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 - Lenophis

886
Gaming Discussion / Re: How to do Step Mine for 0 MP
« on: January 07, 2010, 02:30:07 AM »
please do.  if it's incrementing more often than 60x a second, it's not really a "frame counter".  now, it may still suffice for fixing the Randomosity bug, but it'll work differently than what i had in mind (i.e. the solution i proposed for the existing game).
Good news: I'm consistent with the game's behavior, transitions stop $021E.
Bad news: I still can't tell if I have a frame counter or not. bsnes's hex editor updates "once every emulated second," which is far too slow for this test. Geiger's updates more frequently, but still not nearly fast enough. If FCEUXD could work for this, I'd have it made. That hex editor knows how to get it done. :happy:

887
Gaming Discussion / Re: How to do Step Mine for 0 MP
« on: January 07, 2010, 01:45:50 AM »
ok, much of that answer confused me.
:isuck:

Quote
are any of these hooks being triggered by C3/13C8's execution?
No.

Quote
if not, then how do you accomplish a 0-255 frame counter which increments 60 times per second?
The way I did originally was extremely sloppy, I found code that executes in specific areas and hooked those. In essence, the frame counter is incrementing all the time except during transitions which might be true of the original game's behavior. I haven't checked, suppose I should. :blits:

Quote
it's not being called continuously by the original game, or by your added patch code?
I was going to say original game, but then Imzog was kind enough to point out that there are other ways to get to C3/13C8, such as C3/000C. :isuck: I completely overlooked that, even when it was right in front of my face.

888
Gaming Discussion / Re: How to do Step Mine for 0 MP
« on: January 06, 2010, 09:22:29 PM »
ah, i forgot all about you overhauling the RNG(s).
Indeed, we were using my Holy Randomness patch until recently. We've actually gone through eight or nine revivions of RNGs... :blush: Either because of bad seeds, bad results, characters dancing, whatever. You name it, it's happened. :celosa:

Quote
because C3/13C8 is responsible for incrementing the 1-60 frame counter, and the 0-255 frame counter would be incrementing at the same regularity as that frame counter.  (except it'd have a wider range, obviously.)  so it makes sense to harness the original incrementing function since you can rely on its timing.  did you find a better place to do it?
No, we actually made a mess of hooks. Originally I wasn't sure if C3/13C8 was continuously being called or not. Looking through all of the disassemblies, it is not. In fact, I only see the one call in C3's NMI routine. I've always been concerned about how fast this RNG is, and it's fairly fast now. Certainly much faster than the current Holy Randomness patch. :happy:

Quote
ok.  maybe you already threw out the *4 as a result of the overhaul, but if not, you should probably chuck it.
I believe we never touched that part of the battle init code at C2/23ED. The new RNG is ignoring $BE's and $1F6D's input entirely, and is going on its own function. Although in older incarnations of the RNG, the multiplication may have lead to the problems we kept running into. :wtf:

Quote
i say "probably" because i dunno how many entries are in your new RNG table.  if there are still 256, you want to chuck it, because the multiplication will effectively cause you to skip 3/4 of the entries in the table, which is bad.  if there are 1024 or more, then i suppose the *4 is harmless.
One incarnation of the RNG was to use those table entries as seeds, even more complex than what the current Holy patch does. Extensive testing finally lead us to the conclusion that everything we were doing was no better than the original system.

889
General Discussion / Re: NFL season (2009-2010), week 18 - playoffs?!
« on: January 04, 2010, 05:08:37 PM »
huh?  Colts?
I'm the least confident about them winning. Yes, them playing in so many close games this year helps them, but they did what they normally do when things get locked up. Every time they did that, they flamed out in their first game. The only thing they have going for them is that they cannot play the Patriots in the divisional round. :tongue:

If they play against the Jets, they'll be against a team with a four-game winning streak. If they play the Ravens, they go against a QB that knows how to win in the playoffs, even if their defense isn't the same. If they go against the Bengals, Carson Palmer has the ability to rip them apart, though that likely won't happen.

