When will the WR TT be under 36?!

psteve · Post by **psteve** » 17 Nov 2004, 05:29

The limit wont be reach for years, depending on your definition of the limit. I think we will be able to tell the limit when the current almost linear trend in the fall in wrtt's (on a monthly basis) suddenly changes gradient by a large amount, and the limit will be around that time. If your definition of the limit is the last wrtt, ie the lowest it'll ever go, that'll take, again depending on too many things to be accurate, between 5-50 years. I know phillip you think that the exponential decay graph e^-x + a where a is the limit is the best model. It usually is for things in nature (ie some kind of exp graph). But there are many things, for example the rate at which we are able to make things smaller, where the graph is more shaped like: \_ ie a very sharp change in the linear pattern. If this is the case for elma, it's almost impossible to tell when the _ will hit.

Behk · Post by **Behk** » 17 Nov 2004, 07:58

WR TT never gonna get under 36, its facking impossible. maybe not, if u make 10secs better on AH and NW if possible

burgertime · Post by **burgertime** » 24 Nov 2004, 04:31

The limit will be about 29:59.99

but seriously it will probably be 36:1X:XX in my opinion

Juski · Post by **Juski** » 6 Dec 2004, 01:26

Phillip wrote:Graph 1 <-- Goes to table 189
Graph 2 <-- Goes to table 500

Look at Graph 1 and ulll see that predited TT goes on a curve while actual TT is a more straight line so why not under 36??

Phillip · Post by **Phillip** » 6 Dec 2004, 19:42

Juski wrote: Look at Graph 1 and ulll see that predited TT goes on a curve while actual TT is a more straight line so why not under 36??

Straight line is because of "random" variations over shorter time, in the long run (on average) it can't be a straight line.

My model is of course not the best model possible, it is actually just the simplest function that has the properties I wanted (it has a limit, and it is steeper in the beginning). A more advanced curve is, of course, possible to create, but it requires more input parameters (seasonal variations, good people who have quit and so on). Therefore it would be much harder to use.

Juski · Post by **Juski** » 6 Dec 2004, 19:52

Phillip wrote:
Juski wrote: Look at Graph 1 and ulll see that predited TT goes on a curve while actual TT is a more straight line so why not under 36??
Straight line is because of "random" variations over shorter time, in the long run (on average) it can't be a straight line.

My model is of course not the best model possible, it is actually just the simplest function that has the properties I wanted (it has a limit, and it is steeper in the beginning). A more advanced curve is, of course, possible to create, but it requires more input parameters (seasonal variations, good people who have quit and so on). Therefore it would be much harder to use.

I didnt mean it was a absouloutly straight line just a much wider curva, or maybe just a little wider and making under 35 possible, theoreticly.

Phillip · Post by **Phillip** » 6 Dec 2004, 19:58

Well, you have to do some guessing when fitting the curve. I guessed that in the future new styles will have less relative impact on the tt than it has before. Therefore I guessed that the last part of the tt would be more representative, and fitted the curve to this idea.

A more detailed fit would just require more input parameters, and because of all the uncertainties it would probably not give a better prediction anyway

You are of course free to make your own guesses, I don't say my guess is the best...

Boss27 · Post by **Boss27** » 6 Dec 2004, 20:39

never

ribot · Post by **ribot** » 7 Dec 2004, 04:35

it's quite useless to represent a mathematical model that only represents a small part of the data. you can as well make a straight line that represents the development even better than these graphs. still if we look at the actual times it is quite clear that it is going down, if nothing dramatic happens like new elma version perhaps. i think under 36 is possible no doubt.

psteve · Post by **psteve** » 5 Jan 2005, 03:23

this is the forth time i say this, but it's never been commented on before.
the wr graph is linear, \ when you plot against time instead of wr tables, and will flatten out very quickly, _. ie the graph will look like \_
lets wait another 10 weeks and we'll see.

Cfilorvy · Post by **Cfilorvy** » 5 Jan 2005, 07:21

The WR TT will never get under 36 min.. Impossible!!
I think it won't even get under 36,40..

