Limit between bounces and bugs
Moderator: Moporators
Limit between bounces and bugs
now, when i saw clouds new world record on enigma on the world record table( 19.62).
i have to say it,
cloud is one of the best players ever,
but i dont know how can you do such good time without small bug bounce.
just look at ciph record (20.01 i think) once that rec was a mopo rec, he used in that rec a bug bounce but the replay was accepted .
or look at micks replay (19.76) it also looks like bug.
where is the limit between bug bonce and noraml bounce? what is the diffrense between normal bounce and very small bug bounce? i dont know if anybody can answer that.
we must define a clear limit between bounces and bugs .
i have to say it,
cloud is one of the best players ever,
but i dont know how can you do such good time without small bug bounce.
just look at ciph record (20.01 i think) once that rec was a mopo rec, he used in that rec a bug bounce but the replay was accepted .
or look at micks replay (19.76) it also looks like bug.
where is the limit between bug bonce and noraml bounce? what is the diffrense between normal bounce and very small bug bounce? i dont know if anybody can answer that.
we must define a clear limit between bounces and bugs .
Re: The problem of enigma
what for?Ikop wrote:we must define a clear limit between bounces and bugs .
Seems it's me and px who decides if the bounce is legal or not untill we have a better solution.
40:02,71 (152.) | WCup4: 8. | 3x WR | 3x GAA | 12x FEM | KOM | The History of Elasto Mania (1993-2018)
"cloud is one of the best players ever"
no offence to cloud (and i am sure he thinks this as well) but he is not one of the best players ever.
anyway. you can normally see the different between bug bounces and normal bounces. my bounce was quite fast but nothing compared to a bug bounce. many people have got bounces like mine. just check stini's rec and my 20,29, and ciphs 20,02 and ........ blah. you can't call them bug because everyone gets them.
i am not saying this because i got a good time on enigma, i dont really care because that was a fluke anyway. but i think there is a definite difference between a normal bounce and a bug bounce.
no offence to cloud (and i am sure he thinks this as well) but he is not one of the best players ever.
anyway. you can normally see the different between bug bounces and normal bounces. my bounce was quite fast but nothing compared to a bug bounce. many people have got bounces like mine. just check stini's rec and my 20,29, and ciphs 20,02 and ........ blah. you can't call them bug because everyone gets them.
i am not saying this because i got a good time on enigma, i dont really care because that was a fluke anyway. but i think there is a definite difference between a normal bounce and a bug bounce.
team EM - why not ok?
If being in the top5 in the totals list and taking 4 wrs in one table doesn't make you one of the best players ever, what does?Mick wrote:"cloud is one of the best players ever"
no offence to cloud (and i am sure he thinks this as well) but he is not one of the best players ever.
About the bounces, it's obviously impossible to determine an exact border between bugs and bounces, each rec has to be viewed individually. Since suspicious bounces are very rare it offers little extra work for whoever accepts the recs.
i was third in total time (or maybe even second?) at one stage. that doesn't make me one of the best players ever. no way near. there is no doubt he is one of the best at the moment, but not ever.
team EM - why not ok?
Yeah, you got a point there! IMO the best player ever in across / Elma History is Champi0n! Damn I was impressed when I first saw his WR style on Ziggy in acrossMick wrote:i was third in total time (or maybe even second?) at one stage. that doesn't make me one of the best players ever. no way near. there is no doubt he is one of the best at the moment, but not ever.
[GF]
.
wow I just love so much micks attitude, kisses :*
..hmm now must find something on topic ...thinking .....thinking ...
.. .. oh ye;
I had trouble with this "bug bounce limit" in wcup11. There in the beginnning I sometimes got these so called kick bounces but they were too fast so I couldn't handle the bike hehe. Once I almost finished with really good bounce (died 1pixel from the flower) and after that I wondered would it have been accepted.
..hmm now must find something on topic ...thinking .....thinking ...
.. .. oh ye;
I had trouble with this "bug bounce limit" in wcup11. There in the beginnning I sometimes got these so called kick bounces but they were too fast so I couldn't handle the bike hehe. Once I almost finished with really good bounce (died 1pixel from the flower) and after that I wondered would it have been accepted.
Position in wc | total time | site | hi
Yes, if you get some bounce many times (mm, over 3..?) it should be accepted I think.
40:02,71 (152.) | WCup4: 8. | 3x WR | 3x GAA | 12x FEM | KOM | The History of Elasto Mania (1993-2018)
OK, just in reply of milagros in replay sharing thread:
With your explaining you say that a bounce is not the usual bouncy effect you get when wheel is pressured, but it is a different thing, and a bug. (A numerical one). Did I got that right?
Then I am completely wrong about what I thought how I understood the physics of this game. Shit.
With your explaining you say that a bounce is not the usual bouncy effect you get when wheel is pressured, but it is a different thing, and a bug. (A numerical one). Did I got that right?
Then I am completely wrong about what I thought how I understood the physics of this game. Shit.
Continuing the discussion from the replays sharing thread:
(on "unstable" differential equations)
I have seen the same kind of numerical effect in a small gravity program I created. When two objects get close, the force between them gets very large. In my simulator I used a fininte time step, and assumed that the force was constant in this time interval (this usually is a good approximation). However, when objects are close, the approximation is very bad (the force is large and varies very much with time), and some times the objects shoot out with enormous speed
I don't think every bounce that can be done more than 3 times should be allowed, controlling conservation of energy is at least one way of distinguishing between "legal" and "illegal" bounces. (You would have to include the work don by the wheel + the energy gained from volting)
My suggestion is:
1. Energy after bounce must be less than:
energy before bounce + work done by wheel + energy from volting
2. No strange wheel movement (wheel jumping to a different part of the screen), just clean moves
There could be problems with this suggestion that I don't know about, of course. But it doesn't seem too hard to do.
(on "unstable" differential equations)
I have seen the same kind of numerical effect in a small gravity program I created. When two objects get close, the force between them gets very large. In my simulator I used a fininte time step, and assumed that the force was constant in this time interval (this usually is a good approximation). However, when objects are close, the approximation is very bad (the force is large and varies very much with time), and some times the objects shoot out with enormous speed
I don't think every bounce that can be done more than 3 times should be allowed, controlling conservation of energy is at least one way of distinguishing between "legal" and "illegal" bounces. (You would have to include the work don by the wheel + the energy gained from volting)
My suggestion is:
1. Energy after bounce must be less than:
energy before bounce + work done by wheel + energy from volting
2. No strange wheel movement (wheel jumping to a different part of the screen), just clean moves
There could be problems with this suggestion that I don't know about, of course. But it doesn't seem too hard to do.
Last edited by Phillip on 7 Jan 2005, 20:41, edited 1 time in total.