0 and 3.0)
I'll do it if you're not going through with it.
SDA Forum
Heavy Metal Powered
as the topic is 2 years old i guess the runner gave up so please do attempt this InsomPsycho
if you need any help i can provide screenshots with solutions that doesnt cost too much time
the most efficient solution for puzzle one is this, using this setup will keep the basketball from bouncing:
if you need any help i can provide screenshots with solutions that doesnt cost too much time
the most efficient solution for puzzle one is this, using this setup will keep the basketball from bouncing:
Heavy Metal Powered
Quote from InsomPsycho:
Yeah, I'll totally do this one, although it seems like this would be an IL game, so if anyone else wants to do levels they can.
How can I get this game on Windows?
How can I get this game on Windows?
im running my DOS copy though DOSbox, sadly that is not allowed if you want to run the game
if your computer is not a multi-core i suggest you try to install Windows 2000 on a different partion than your current OS, Windows 2000 can run the windows version of this game according to earlier posts in this thread
Heavy Metal Powered
if you have some unpartioned space on that Quadcore you can always try to install Windows 2000, you cannot break the PC by doing it so worth a try
if it does not work the Dell is probably a good idea
i do not have a copy of DOS but i do own a copy of Windows 3.11 (you have to remove the battery from the motherboard for it to run as Win3.11 never made it through the y2k bug
)
if i find a floppy drive i might be able to make some copies
if it does not work the Dell is probably a good idea
i do not have a copy of DOS but i do own a copy of Windows 3.11 (you have to remove the battery from the motherboard for it to run as Win3.11 never made it through the y2k bug
if i find a floppy drive i might be able to make some copies
Personally I'd prefer to have timing start when you hit go so that the solutions are perfectly optimised. Seeing fast placement of the pieces wouldn't be fun or impressive and would result in less optimal solutions.
I take InsomPsycho's point that this means you're not timing any human action, though. Does this matter?
I take InsomPsycho's point that this means you're not timing any human action, though. Does this matter?
Heh, good luck to whoever is going to run it if the placement is also timed
As there are solutions possible that require parts to be in very specific places. The way to get them correct is place the part, press GO to check, move part a bit, press GO to check, etc. Can be quite time consuming to get the part in the right spot...
But like in the first level it's easy, those parts are block aligned so you can very easily place them somewhere. Later on it's more tricky (For example the Flashlight which you can place anywhere, and this part can sometimes be used for different reasons. Same with the Boxing Gloves).
I'm just saying
I always liked the newest TIM games a lot, trying to get a very weird solution, or by using as less parts as possible. Maybe I'll run that myself some day (As I can actually record those instead of these older games :-\). Although they also had lots of specific part placement solutions...
As there are solutions possible that require parts to be in very specific places. The way to get them correct is place the part, press GO to check, move part a bit, press GO to check, etc. Can be quite time consuming to get the part in the right spot...
But like in the first level it's easy, those parts are block aligned so you can very easily place them somewhere. Later on it's more tricky (For example the Flashlight which you can place anywhere, and this part can sometimes be used for different reasons. Same with the Boxing Gloves).
I'm just saying
I always liked the newest TIM games a lot, trying to get a very weird solution, or by using as less parts as possible. Maybe I'll run that myself some day (As I can actually record those instead of these older games :-\). Although they also had lots of specific part placement solutions...
Quote from ExplodingCabbage:
Personally I'd prefer to have timing start when you hit go so that the solutions are perfectly optimised. Seeing fast placement of the pieces wouldn't be fun or impressive and would result in less optimal solutions.
I take InsomPsycho's point that this means you're not timing any human action, though. Does this matter?
I take InsomPsycho's point that this means you're not timing any human action, though. Does this matter?
at that point, the ONLY competition comes from having the optimal solution. and what you are actually timing is the computer running your solution.
it would be like competing in a platform games using strategy and routes, ideas instead of actual gameplay.
I also would love to see this game speedrun, when I first read it I was also thinking about fast placement and fast solution.
So I'd say you'd have to time both, you also get points for doing both fast. (yeah I know points are worth nothing when it comes down to it, although the more points you have the faster you were, in this game. If you time both that is.)