Juski · Post by **Juski** » 26 Jan 2005, 16:05

Something like 36:xx,xx???
It is already...

klisse · Post by **klisse** » 27 Jan 2005, 12:15

Jappe wrote:where did you look thoses records?
moposite says that world top TT is zweqÂ¨s 37.16.34.
or are there some new tables somewhere

He refers to the WR TT, not best player TT.
http://www.moposite.com/lists/wr_stats/ ... opment.txt

milagros · Post by **milagros** » 27 Jan 2005, 16:53

Jappe wrote:OK
but i still dont think that TT (all compined or one players)
will never be under 36mins

n00bs never think it can get 5 secs better

Juski · Post by **Juski** » 27 Jan 2005, 21:19

Mila, i think your wrong, noobs don't know how much playing you need for a WR....
Atleast i didn't know, and i haven't even got more then a SWedish record

milagros · Post by **milagros** » 28 Jan 2005, 06:09

Juski wrote:Mila, i think your wrong, noobs don't know how much playing you need for a WR....
Atleast i didn't know, and i haven't even got more then a SWedish record

the problem is that they don't see how much better it can be driven
i always see how sucky my wrs are...

Lex · Post by **Lex** » 28 Jan 2005, 14:00

theres always room for improvement, thats the whole point of playing

petsen · Post by **petsen** » 30 Jan 2005, 18:01

it t0r keeps up this pace it will be very soon... hehe

Post by **Abula** » 18 Sep 2005, 10:28

I will make dates for all old WR tables. Unfortunately we don't all exactly we can easily estimate quite accurate ones. It doesn't matter that much if it's +- one week.

Would be cool to get an update of Phillip's graph.

VADIK · Post by **VADIK** » 18 Sep 2005, 11:59

very unreal TT
it never be

sierra · Post by **sierra** » 18 Sep 2005, 17:15

yesterday

Phillip · Post by **Phillip** » 18 Sep 2005, 17:43

I've just updated the prediciton graph with the last 30 tables. I just kept the prediction from last time, since it still fits quite nicely towards the end:
Prediction graph

Here is the excel file:
download

I did get the list of (approximate) dates for the tables, and I will definitely fix that too, but later...

Post by **Abula** » 18 Sep 2005, 19:50

Here are the dates of WR tables. About 30 of them are just good guesses.

