Another fowl MAME N AVI Recordinggreenspun.com : LUSENET : MARP Editors : One Thread |
Nice job - you beat Pnickies - but next time run it on MAME 35 TG 3 so we know you ran it at 100 %.I post the results minus some bits out of ben jos's program to point out Skito's bits.
What I'm sorta curious about is why that wasn't declared slowdown by Skito's program (yeah - consider me uninformed :) )
Pnickj1.inp ----POSSIBLE CHEAT CONDITION---- ---Output from Tool Chad's Analyse Inp--- Analinp Version 2j-------- analinp Report -------- p = 3 f = 4 Bit# frames:on/off Presses BPresses Bursts highVar LowVar Speed% 74 701/42662 393 48 8 0.19 0.228 43.1% 75 622/42741 360 20 5 0.17 0.221 48.3% 78 2983/40380 349 39 11 0.16 0.198 72.0% 79 4092/39271 669 104 23 0.19 0.207 59.7% 90 701/42662 393 48 8 0.19 0.228 43.1% 91 620/42743 360 20 5 0.21 0.221 50.8% p = 10 f = 9 Bit# frames:on/off Presses BPresses Bursts highVar LowVar Speed% 74 701/42662 393 25 2 0.16 0.233 86.2% 79 4092/39271 669 33 3 1.24 0.282 78.5% 90 701/42662 393 25 2 0.16 0.233 86.2%
c:\arcade\INP\Pnickj1.inp -------- End Of analinp Report --------
---Output from Tool BenJos' Inp History--- Bit 74, length 1: 188 ( 33.10%) Bit 74, length 2: 251 ( 44.19%) Bit 74, length 3: 51 ( 8.98%) Bit 74, length 4: 25 ( 4.40%) Bit 74, length 5: 20 ( 3.52%) Bit 74, length 6: 8 ( 1.41%) Bit 74, length 7: 10 ( 1.76%) Bit 74, length 8: 7 ( 1.23%) Bit 74, length 9: 6 ( 1.06%) Bit 74, length 10: 2 ( 0.35%) Bit 74, length >10: 218 Bit 75, length 1: 180 ( 35.93%) Bit 75, length 2: 196 ( 39.12%) Bit 75, length 3: 45 ( 8.98%) Bit 75, length 4: 29 ( 5.79%) Bit 75, length 5: 16 ( 3.19%) Bit 75, length 6: 13 ( 2.59%) Bit 75, length 7: 8 ( 1.60%) Bit 75, length 8: 4 ( 0.80%) Bit 75, length 9: 7 ( 1.40%) Bit 75, length 10: 3 ( 0.60%) Bit 75, length >10: 219 Bit 78, length 1: 179 ( 47.11%) Bit 78, length 2: 113 ( 29.74%) Bit 78, length 3: 25 ( 6.58%) Bit 78, length 4: 17 ( 4.47%) Bit 78, length 5: 14 ( 3.68%) Bit 78, length 6: 7 ( 1.84%) Bit 78, length 7: 11 ( 2.89%) Bit 78, length 8: 6 ( 1.58%) Bit 78, length 9: 4 ( 1.05%) Bit 78, length 10: 4 ( 1.05%) Bit 78, length >10: 318 Bit 79, length 1: 469 ( 52.93%) Bit 79, length 2: 218 ( 24.60%) Bit 79, length 3: 58 ( 6.55%) Bit 79, length 4: 35 ( 3.95%) Bit 79, length 5: 22 ( 2.48%) Bit 79, length 6: 27 ( 3.05%) Bit 79, length 7: 21 ( 2.37%) Bit 79, length 8: 11 ( 1.24%) Bit 79, length 9: 15 ( 1.69%) Bit 79, length 10: 10 ( 1.13%) Bit 79, length >10: 452 Bit 90, length 1: 188 ( 33.10%) Bit 90, length 2: 251 ( 44.19%) Bit 90, length 3: 51 ( 8.98%) Bit 90, length 4: 25 ( 4.40%) Bit 90, length 5: 20 ( 3.52%) Bit 90, length 6: 8 ( 1.41%) Bit 90, length 7: 10 ( 1.76%) Bit 90, length 8: 7 ( 1.23%) Bit 90, length 9: 6 ( 1.06%) Bit 90, length 10: 2 ( 0.35%) Bit 90, length >10: 218 Bit 91, length 1: 182 ( 36.33%) Bit 91, length 2: 194 ( 38.72%) Bit 91, length 3: 45 ( 8.98%) Bit 91, length 4: 29 ( 5.79%) Bit 91, length 5: 16 ( 3.19%) Bit 91, length 6: 13 ( 2.59%) Bit 91, length 7: 7 ( 1.40%) Bit 91, length 8: 5 ( 1.00%) Bit 91, length 9: 7 ( 1.40%) Bit 91, length 10: 3 ( 0.60%) Bit 91, length >10: 219 OK
-- Anonymous, June 24, 2000
Actually, "InpHisto" stands for "Inp Histogram", but that's a detail.(And whom are you talking to when you say "you"? I don't know who made that .inp, but he probably does not have access to this board.)