Anyway, you could always make 2 categories :P. 1 with fastest solution only and 1 fastest speedrun of the game or something.
I still think it would be more impressive to see the run if they timed both.
Wouldn't it be kinda boring to see someone adjust stuff for 1 minute or so and finally nailed the placement so that he has the fastest solution?
Or would you suggest cutting all that out and only showing the fastest solution (although that would not work in a SS), but then, like InsomPsycho said, you don't really see any human factor in the speedrun.
So my suggestion would be to maybe make it a bonus IL tab with fastest possible solutions, but still have the game speedrun 'normally'. (everybody happy? except those who think there are too many categories :P)
So I'd say you'd have to time both, you also get points for doing both fast. (yeah I know points are worth nothing when it comes down to it, although the more points you have the faster you were, in this game. If you time both that is.)
Anyway, you could always make 2 categories :P. 1 with fastest solution only and 1 fastest speedrun of the game or something.
I still think it would be more impressive to see the run if they timed both.
Wouldn't it be kinda boring to see someone adjust stuff for 1 minute or so and finally nailed the placement so that he has the fastest solution?
Or would you suggest cutting all that out and only showing the fastest solution (although that would not work in a SS), but then, like InsomPsycho said, you don't really see any human factor in the speedrun.
So my suggestion would be to maybe make it a bonus IL tab with fastest possible solutions, but still have the game speedrun 'normally'. (everybody happy? except those who think there are too many categories :P)
A few points to make here:
So? That's the only thing that it's interesting to compete over.
Except it wouldn't, because the gameplay of platform games is about physical skill. There is no skill element to TIM normally.
I can appreciate that you need to include placement for a SS run. But for IL runs, it's pointless, since you'll just find the optimal solution in terms of how long it runs for and then redo the placement over and over until you nail it pixel-perfect on your first attempt. All that timing placement adds to this situation is a pointless extra nuisance for the runner which would put people off doing runs without really adding any value to the videos. So perhaps it would be acceptable to time everything in a SS run and only the solution run time in an IL run, since placement is only going to be a significant part of gameplay in the SS?
Bad idea for IL runs since they'd end up being identical runs as I already pointed out. Also a bad idea for SS runs since then the runs that didn't include placement would just be identical to the IL runs but with lots of extra boring minutes of jiggling pieces around nobody would want to watch (as you've already pointed out).
Yeah, I've convinced myself SS and IL need to be timed differently. Dunno if I've convinced anyone else.
Quote:
at that point, the ONLY competition comes from having the optimal solution. and what you are actually timing is the computer running your solution.
So? That's the only thing that it's interesting to compete over.
Quote:
it would be like competing in a platform games using strategy and routes, ideas instead of actual gameplay.
Except it wouldn't, because the gameplay of platform games is about physical skill. There is no skill element to TIM normally.
I can appreciate that you need to include placement for a SS run. But for IL runs, it's pointless, since you'll just find the optimal solution in terms of how long it runs for and then redo the placement over and over until you nail it pixel-perfect on your first attempt. All that timing placement adds to this situation is a pointless extra nuisance for the runner which would put people off doing runs without really adding any value to the videos. So perhaps it would be acceptable to time everything in a SS run and only the solution run time in an IL run, since placement is only going to be a significant part of gameplay in the SS?
Quote:
Anyway, you could always make 2 categories
Bad idea for IL runs since they'd end up being identical runs as I already pointed out. Also a bad idea for SS runs since then the runs that didn't include placement would just be identical to the IL runs but with lots of extra boring minutes of jiggling pieces around nobody would want to watch (as you've already pointed out).
Yeah, I've convinced myself SS and IL need to be timed differently. Dunno if I've convinced anyone else.
everybody wanna tell you the meaning of music
Yeah, the idea I had in mind was the same as what most people have come to agree on. IL lends itself towards only run timer (since that's what the game tracks), and SS, which is more focused on skill anyway, can be total time because it's easy to manually time anyway.
I'm not shutting the door on manually timed IL's, but people who want to do IL's will probably settle on run timer only.
I'm not shutting the door on manually timed IL's, but people who want to do IL's will probably settle on run timer only.