Code: Select all

1=06.03.00
2=12.03.00
3=18.03.00
4=24.03.00
5=30.03.00
6=01.04.00
7=06.04.00
8=09.04.00
9=15.04.00
10=18.04.00
11=22.04.00
12=25.04.00
13=28.04.00
14=01.05.00
15=07.05.00
16=14.05.00
17=21.05.00
18=24.05.00
19=27.05.00
20=04.06.00
21=11.06.00
22=17.06.00
23=25.06.00
24=01.07.00
25=09.07.00
26=11.07.00
27=17.07.00
28=23.07.00
29=30.07.00
30=04.08.00
31=06.08.00
32=13.08.00
33=20.08.00
34=25.08.00
35=03.09.00
36=10.09.00
37=18.09.00
38=24.09.00
39=02.10.00
40=08.10.00
41=15.10.00
42=22.10.00
43=29.10.00
44=02.11.00
45=12.11.00
46=19.11.00
47=26.11.00
48=03.12.00
49=10.12.00
50=17.12.00
51=07.01.01
52=14.01.01
53=21.01.01
54=28.01.01
55=04.02.01
56=11.02.01
57=18.02.01
58=25.02.01
59=03.03.01
60=08.03.01
61=18.03.01
62=25.03.01
63=01.04.01
64=08.04.01
65=22.04.01
66=05.05.01
67=14.05.01
68=27.05.01
69=10.06.01
70=24.06.01
71=08.07.01
72=22.07.01
73=05.08.01
74=23.09.01
75=21.10.01
76=18.11.01
77=02.12.01
78=10.01.02
79=17.01.02
80=04.02.02
81=24.02.02
82=17.03.02
83=07.04.02
84=28.04.02
85=19.05.02
86=12.05.02
87=02.06.02
88=30.06.02
89=28.07.02
90=18.08.02
91=25.08.02
92=01.09.02
93=08.09.02
94=15.09.02
95=22.09.02
96=06.10.02
97=13.10.02
98=20.10.02
99=27.10.02
100=03.11.02
101=10.11.02
102=17.11.02
103=24.11.02
104=01.12.02
105=08.12.02
106=28.12.02
107=05.01.03
108=12.01.03
109=19.01.03
110=26.01.03
111=02.02.03
112=09.02.03
113=16.02.03
114=23.02.03
115=02.03.03
116=09.03.03
117=14.03.03
118=16.03.03
119=24.03.03
120=30.03.03
121=06.04.03
122=13.04.03
123=20.04.03
124=27.04.03
125=04.05.03
126=11.05.03
127=18.05.03
128=25.05.03
129=01.06.03
130=09.06.03
131=15.06.03
132=22.06.03
133=29.06.03
134=06.07.03
135=14.07.03
136=24.07.03
137=27.07.03
138=05.08.03
139=10.08.03
140=17.08.03
141=24.08.03
142=31.08.03
143=07.09.03
144=14.09.03
145=21.09.03
146=28.09.03
147=05.10.03
148=11.10.03
149=19.10.03
150=26.10.03
151=02.11.03
152=09.11.03
153=23.11.03
154=01.12.03
155=12.12.03
156=21.12.03
157=05.01.04
158=12.01.04
159=18.01.04
160=25.01.04
161=03.02.04
162=09.02.04
163=15.02.04
164=29.02.04
165=08.03.04
166=14.03.04
167=21.03.04
168=04.04.04
169=11.04.04
170=18.04.04
171=26.04.04
172=02.05.04
173=09.05.04
174=16.05.04
175=30.05.04
176=16.06.04
177=28.06.04
178=25.07.04
179=15.08.04
180=30.08.04
181=06.09.04
182=12.09.04
183=21.09.04
184=26.09.04
185=03.10.04
186=10.10.04
187=19.10.04
188=24.10.04
189=31.10.04
190=07.11.04
191=14.11.04
192=21.11.04
193=28.11.04
194=05.12.04
195=12.12.04
196=05.01.05
197=16.01.05
198=24.01.05
199=30.01.05
200=06.02.05
201=13.02.05
202=20.02.05
203=06.03.05
204=14.03.05
205=20.03.05
206=04.04.05
207=10.04.05
208=17.04.05
209=24.04.05
210=01.05.05
211=08.05.05
212=15.05.05
213=26.06.05
214=03.07.05
215=27.07.05
216=14.08.05
217=21.08.05
218=23.08.05
219=11.09.05
220=18.09.05

dz · Post by dz » 18 Sep 2005, 19:57

Hmm, interesting. Is this somewhere on moposite also?

Post by **Abula** » 18 Sep 2005, 20:25

dz wrote:Hmm, interesting. Is this somewhere on moposite also?

Not yet. But I hope px will fix the old WR table dates in the next update. Actually he only needs to replace one file by this one.

welle · Post by **welle** » 18 Sep 2005, 22:26

The 86th table came before the 85th?

I switched those two, here's my picture:

Grace · Post by **Grace** » 19 Nov 2005, 11:13

the WR record TT probably will, but i seriously doubt the personal TT will...T0ringe is best player and only just under 37... the WR times are inching closer and closer...

Juski · Post by **Juski** » 19 Nov 2005, 16:19

jaksta ppl doubted it would be under 39mins, now there is a person under 37tt, so why wouldnt he be able to do under 36tt too?

Xiphias · Post by **Xiphias** » 22 Nov 2005, 10:53

If u look at Luthers Jaws time.. down by 0.51 sec.. Quite a loop there. So i guess A.Harvest or Lab-Pro could go kinda low down.. compared to a 54.sec lvl.

I believe that it will be under 36mins... just can't wait to see the new styles which get it under the 36..