Yes, I thought myself that the speed was impossible, but I hadn't run InpHisto on it. But here is a nice example of the kind of information that can be gotten from InpHisto and how to use it. By itself, the information may not mean too much, because it seems to be highly game-dependent, but when compared to someone else's .inp...
So here is the output from my own current T4 submission on Pnickies. Notice the huge difference in speed. The average length of my key presses / non-key presses is around 4 frames, while this .inp's average length is around 1.5...
Analinp Version 2k-------- analinp Report -------- p = 3 f = 4 Bit# frames:on/off Presses BPresses Bursts highVar LowVar Speed% p = 10 f = 9 Bit# frames:on/off Presses BPresses Bursts highVar LowVar Speed%
bjw_t4-pnickj_250250_m35tg3.inp -------- End Of analinp Report --------
-------- InpHisto Report -------- Bit 186, length >10: 2 Bit 187, length 2: 5 ( 1.23%) Bit 187, length 3: 20 ( 4.93%) Bit 187, length 4: 110 ( 27.09%) Bit 187, length 5: 143 ( 35.22%) Bit 187, length 6: 86 ( 21.18%) Bit 187, length 7: 23 ( 5.67%) Bit 187, length 8: 11 ( 2.71%) Bit 187, length 9: 6 ( 1.48%) Bit 187, length 10: 2 ( 0.49%) Bit 187, length >10: 180 Bit 189, length 9: 1 ( 33.33%) Bit 189, length 10: 2 ( 66.67%) Bit 189, length >10: 147 Bit 190, length 3: 6 ( 7.32%) Bit 190, length 4: 9 ( 10.98%) Bit 190, length 5: 29 ( 35.37%) Bit 190, length 6: 21 ( 25.61%) Bit 190, length 7: 6 ( 7.32%) Bit 190, length 8: 7 ( 8.54%) Bit 190, length 9: 1 ( 1.22%) Bit 190, length 10: 3 ( 3.66%) Bit 190, length >10: 204 Bit 191, length 3: 1 ( 0.93%) Bit 191, length 4: 12 ( 11.21%) Bit 191, length 5: 24 ( 22.43%) Bit 191, length 6: 23 ( 21.50%) Bit 191, length 7: 19 ( 17.76%) Bit 191, length 8: 12 ( 11.21%) Bit 191, length 9: 13 ( 12.15%) Bit 191, length 10: 3 ( 2.80%) Bit 191, length >10: 241 Bit 251, length >10: 2 Bit 255, length >10: 2 -------- End Of InpHisto Report --------
Cheers, Ben Jos.
-- Anonymous, June 24, 2000
only reason this recording (not ben jos's) wasn't detected was because there were not more than 200 presses per button. i wonder if the detection scheme should add up buttons and then compare if they are +200, then this would be detected as autofire. Remember: DO NOT use analinp strictly to detect slow downs, IT has been engineered to detect autofiring, NOT slowdowns. ben jos discovered later that it "could" detect slowdowns, but it would only detect slowdowns for games that require much button pressing.
-- Anonymous, June 24, 2000