View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
pata70
Joined: 23 Mar 2007 Posts: 426 Location: Canada
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Barfo
Joined: 10 Oct 2006 Posts: 2596
|
Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 4:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
well i mean YWC expert, its obvious that the notechart didnt change from PS2 to 360, so im sure that the cutoffs is the same as the GHex one (or at a minimum the same in the holds section which is where the base score difference and actual score difference are), since the GHex agrees with the PS2 cutoff. Also since the top scores for it are still multiples of 50, then its clear that the 360 behaves just like the PS2 and it awards one extra tick of sustain in 5 of the 6 sustains compared to both the GHex calc and the base score. That is basically solved as much as it can be for this song, even though we may not like the implication of the results.
The YWC is a very easy song to proof 4* on anyways, you just have to break like every 4x and then in the 6 sustains hit those at 1x and if you dont get the right mod 50 after that then start over (practice the ending a few times until you are comfortable you can do it every time).
For easy it sounds like the GHex is just missing a note somewhere (thus the 50 off). Thats not even related to this issue, i would guess. And plus im sure there are other cases where GHex doesnt match the rounding of sustains even though im many cases the new one seem to catch some errors. Thats probably the explanation for that song where you had 80 base score difference. _________________
Watching her, these things she said / "Time," she cried "failed to wait, this time"
***
Hush now / Let it go now / I know it's time to go / Time to let this fall / From my hands |
|
Back to top |
|
|
pata70
Joined: 23 Mar 2007 Posts: 426 Location: Canada
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Barfo
Joined: 10 Oct 2006 Posts: 2596
|
Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 9:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah i think those are with an older version. That one used to cut off the lowest note of the chords if the song ended on a non-sustain chord, and it had some problems with runs of the same hold notes running into each other, not showing all of them. And i think based on what i saw in the JtF charts direct comparison that i did a while back to chase down that PAL issue that it was handlign rounding differently - compare PS2 to 360 on JtF and some holds are shorter points on PS2 (?). kata would know the details better. If you compare the PS2 and the 360 notecharts you ee that the PS2 one is +1 points for each of the four final sustains. So those two known ghex issues explain (as you point out) the +4 and the -50 difference between those scoresof the two charts. The ghex estimate for 360 is more reliable than the older PS2 notechart ones which is why i always quote those (for songs that i dont think the notecharts).
So thinkign only in terms of the 360 chart, the ghex disagrees with the actual gameplay in 5 of those sustains being +1 in actual gameplay (ie they are worth 150 and not 149). Whereas in the base score calculation from the game, the proven base score shows that it is counting them as 148. Funky business. I didnt notice it on expert that the ghex was not doign -2 on the chords like the base score obviously does. on the other diffs where its single note sustains the ghex and the game base score agree and are counting those at -1 compared to the gameplay.
What this means is that JCirri was right in requiring that cutoffs only get entered based on proven pics, as there will always be some doubt between whether we (ghex) are calculating the base score right in terms of the gameplay, and even if we get it right in terms of gameplay (or even if on easy somebody was able to do a 100% at 1x with all hold points run and verify the actual base gameplay value) we now know that at least in some cases the game's own chart calculation of base score can disagree (slightly) with the actual gameplay base score. _________________
Watching her, these things she said / "Time," she cried "failed to wait, this time"
***
Hush now / Let it go now / I know it's time to go / Time to let this fall / From my hands |
|
Back to top |
|
|
pata70
Joined: 23 Mar 2007 Posts: 426 Location: Canada
|
Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 11:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hmm. Could it be as simple as:
Both gameplay scoring and GHex round the sustain points up or down, maybe differently, and internal base score calculation doesn't round at all (for each individual sustain), but only rounds the total base score?
I wonder if the makers of GHex could try to accumulate the base score including any fractions of sustain notes and show the total? If it hasn't been done already...
Also, if GHex shows note scores for each measure that don't match the gameplay scoring, and don't match the internal base score either, then should it be considered incorrect? Maybe we could get rid of this "third" scoring method if we have it match exactly with one of the other two... and in this case, which one would we want to see in the note charts, the internal base score or the gameplay scoring?
Sorry about the rambling, if this doesn't make sense for GHex or has already been discussed before, I really haven't been following GHex development and can't try it because I only have the 360 version without the secret recipe _________________
Is life? No. Demorez. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
debr5836
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 Posts: 1159 Location: Fort Collins, CO
|
Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 5:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm working on a GH midi-parsing project of my own.
I think the sustain tick errors lay in where you put the rounding. In geek speek, its the difference between
sustain_score = multiplier * chord_size * int ( 25.0 * note_beats + 0.5 + 1e-7)
vs.
sustain_score = multiplier * int ( 25.0 * chord_size * note_beats + 0.5 + 1e-7)
vs.
sustain_score = int ( 25.0 * multiplier * chord_size * note_beats + 0.5 + 1e-7)
I'm guessing that GHEx is using the 2nd choice (thus getting odd number results from two note chords), while GH2 is using the top choice. I've had much better luck in aligning to reality with some variant of the top equation.
