Messages

Uhm... that make sense. I know more or less what's happening. I'm using a circular buffer. By default, I'm compiling with a buffer of 200 lines. When you do an lp with 32 cars, the default output is 34 lines long (the cars, the number of cars and one blank line), plus the command line, for a total of 35. If you do this five times in a row, you're pushing 175 lines into the buffer, which is less than 200, so no problem, the buffer is being used without its circular nature. Now, when you do one more lp, you get to 210 lines, so if this fails, I imagine the last 7 cars won't be shown.

The problem is that reading the code, it looks good. When the buffer is full, the start pointer should move down on every push I have to examine it closely. I'll be testing the logic with this example. Thanks!

[stunts]

Update!  Simple Garage 2.1 includes the following:

• You can now scroll in the console using the mouse wheel or PgUp/PgDn
• Listing commands accept the -c option which produces CSV output
• Some auto-detection of car authors

Things to bear in mind:

• Scrolling is sometimes buggy when the output is long. If you guys test it and pinpoint the problems and how to reproduce them, I'll be able to solve them
• As before, when you start, if you don't have a sgar.cfg file, the program will assume Stunts is at the same directory and that there's a garage under a "garage" directory just beneath, which will be created if not there. You can change the Stunts directory by using the stunts command and also set the default garage directory with the gdir command. This will automatically be saved to the configuration file. If it doesn't exist, it'll be created.

This rank system is worth a video and/or wiki article, by the way

"30 year old cars game becomes world famous after a scientific paper is published on tournament statistics" 

Great work!  As always, super professional!

Yes... in fact, the experimental platform I made for Le Stunts estimates the scoreboard order that way: it uses the lap time of the last s/f line crossing and the number of laps instead of what part of the last lap you are, which is more subjective. It almost always results in the same scoreboard

I think I copied them from the wrong place. I usually select to view the image first. Anyway, it's true that it's always better to just upload them

Oh, yes... I think that could indeed help. Google will crawl over its own websites first of all, I suppose

What I know is that while classic search engines offered a way for you to submit your page, new huge engines actually crawl the web to build their own search structure. This means that if there's one thing we can do that definitely help is exchange links with other websites, that is, offer other related website to refer to them in ours and they do the same with us in return.

It's not just visitors that will see the link, but the crawling system itself will "digest" it into its web. The best is to publish not just the address line, but the name of the site, that is, the words that a person would normally use to search for it.

Another thing that can be done, but doesn't help much, is to include tags in the HTML pages of our sites. I've done that in R4K, but it really depends on what the search engine wants to do.

A curious thing, there's also http://wiby.org. This little web engine does allow to submit a page and it's meant for people to find independent websites. I have submitted R4K and ZakStunts there long ago and I see they're still there.

No problem!  Sure, we'll prepare something for May!

I had called for the May event somet time ago, or the October one if it were not possible, but I see that I wasn't scheduled... Anyway, I guess I could do the fourth, although I've no problem to colaborate for another one

I've changed the images to links. I really don't know why the "img" tag doesn't work there. The edit dialog actually tells me to enter the URL there and auto-generates the tag.

With my older monitor, which was 1366x768, I used scaler=normal3x, which almost filled the screen. Scaling integer multiples is a lot faster and looks sharper than interpolating. But then, with my full HD monitor now, I found that DOSBox does not have a normal4x option, so I was forced to using a more complex configuration. I asked in another thread about it. I don't remember any more how I ended up doing it, ha, ha.

Old CRT monitors had a physical resolution that varied. This resolution wasn't exactly a number of pixels wide times a number of pixels hight. Instead, there was a matrix of colour cells and they weren't always aligned in a square grid. Some had sub-pixels that were rectangular and three of them would make a "pixel", but then, these pixels were places staggered like in this image:

https://www.startpage.com/av/proxy-image?piurl=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Fdjjrhhcrflq51.jpg%3Fauto%3Dwebp%26s%3D3f824b4d01f029f7ff185df2f3a3ae794fafb46b&sp=1674334567T4b9768937330ee33f1482d7485ee5712a29e2fcf6cfef8e24d7f190ee1051686

Or you could have bubbles like these:

https://www.startpage.com/av/proxy-image?piurl=https%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F9%2F9f%2FCRT_screen._closeup.jpg%2F800px-CRT_screen._closeup.jpg&sp=1674334567T15dc1acb2f18f97e92935782c68131454bb0fa0d62071388ee5d8105cba7a3df

The "logical pixels" that the video board defined had more to do with time than with space. The CRT cannon would sweep the screen horizontally at a defined speed and the card would turn the cannon on and off to hit the desired "physical pixels". If a memory unit (say, a byte) represented a certain fraction of the line, then you had to wait that much before using the next memory unit to decide whether to turn the cannon on or off. This would get more complicated with colour. At the end of the row, the cannon was turned off and moved quickly to the beginning of the next line. How much it moved down depended on the controller configuration. You could set up the VGA registers via ports. This space down defined the logical pixel height. Therefore, in theory, you could give your screen any vertical definition you wanted, although physically, the more logical resolution, the more blurry it was going to look.

I had a colour VGA monitor that could support up to 720x600 physical pixels. This was pretty standard, if I know well. While that standard graphics resolution was 640x480, you needed 720 pixels wide for 9-dot wide characters in text mode and the CRT cannon supported a vertical resolution of 600, because it had enough time to complete the cycle. But you could tell, if you forced that mode, that it was "suffering", ha, ha. SuperVGA monitors at that time could do 800x600 or even 1024x768. The same game playing at 320x200 with the same aspect ratio on both monitors would look very different. There was clearly a lot more blur in the VGA monitor than in the SuperVGA.

But this isn't the same kind of blur as what you see if you interpolate and represent in a physical-pixel based LCD monitor. It was a more "organic" blur because you weren't adjusted a square-grid resolution to another square-grid resolution, but to something different.

Anyway, most of the time, I prefer the sacrifice in aspect ratio because I don't like the artifacts, nor the slowdown that results from the interpolation. Also, some games (not the case of Stunts, but see Supaplex or Jill of the Jungle), did use 320x200 as if pixels were square so they actually look more natural now in widescreen. This was done because calculations were easier if image blocks were, say, 16x16. Then you'd draw your object and rotate it 90 degrees like it were a square.

EDIT: Changed image to links. I don't know why it doesn't show the images, though.

I celebrate the inauguration of our official community channel!

I've already been preparing a special user on my computer with a clean desktop and the things I will need to record videos. I've also been preparing a script, then I realised that, since I don't have two monitors, I will have to copy the script to my laptop computer to be able to read it while I record so it doesn't show up on the screen.

Should I make the videos all full HD all the time or is it OK to post in other resolutions?  For example, a video that would be the size of the window of Bliss and stay like that. How does that work when it gets to YouTube?  Anyway, full HD seems to work well. I'm just being curious.

Then I don't know...     Who updated the package?  They must know