The Saints aren't in any better a position, cause they haven't won since December 13. Momentum is very much against them.
The Vikings suddenly couldn't win a road game, and finished at .500 on the road. Their defense is also in shambles, because of the loss of EJ Henderson.
The Chargers play down to their competition, they have all decade. It hadn't mattered if it was Marty Ball or Norv at the helm, they yap more than they play.
The Patriots can't win a road game, and they'll have to go on the road if they beat the Ravens. Losing Wes Welker only adds to the problem.
The Cowboys haven't won a playoff game in 13 years, and have historically laid down in December in that span. They look dangerous this year, but they also looked dangerous when they were the number 1 seed a couple years ago.
The Bengals sometimes have an identity crisis, and don't know how to play offense.
The Eagles have not shown up to multiple games this year, and both games would have greatly helped them for playoff position.
The Cardinals lay down when the going gets rough. They need to play with the lead.
The Ravens aren't as good defensively as they were a year ago. Perhaps it's the loss of Rexy to the Jets, perhaps it's the loss of a bunch of players to the Jets in free agency, we don't know.
The Packers are on fire, but still have a questionable O-line. They haven't gone against a great pass rush in 4 weeks, so we'll see if that still holds up.
The Jets have a rookie quarterback. Historically that is a bad omen, Joe Flacco was the exception. They have a great rush attack and a great defense, but if they put it on Sanchez's shoulder, they will lose.

Despite all of that, all of them could win.

890
General Discussion / Re: NFL season (2009-2010), week 18 - playoffs?!
« on: January 04, 2010, 03:32:06 PM »
The Bengals are the biggest pretenders out of this group, unfortunately. They lost games against the Broncos, Texans, Raiders, Vikings, Chargers, and Jets. Six of the ten wins are against the AFC North, and they only significant team they beat one could argue are the Packers.

But you know what the best thing is? There is no dominant team in the playoffs this year. Everyone has a weakness, which means we could very well have two 5 vs 6 seed championship matchups. But honestly, I'm not sure the Eagles, Packers, Jets, and Ravens could survive that long. :hmm:

891
General Discussion / Re: NFL season (2009-2010), week 18 - playoffs?!
« on: January 03, 2010, 11:19:15 PM »
Matchups are set:

(6) Eagles @ (3) Cowboys (Saturday, 8 pm EST)
(5) Packers @ (4) Cardinals (Sunday, 4:40 pm EST)
(6) Ravens @ (3) Patriots (Sunday, 1 pm EST)
(5) Jets @ (4) Bengals (Saturday, 4:30 pm EST)

NBC has both Saturday games, CBS and FOX have their respective conference games.

892
General Discussion / Re: NFL season (2009-2010), week 17
« on: January 03, 2010, 10:11:16 PM »
I'm sure Leno can figure out what matchup will occur that I really want to see...
If your picks hold up, the divisional round will be:
(6) Eagles @ (1) Saints
(5) Packers @ (2) Vikings
(3) Patriots @ (2) Chargers
(5) Jets @ (1) Colts

This year is going to have a lot of rematches...

893
Gaming Discussion / Re: We need editors! The bugs return!
« on: January 03, 2010, 09:13:19 PM »
How many bugs am I looking at word-fixering, anyhow? Less than one-thousand?
We've taken care of about 10 so far, though they could all probably use a touch-up again. In the end, I'd say a couple hundred, it depends on how many bugs there are.

894
General Discussion / Re: NFL season (2009-2010), week 17
« on: January 03, 2010, 03:19:00 PM »
Once again, Eli Manning cannot beat the Minnesota Vikings. It's David vs Goliath, even though neither team can play the role of David or Goliath. :happy: It has to have gotten to his head, there's no other explanation for it. Eventually he'll beat the purple, and that'll be a beatdown of epic proportions...