Perhaps we can bribe kata into moving the rounding around in the next GHEx to see if he can line up the calculated base scores a little more tightly. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ChainsawSolo
Joined: 17 Mar 2007 Posts: 78 Location: Madison, WI
|
Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 3:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Barfo wrote: | People poking around in the cracked dtb files (?) could probably find that quantity, especially if they are knowing they are lookign for 0.16667 because it turns out to be the same in GH2 as GH1. |
I'm very sorry to pester you with this when you have been so gracious and helpful...but would you please help me out by clarifying exactly what you mean when you say "0.16667" I don't understand what this signifies because you left out the units of measurement. Does this refer to the timing window being = 0.16667 seconds of real time per radius from the center of the note or is it the measurement of the diameter? Does it have nothing to do with time measurement, and instead refer to the position of some line of code or something? What difficulty setting does this mysterious unlabeled number apply to? Please help me, I'm so confused. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Barfo
Joined: 10 Oct 2006 Posts: 2596
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
PenguinMan
Joined: 04 Mar 2007 Posts: 324 Location: Galesville, WI
|
Posted: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
wow, how long did this take? _________________
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
debr5836
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 Posts: 1159 Location: Fort Collins, CO
|
Posted: Sun Jul 08, 2007 7:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Alright, I think I've had a bit of a breakthrough on calculating cutoffs.
Let's considere pata's breakdown (or at least a similar one)
(a) GH2 Gameplay score calculation
(b) GHEx score calculation
(c) Base
I'm hypothesizing that the sustain formulae for each of these cases is as follows:
(a) int ( 25 * chordsize * <beats> + 0.5) * multiplier
(b) int ( 25 * chordsize * <beats> ) * multiplier
(c) int ( 25 * <beats> ) * chordsize * multiplier
In running this through Surrender/X360/Expert, I get the following three "base scores"
(a) 66226
(b) 66157 (same as GHex)
(c) 66051
Note that 2 x (c) corresponds exactly to the 4* cutoff. This could be coincidence, but I'm hoping now.
I've got some other bugs in here, but I thought I would share with you the glimmer of encouraging news here.
I'm hoping that if we can demonstrate an algorithm that aligns with all current known proofs, we can convince JCirri to populate all of the holes with at least "red" numbers. _________________
Check out my SP Galleries for GH1-PS2, GH2-PS2, GH2-X360, GHRT80S-PS2, and GH3
GH2 Log: 9/2/2007 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Slessie
Joined: 08 Jul 2007 Posts: 6
|
Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2007 4:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sweet guide, thanks. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Gibertram
Joined: 16 Jun 2007 Posts: 180 Location: Derry, NH
|
Posted: Thu Aug 02, 2007 12:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
interesting... Has any song ever been 9*ed? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
LocalH
Joined: 30 Oct 2006 Posts: 1400 Location: MiloHax
|
Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2007 8:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ok, I'm thinking after doing some talking with a few people that the values given here are slightly off in terms of whammying additional SP. JC says:
JCirri wrote: | The only variable is star power sections that have holds, where you can whammy for extra power. Star power is gained at a rate of 3.3333% of the meter per beat. This means the following:
Whammying for 7.5 beats will gain 1/4 of the star power meter
Whammying for 15 beats will gain 1/2 of the star power meter
Whammying for 30 beats will gain the entire star power meter
Note: In GH2's co-op mode, star power is acquired at a slower rate, as follows:
Whammying for 10 beats will gain 1/4 of the star power meter
Whammying for 20 beats will gain 1/2 of the star power meter
Whammying for 40 beats will gain the entire star power meter |
However, the scoring.dtb file in all three games reports whammy_rate as 0.034, or 3.4% in singleplayer, and 0.028, or 2.8% in coop for GH2 OPM, GH2, and GH80s. Doing the math:
0.25 / 0.034 = 7.3529411764705882352941176470588
0.25 / 0.028 = 8.9285714285714285714285714285714
That tells me that it may be possible to get activations where we're not thinking we can. This was brought up to me by someone who was saying that they got, on two separate occasions, enough SP from the third phrase in The Warrior to gain an activation. According to debr's charts, there are 7.25 beats assuming the hold is hit dead on. If it only takes just over 7.35 beats of whammy to get a quarter bar, then that is entirely within the note window, I think (only an 0.1 beat difference). It may not matter on all songs, depending on the BPM setting, but I think it should be taken into account, it might help people up their scores a bit and make some previously "impossible" scores possible.
Any thoughts? Am I completely off-base here? I figure, since the values I'm using are directly from the DTB files, they should be 100% accurate to use for calculations. _________________
Last edited by LocalH on Mon Aug 06, 2007 9:14 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
MuDvAyNe
Joined: 08 Jan 2007 Posts: 1577 Location: St. Peters, MO
|
Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2007 9:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
I will second that you can get an activation out of the third phrase in The Warrior... _________________
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Apoc112
Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 10 Location: Erie, PA, USA
|
Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
thank you for flooding my mind with GHII knowledge while i'm at work... it really helped distract me from my (potential) customers. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
ScoreHero Forum Index
-> Technique, Style, and Gameplay
-> Guitar/Bass |
All times are GMT Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next
|
Page 5 of 10 |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Copyright © 2006-2024 ScoreHero, LLC
|
Powered by phpBB
|