Juski · Post by **Juski** » 23 Nov 2005, 00:12

Not to mention toringes ramp frenzy, he improved even shorter level with over 1 sec :o

Dynamo · Post by **Dynamo** » 23 Nov 2005, 01:05

ya man and even hill legened (15 sec long lev) was improved over .5 secs so thats a huge change

jaytea · Post by **jaytea** » 23 Nov 2005, 01:14

ireally think it'll plateau somewhere around 36.low but who knows

Freezen · Post by **Freezen** » 23 Nov 2005, 01:29

interesting argue about WR TT.. i also think that it might go as low as 36, cause it didn't take much time to get from 37:30 to 36:59.. and there were many styles that people didn't even think about but they were done anyway.. and with few years hoyling lab pro could improve pretty much.. and Zweg's (axxu's, John's) AH style could be hoyled few seconds easily i think.. after all, psy's AH was supposed to be max hoyled but Toringe made 1:26 with same style.. but lets see..

Dynamo · Post by **Dynamo** » 24 Nov 2005, 03:55

K lets face it, getting under 36 TT is like trying to pick fly crap out of pepper with boxing gloves.....its off the heeeeez yo

sierra · Post by **sierra** » 24 Nov 2005, 12:24

it won't even reach 36low, it'll reach 36:3x and stay there forever

and it will take a hell of a long time to reach there since tor can't be bothered to do 2:14 lab pro, zweq can't be bothered to beat AH wr, karlis finished serp hoyling etc etc

ElToto · Post by **ElToto** » 24 Nov 2005, 14:15

And why will they not make a common nick and
do that fucking world crazy TT by merging state.dat files ?

Schumi · Post by **Schumi** » 24 Nov 2005, 16:14

I think it will never reach it. Maybe the 36:2x.xx can be possibel if Balazs think out a gift for reaching that TT

And if Elasto Mania 2 comes out...

Some time guessing... But without WR replays, its hard to find out the limit on each level... So please share more

Code: Select all

1.  14,04
2.  15,12
3.  17,81
4.  29,87
5.  19,94
6.  30,58
7.  32,96
8.  20,87
9.  57,21
10. 11,47
11. 23,44
12. 20,66
13. 15,17
14. 17,66
15. 51,78
16. 1:26,17
17. 54,41
18. 44,47
19. 36,32
20. 59,46
21. 14,46
22. 38,94
23. 36,29
24. 50,97
25. 24,43
26. 22,27
27. 34,76
28. 50,67
29. 43,76
30. 32,96
31. 1:16,61
32. 43,06
33. 58,62
34. 36,58
35. 2:16,31
36. 57,46
37. 53,81
38. 29,21
29. 39,64
40. 1:23,72
41. 39,11
42. 47,34
43. 56,81
44. 11,49
45. 32,60
46. 52,76 -> is that possibel????
47. 19,14
48. 45,91
49. 38,41
50. 53,60
51. 42,97
52. 24,73
53. 17,21
54. 1:25,77
========

TT: 36:31.79

jaytea · Post by **jaytea** » 24 Nov 2005, 17:14

Schumi wrote:I think it will never reach it. Maybe the 36:2x.xx can be possibel if Balazs think out a gift for reaching that TT And if Elasto Mania 2 comes out...

Some time guessing... But without WR replays, its hard to find out the limit on each level... So please share more
Code: Select all
1.  14,04
2.  15,12
3.  17,81
4.  29,87
5.  19,94
6.  30,58
7.  32,96
8.  20,87
9.  57,21
10. 11,47
11. 23,44
12. 20,66
13. 15,17
14. 17,66
15. 51,78
16. 1:26,17
17. 54,41
18. 44,47
19. 36,32
20. 59,46
21. 14,46
22. 38,94
23. 36,29
24. 50,97
25. 24,43
26. 22,27
27. 34,76
28. 50,67
29. 43,76
30. 32,96
31. 1:16,61
32. 43,06
33. 58,62
34. 36,58
35. 2:16,31
36. 57,46
37. 53,81
38. 29,21
29. 39,64
40. 1:23,72
41. 39,11
42. 47,34
43. 56,81
44. 11,49
45. 32,60
46. 52,76 -> is that possibel????
47. 19,14
48. 45,91
49. 38,41
50. 53,60
51. 42,97
52. 24,73
53. 17,21
54. 1:25,77
========

