[flamewing]

Endri, on 08 February 2012 - 03:01 PM, said:

I believe that first and foremost, you may need to ask yourself the following question: What is one player more likely to do when jumping an obstacle or wall, or trying to reach a higher platform in a 'platforming' genre of game?

If someone is playing the game, I will agree that he will press the directional; if he is showcasing, all bets are off. But you do raise a valid point, particularly when you factor this in:

Endri, on 08 February 2012 - 03:01 PM, said:

It doesn't help the fact that in the lastest video, the player completly avoided direct contact with the wall. Perhaps they read the technicall notes writen by Saxman, ICE Knight, Sik, Rika Chou, Taxman and me, or was that just coincidence?

That is more damning than the collision argument by itself.

Endri, on 08 February 2012 - 03:01 PM, said:

I can't conceive how you got this wrong impression from me.[snip]

Fair enough, I was mistaken.

Endri, on 08 February 2012 - 03:01 PM, said:

Your argument doesn't comply with what I said: you are saying that the two sensors rays used to detect floor (and both floor and ceil when or air, and to check if Sonic should jump or not while on the ground in the event of a low ceil right above Sonic) "easily does" what I claim "a hell lot of programming to solve". However, these sensor rays you speak about are vertical rays. Read again what I said:

The two sensor rays used for each of ground and ceiling collision while on-air are indeed vertical sensor rays (and by the way, these sensor rays aren't always cast -- it depends on the angle Sonic's speed makes); but the two sensor rays used while on terrain are only vertical for certain ranges of ground angle. Specifically, if the floor angle is between $20 and $60 or if it is $A0 and $C0, then the rays are horizontal (and they go right in the former range, or left for the latter); both cases happen in loops or steep slopes. So no, I didn't misread you but you misread me. I will concede that using the horizontal rays while walking on a mostly horizontal surface would cause the problems you describe; but this isn't relevant tot he analysis of the video because Sonic is on-air at the time, a point which you already conceded.

Endri, on 08 February 2012 - 03:01 PM, said:

it is a common good programming practice to plan ahead the design decisions and the paths you'll be using in order to reach them before actually sitting down to write the code, because developers have a set deadline to have X feature read at X point.

So you are saying that it is good programming practice to be clairvoyant and know exactly how the game will play before you have a playable tech demo of the engine? Because there is a limit to how much can be done in terms of planning ahead -- games are very complex systems, and the effects of one small decision can have many unintended consequences that you can only find out by trying it out and seeing. Moreover:

Endri, on 08 February 2012 - 03:01 PM, said:

There is simply no time to write an entire code from scratch, only to reach middle development and say "damn that, will rewrite the entire base engine".

I hardly consider tweaking the collision routines to be 'rewriting the base engine'; particularly given that they already have collision routines for checking collision along multiple horizontal rays. Instead, I would consider it a tweak. I will see if I find the documentary you mention.

Endri, on 08 February 2012 - 03:01 PM, said:

Conclusion: you are right about using two horizontal sensor rays only while on air; it would give the "MMF" effect. BUT I think this is a stretch. Then again, we can't rule out any possiblity—Quantum Mechanics in effect for unknown past events.

Any such quantum mechanical effects would be drowned out by decoherence and thermodynamic effects, so we can safely rule them out.

[dsrb]

Master Emerald, on 08 February 2012 - 03:45 PM, said:

Holy SHIT new screens!

Is dat sum Roller behind Sonic? What is going on

[redhotsonic]

dsrb, on 08 February 2012 - 03:55 PM, said:

Master Emerald, on 08 February 2012 - 03:45 PM, said:

Holy SHIT new screens!

Is dat sum Roller behind Sonic? What is going on

Ah ha, now we're getting somewhere If the uploader is able to send any scans, that would be awesome. Hopefully, he won't give us any crap that his other uploader (the beta video) has given us.

[Hez]

It's not hard to recreate graphics. Hell, I did this back around 2005. Especially since we don't know how it exactly moved either, you could do a number of things.