Oh yeah, the Patriots have won road game all year, @ Buffalo just a couple of weeks ago. They host the #6 seed, which will likely be the Jets or Steelers. If they play the Jets, they're ok for that week. If they play the Steelers... :cybez:

Congratz to the Falcons for having consecutive winning seasons for the first time ever. :happy:

895
Gaming Discussion / Re: We need editors! The bugs return!
« on: January 03, 2010, 03:11:20 PM »
You've got about a 5000% proficiency against the rest of the internet by default.
:laugh:

My age may not incur your trust or speak of any credentials I may or may not have
If I was worried about age, I probably would've posted this at RHDN. Nevermind that I may incur the wrath of the staff, but that's something else entirely. :tongue:

Quote
but so long as I'm not dealing with hacking a video game, I'll probably stick with it.
If you are worried about you needing to hack, then rest easy cause we'll take care of that. I'm concerned about "probably" though. Last time I took this task up, I let things distract me, even if it was a good distraction. :childish: Are you sure you want to do this?

896
Gaming Discussion / Re: Gaming Progress Thread
« on: January 02, 2010, 02:54:47 PM »
No complaints about the Annihilator Beam totally not living up to its name? :relom:
Well, other than it likes to seek at targets I don't shoot at times, not really. I suppose it probably should be more powerful if it's going to be called "Annihilator." :tongue:

897
General Discussion / Re: NFL season (2009-2010), week 17
« on: January 02, 2010, 03:56:56 AM »
My week 17 picks:

Colts, Jaguars, Eagles, Bears, Falcons, Panthers, Patriots, 49'ers, Dolphins, Vikings, Bengals, Cardinals, Chargers, Titans, Ravens, Broncos

Playoffs next week!

898
Gaming Discussion / We need editors! The bugs return!
« on: January 02, 2010, 03:53:21 AM »
No, not Pandora's Box, calm down. :whoa: Let's just say Leno got the idea to revive the bugs pages, and this time they are going to get done. Why? Well, for one, the research is getting done much more thoroughly than it did previously, by somebody who knows what they are doing. This allows for more accurate and precise descriptions. Unfortunately, this means we'll probably not be using many, if any of Master ZED's descriptions from his bugs guide. Sorry, ZED.

So where do you guys come in? Well, let's just say I'm no English major, and my descriptions are a bit...off. To put it plainly, we need someone who is willing to go through the aches and pains of improving my writing. :eek: Anybody brave enough to accept?

899
Gaming Discussion / Re: Gaming Progress Thread
« on: January 01, 2010, 10:44:49 PM »
Metroid Prime 2: Echoes (GC)

I hate Quadraxis. Hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate HATE YOU! GRR! Err,  yeah. That fight is completely unfair. Health drops need to be much more frequent if they're going to stick you in a room with no safe zones. While we're on that...

Emperor Ing sucks too, but not for the same reason. My first attempt at fighting it produced a very painful death. I didn't get past the first stage because the damn core kept changing directions on me, so I couldn't get it down past 25%. But in any event, mission accomplished. 13:33 is the time of my final save. Got about 80% because I was getting tired of wandering around aimlessly, so some guides wound up giving me more while I was looking for the Sky Temple keys. :shadow:

900
Gaming Discussion / Re: How to do Step Mine for 0 MP
« on: December 30, 2009, 10:51:09 PM »
that code excerpt reminds me: are you guys tackling the "Monster Encounter Randomosity" bug in Pandora's Box?
I think we did without ever directly touching it. See, we completely trashed the old RNG and replaced it with something even better than my RNG patch. However, I guess we need to test it to be sure.

However, in the event that my word is not enough, I'll address each point:

Quote
fixing the bug should be as simple as:
1) adding a new byte variable that is incremented in function C3/13C8: a 0-255 frame counter.
We've already added the 0-255 frame counter. Question, why would C3/13C8 need to be changed for this?

Quote
2) having C2/23ED use the new variable instead of $021E, and no longer multiply it by 4.
The new RNG renders $BE effectively useless, and it also renders $1F6D useless as well. But like I said, I guess it would need some extensive testing.