TT: 36:31.79

id be more interested in reading estimates from ppl who arent so noob. for example, ff 11.49? in your dreams. you cant just subtract a random amount of hundrendths of a second to predict these limits, in fact its almost impossible to do so since that would involve considering the best possible style for each level.. we may not know them alll

Grace · Post by **Grace** » 18 Dec 2005, 10:42

Juski wrote:jaksta ppl doubted it would be under 39mins, now there is a person under 37tt, so why wouldnt he be able to do under 36tt too?

but think, it went under 37 personal in March...and t0ringe is how much farther down to 36 now...under 2 seconds..

crazyevildude · Post by **crazyevildude** » 18 Dec 2005, 12:16

jaksta wrote:
Juski wrote:jaksta ppl doubted it would be under 39mins, now there is a person under 37tt, so why wouldnt he be able to do under 36tt too?
but think, it went under 37 personal in March...and t0ringe is how much farther down to 36 now...under 2 seconds..

But T0r hasn't been playing much in the last year I don't think.
The WR TT has gone down to 36:4low. And there are still alot of places to improve. Even tag, which many thought was near the limit, has had a new end style invented which could take it to a 20.8x or 7.x (apparently). It will happen one day if people keep playing. Whether an individual will ever do it is a different question....I suppose eventually they are bound too. might take about 7years though

CaeZar · Post by **CaeZar** » 18 Dec 2005, 13:22

It's almost 20:8x already.. So ez 20.7x but 20.6x shouldn't be so impzy.. Am I right?

Grace · Post by **Grace** » 18 Dec 2005, 13:42

you might be..

crazyevildude · Post by **crazyevildude** » 18 Dec 2005, 19:27

CaeZar wrote:It's almost 20:8x already.. So ez 20.7x but 20.6x shouldn't be so impzy.. Am I right?

Quite possibly, but it's not really the point. The point is that when such a short level can still yeiled reasonable improvements it would be foolish to say that <36min TT is impossible.

MiEkk · Post by **MiEkk** » 20 Dec 2005, 15:35

Cloud wrote:The limit is this: 36:4x.

Looks like you're wrong.

WR TT = 36:40,76

Zweq · Post by **Zweq** » 21 Dec 2005, 00:46

i tell ya all long levels(50sec+) ive played for wr, can be 1sec~ better. every single ride contains flaws. you can merge 100 recs and put all best parts together and get perfect wrs, human just cant drive em :(. im getting very convinced under 36 tt is possible but it will take still a lot of time, just gotta hope still some people keep playing to see what happens.

Grace · Post by **Grace** » 21 Dec 2005, 01:09

when elma 2 comes out i will continue playing this game....i like the original more than the thought of a new version..

MagnusB · Post by **MagnusB** » 21 Dec 2005, 01:51

The improvements made in the last couple of months have been roughly equal to those made in the seven months before that. In other words, elma world records are a far too complex phenomenon to predict with any sort of accuracy. Obviously there is some theoretical lower limit for how good the total time can be, but in practice there's always something to improve. Whether the total time ever goes below 36 depends mostly on the amount of revitalization and deflation that takes place among all the potential world record drivers. Who knows, maybe we'll see some sort of big, huge internal level playing renaissance? It's not particularly likely, sure, but it could happen.

Zweq · Post by **Zweq** » 15 Jan 2007, 17:56

Dynamo wrote:wr TT will end up being 36:25.16 exactly. If it goes under I'm quiting elma :P

ha!

Schumi · Post by **Schumi** » 15 Jan 2007, 19:22

I think the limit is around 36:12.xx

CaeZar · Post by **CaeZar** » 15 Jan 2007, 20:31

Dont you see? There's no limit!