[dsrb]

redhotsonic, on 08 February 2012 - 04:35 PM, said:

dsrb, on 08 February 2012 - 03:55 PM, said:

Master Emerald, on 08 February 2012 - 03:45 PM, said:

Holy SHIT new screens!

Is dat sum Roller behind Sonic? What is going on

Ah ha, now we're getting somewhere If the uploader is able to send any scans, that would be awesome. Hopefully, he won't give us any crap that his other uploader (the beta video) has given us.

What? They weren't uploaded by the same person. Edit: OK, maybe I read “his other uploader (the beta video)” wrong and you meant this other uploader, not his other upload.

Besides, the offensively obvious has just been confirmed. Edit: Or has it? Are we being double-trolled? Gah, who gives a fuck.

This post has been edited by dsrb: 08 February 2012 - 04:45 PM

[Endri]

flamewing, on 08 February 2012 - 03:54 PM, said:

The two sensor rays used for each of ground and ceiling collision while on-air are indeed vertical sensor rays (and by the way, these sensor rays aren't always cast -- it depends on the angle Sonic's speed makes); but the two sensor rays used while on terrain are only vertical for certain ranges of ground angle. Specifically, if the floor angle is between $20 and $60 or if it is $A0 and $C0, then the rays are horizontal (and they go right in the former range, or left for the latter); both cases happen in loops or steep slopes. So no, I didn't misread you but you misread me.

I though I left this point implicit when I said "my example was about using two rays both in "horizontal collision mode" and "vertical collision mode" while on ground as much as while on air", so I definitely took into account the change of floor angle and ground collision mode. For all the effects, when walking up or down a wall, the wall IS the ground, and the subroutine peeks the height byte from the reversed collision array index for to that block instead of the regular one collision array. Just clarifying my point.

flamewing, on 08 February 2012 - 03:54 PM, said:

So you are saying that it is good programming practice to be clairvoyant and know exactly how the game will play before you have a playable tech demo of the engine?

No, because it is a common good programming pratice to know how far you can plan ahead, besed on your feeling and experience. We are talking about proffessional programing here.

flamewing, on 08 February 2012 - 03:54 PM, said:

I hardly consider tweaking the collision routines to be 'rewriting the base engine'; particularly given that they already have collision routines for checking collision along multiple horizontal rays. Instead, I would consider it a tweak.

Concidering the common point we've reached, which happens to be about the two horizontal rays while on air only, then I would classify adding or removing one of the rays a 'tweak' as well.

flamewing, on 08 February 2012 - 03:54 PM, said:

I will see if I find the documentary you mention.

It is a 3-parts documentary and you can watch it here. I don't remember where exactly within the documentary it is, though.

flamewing, on 08 February 2012 - 03:54 PM, said:

Any such quantum mechanical effects would be drowned out by decoherence and thermodynamic effects, so we can safely rule them out.

You enter in contradiction when you say this, because, at first, you defend your argument by saying that "we just don't know enough about the real prototype to rule this out.", as in: we don't know what really happened, so any possibily is a possibility. More often, decoherence would null your line of thought that Yuji Naka could have removed the hypothetical second horizontal sensor ray, in the event of this prototype video being "true", inverting your point to 'it's more likely that the final collision engine and the prototype collision engine are the same—which by the way is my point—creating then an EPR paradox... but this is way too irrelevant to the discussion topic, and should be left for PM instead.

EDIT 1: Okay, whatever, my analisys was correct after all: MMF.

EDIT 2: Ugh... Back to the Edit panel.

This post has been edited by Endri: 08 February 2012 - 05:01 PM

[Travelsonic]

In all seriousness, we should begin hunting again for Sonic protos... I miss those days, and there is still a lot to be unearthed. Yeah, after the HPZ release of all those protos there has been a burnout of sorts it seems, but it seems like even though there has been, and WILL CONTINUE to be controversy over THIS thread and the validity or lack thereof of the video here, it seemed to re-ignight an old spark I used to se frequently, that helped us find those REAL protos of Sonic games - the Nick Arcade build of Sonic 2, etc.

