Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Cas

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 15
1
General Chat - ZSC / Re: ZCT 202 - Dual-way concept
« on: July 05, 2018, 12:47:49 AM »
Ohh!   :o  Wow... now I see it!

2
Competition 2018 / Re: Z204 - Evasive Maneuvers
« on: July 04, 2018, 06:44:59 AM »
This is a great track. It really is tempting to race it with fast cars, but then it's impossible to compete with the Ford Ranger on this one. I'm still at the first stage. I like not looking about other people's replays for my first laps and I've found just a few small tricks that don't make a lot of a difference and some only make sense with a fast car. I'm still getting to know the track, but the design is really cool. I'm sure there's lots to do here :)

3
General Chat - ZSC / Re: ZCT 202 - Dual-way concept
« on: July 04, 2018, 06:11:58 AM »
I'm not sure about what really is the rule. Like I understood it originally, dual-way switching required:
1 - Getting to the bifurcation
2 - Actually picking one of the two ways and entering at least one tile of one of them
3 - Leaving the path at some point before the two ways join again
4 - Entering the other path at some intermediate point too
5 - Reaching the union again

But here, this is not the case, as you never actually join one of the two paths. Now, I could think it's enough with just leaving the path and then rejoining the same path, but is it required that the same path be re-entered from a tile other than the one it was left to?  I am not watching the RPL right now, but let me see if I remember correctly:

1 - You first reached the split, then took the purple path
2 - You drove the two closed corners, leaving the second tile (second corner) toward the east
3 - You drove south to the tile containing the palm tree
4 - You re-entered the same path from the north into the last purple tile (fourth corner)
5 - You got to the crossing and turned west

Is this correct?

4
Competition 2018 / Re: Z202 - Ketiranyu
« on: June 05, 2018, 05:34:41 AM »
It'd be very interesting to see an example of what Duplode mentions. Still, I do agree too. It's OK if one, for example, temporarily takes a path in the wrong way to be able to reach a loop they can use to get to powergear and then resume the race at full speed, things like that. I supposed this could be solved as follows: it is not allowed to drive wrong way on a path that's already been driven in the right direction. That is, you are still allowed to drive in the right direction on a path that's already driven wrong way. Or more simply and more general: wrong way driving is only allowed on previously undriven paths. Would that solve it?

GTA, I too noticed you felt comfortable with the trick, but it's great that you state clearly that you allow it, to clear all doubt.
Duplode, yes, maybe asking on a choice would make a greater tendency for authors toward disallowing while there might be no problem.
GTA, had you been asked when posting your track if you would want to allow DWS (and explained what it was), do you think you would've said "yes" before you saw how things evolved?  If I had been the author of the track, I probably would've come back to the drawing board to study it. I would've wanted to allow it, but would want to make sure nothing too drastic could be done. Still, I wouldn't have seen the tricks in advance.

It's very interesting. It looks like every track is one track when first posted and another track once it's been raced. Once you know what the design can lead to, you look at it differently. You see much more. And as Afullo says, there's also the GAR option, which ensures there will be a more standard approach to the track, so its spirit won't be in danger. If rules can make a track so different, yet each set of rules provides for a track that's just as valid... Is the track what's on the grid or the experience of it?  Maybe the latter is not to be called the "track", but the "race". In that case, I'm thinking that the true challenge for an author is to design a race while creating the track. Very hard thing to do! :)

5
Competition 2018 / Re: Z203 - High as Shift
« on: June 05, 2018, 05:14:38 AM »
This track feels great to drive!  I want to give it more time because my first lap was not that impressive, but I'm sure there's a lot that can be done. The track allows for several tricks :)

6
Competition 2018 / Re: Z202 - Ketiranyu
« on: June 03, 2018, 06:51:18 AM »
Before you mentioned this in the shoutbox, I didn't know it could be done. As I said before, I agree that shouldn't be legal and I like the idea of simply not allowing the same path to be followed twice in different directions. Alan's shortcut, on the other hand, while simple and extreme, I would think of as legal, as long as the author has agreed that DWS can be used on their track.

Now the thing is what should we assume by default?  I think that, to leave no doubt, whenever there is more than one path, the author should be asked about their choice. If that is not done, we'd have to see what his (or her) reaction is when the first pipsqueak chooses to do DWS. My personal feeling on this track is that it has been extremely successful as things developed.

7
Stunts Related Programs / Re: Bliss / Cas-Stunts track editor
« on: May 20, 2018, 12:36:51 AM »
Thank you, Afullo!  You've got a great eye on typos!  I've already fixed the two tings. Next release, they won't be there.

8
Stunts Related Programs / Re: Bliss / Cas-Stunts track editor
« on: May 18, 2018, 01:12:11 AM »
Yes. As a matter of fact, the hardest part of the track analysis isn't to properly find things that should not work, but to emulate the high number of exceptions in Stunts internal track analyser. For example, if you place a ramp, two spaces and another ramp (which sometimes is possible to perform while racing), Stunts will refuse to accept that; but if you have an elevated road, then a space and then a ramp going down (which is completely not possible to ride on), Stunts will accept the track (inverted jump detection bug). Even worse, if you have a long elevated road, you can place spaces in between two pieces and it will still be accepted by Stunts. The first versions of my analyser would not allow this because it was the most sensible thing that they wouldn't work, but then I saw Stunts did, so I had to change it for a warning.

9
Stunts Related Programs / Re: Bliss / Cas-Stunts track editor
« on: May 16, 2018, 11:10:04 PM »
You mean these configurations make the track not load at all?  Well, I believe it's enough with the yellow warning anyway. If I complicate the track analysis any more, I'll break something. It'd be better to just rewrite everything. I also wanted to make Bliss able to measure intervals between any two points on the track, but again, that's something that would work better if done from the beginning. Maybe for Bliss 3, ha, ha!

10
Stunts Code Extraction / Re: Replay recording and limits
« on: May 16, 2018, 11:05:06 PM »
Being able to locate the memory area and the format where the initial position is could allow creating a tool to allow special tracks that can start from slopes. Also, if the region where the car current vector can be located, a TSR tool under Stunts could detect when the car passes through other positions, allowing to set checkpoints and things like that. It'd be a lot of work, though.

In the past, working on the Vizcacha project, I found that creating TSR wraps for Stunts often has conflicts with the DRM-crack system (it may get disabled, thus reactivating the DRM). If we had more knowledge on the memory regions, maybe we could ditch that crack and use something that allows plug-ins instead. It'd be all DOS code.... beautiful XD

11
Competition 2018 / Re: Z202 - Ketiranyu
« on: May 16, 2018, 10:57:35 PM »
I agree with Afullo!

12
Competition 2018 / Re: Guest tracks 2018
« on: May 16, 2018, 10:56:01 PM »
I think that'd be the best. We have to have a track by Zak :)

13
Competition 2018 / Re: Guest tracks 2018
« on: May 11, 2018, 10:02:33 PM »
Who will take December?  Duplode?  Zak?

14
Competition 2018 / Re: Z202 - Ketiranyu
« on: May 11, 2018, 09:59:35 PM »
Well, my feeling on this particular track is that, yes, the shorcut shortens the track significantly. Still, I have the feeling that, depending on the skilll of each pipsqueak, and the perseverance (I've learnt to use the latter recently XD), one can improve a lot. I mean, it's not that it loses all its magic. But it depends on GTAMan whether he feels his track is being properly raced or not (I think).

In general, my opinion on dual-way switching is that it may be disappointing when it's found on a track that one expected to race in a more normal way, but also, it can be an amazing part of track design itself. Making a track that purposedly allows dual-way switching with some difficulty and in different ways adds a lot of spice to the race. What is not clearly defined is what happens when a track that was not originally intended for this trick seems to be well received with the trick included, even by the author. I believe under these circumstances, the last word should always go to the track author. On the other hand, it could be a good rule that, upon posting a new track and before the race starts, if the track contains split, the author should specify whether dual-way switching will be allowed or not.

EDIT: I want to add that my message in the shoutbox was an answer, not a proposal. Replays using dual-way switching on this track had already been posted, so I commented that and then posted mine. I was not the first person to post using that trick.

15
Competition 2018 / Re: Z202 - Ketiranyu
« on: May 09, 2018, 09:22:44 PM »
In my opinion, while short, the track is still interesting, but GTAMan should have the last word

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 15