EDIT: IMO, if you think scientifically, unless you actually get confirmation that it IS real, or IS fake, all you can validly say is that you have evidence that supports it either being real or begin fake.

This post has been edited by Travelsonic: 08 February 2012 - 04:56 PM

[Cinossu]

Right guys, the person has been renamed, and is back to Validation if they want to stay. The posts have all been moved to the trash accordingly.

To reiterate, that was not the guy who posted the youtube videos. We still do not have confirmation. Let's not turn this entire thread into shit, please?

[Rika Chou]

Someone on this page seems to have that issue of beep. Maybe someone can ask him to scan it?

http://www.retrogame...966&start=10680

Edit: do not spam him. he has already been contacted.

This post has been edited by Rika Chou: 08 February 2012 - 05:49 PM

[corneliab]

Cinossu, on 08 February 2012 - 04:58 PM, said:

Let's not turn this entire thread into shit, please?

What a joke, this thread has been shit from the start.

This thing is a hoax and the video uploader is stringing people along. Complete with the uncooperative, verbally challenged dipshit schtick.

[Travelsonic]

IMO strictly, until you have evidence DEFINITIVELY saying anything, ALL you have is evidence in support of one of two theories: It is real, or it is fake.

Supporting evidence != definitive evidence.

I am becoming uneasy by the people who are coming to a definitive conclusion not based off of the evidence presented by those who use game physics, Megadrive hardware/limits, etc to make their case - sound, solid aspects not EASILY countered/argued against, but based off of trivial shit. Ease of plugging a computer into a CRT monitor? Wouldn't that just make it harder to prove EITHER way? Not being a nuance specific to the magazine photos we've seen? MORE valid since this is allegedly a very specific early build, but still, maybe there WERE multiple builds with nuanced differences - we don't actually know for sure. Alleging it may be fake because there is art appearing from other levels? Fuck, screenshots of Hill Top Zone in Sonic 2 must be fake because it uses Emerald Hill Zone tiles using that logic.

Fact is, you guys can only build cases for / against it being real, using logical and sound points - so far we don't have the ability to prove FOR SURE, FACTUALLY if it is real or fake, and that's just how it is for now.

This post has been edited by Travelsonic: 08 February 2012 - 05:19 PM

[flamewing]

Endri, on 08 February 2012 - 04:48 PM, said:

It is a 3-parts documentary and you can watch it here. I don't remember where exactly within the documentary it is, though.

Thanks for the link; will watch soon.

Endri, on 08 February 2012 - 04:48 PM, said:

You enter in contradiction when you say this, because, at first, you defend your argument by saying that "we just don't know enough about the real prototype to rule this out.", as in: we don't know what really happened, so any possibily is a possibility. More often, decoherence would null your line of thought that Yuji Naka could have removed the hypothetical second horizontal sensor ray, in the event of this prototype video being "true", inverting your point to 'it's more likely that the final collision engine and the prototype collision engine are the same—which by the way is my point—creating then an EPR paradox... but this is way too irrelevant to the discussion topic, and should be left for PM instead.

Hm... nope, I did not enter in contradiction because what you described makes no sense whatsoever. Past events are not influenced by present events, not even in quantum mechanics, despite science popularizers' best attempts at making it sound so (and despite some physicists' yankering for publicity driving them to make such drivel statements). I will move this to PM to explain better because it is off-topic, I just did not want to leave it hanging here.

[Arique]

Rika Chou, on 08 February 2012 - 05:12 PM, said:

Someone on this page seems to have that issue of beep. Maybe someone can ask him to scan it?

http://www.retrogame...966&start=10680

I just asked him about it over on his Twitter account, so hopefully we'll get an answer (and maybe some good scans) out of him soon.

[ashthedragon]

I've also contacted the guy from that link Rika Chou posted. I hope someone scan it.

[Alriightyman]

A little off topic, but I came across this. It seems to be a collection of Sega Visions Magazine dated from june/July 1990 - 1995. It may have Sonic 1 beta pics in it, but I am unsure...