biosoft and biohard mods please look at this.
7 years ago
England

ok so apparently biosoft is around 10 seconds faster in mansion 1 alone over biohard of course this is totally dependant on the players overall movement so with this its unfortunate for runners who are only able to use biohard.

im not sure if you know about or of this but what do you guys make of this of course if it is indeed true then we as a community need to discuss this in detail to somehow make it as fair play as possible.

i would also like to add lets not make it into an argument and conclude this is unfair and the board is now unfair and it needs changing i want to make it clear this is not what i want what i would like is to discuss this and find out whats exactly what weather if it is actually faster or if is negligible.

however i presume you may have knowledge of this and i may be a little late on this my apologies if this is the case but i am interested in this find so what are you thoughts on this ?

Edited by the author 7 years ago
France

For some people, biohard will be faster, for some (like me) it will be much slower. Unfortunately, it depends on your PC specs.

On the other hand, biosoft seems to be consistent for those who can run it, but if you can't, then you're fucked. Unfair aswell.

PC speedrunning in a nutshell.

xxshadowxbossxx likes this
United Kingdom

It shouldn't be the loads that are causing the time save. All times where your PC is in a "loading" state during RE1 PC don't count towards the IGT. Such as menu fade-in and out, door fade-in/fade-out. Though more testing needs to be done on when the timer starts after skipping doors, as there may be a difference there, perhaps. If that were the case though, nothing could be done, really.

The culprit, I suspect, are cutscenes. Cutscene timings are still inconsistent on PC. For example, the first cutscene is SUPPOSED to end on you hitting the first door @ 45.13, however you can also frequently get 45.10, and 45.06 rarely. Unfortunately for a lot of people we can't see who is saving this time and where (for tests), because so few people enable the timing to the millisecond on PC.

That being said, I always saw PC version as more for fun than serious competition. Unfortunately, there's only so much work SuperGamer can do, because he doesn't have a thousand PCs with every specification imaginable to optimize a patch for each and every setup.

Like Garl said, it's the nature of PC speedrunning. Almost nothing done on a PC in terms of a speedrun is ever really fair. In a perfect scenario we would all be sat playing the same version on the same console and everything would be 100% down to skill, but that's not how things work.

All that being said though, there is no actual proof Biosoft is faster, or that there is even any differences (baring crashes Kappa ) between the two. I know Garl is a very good player, and I know that when he gets a 10 second difference that is strange, but that's only one PC setup playing the game... maybe it was a compatibility / technical issue? Like Garl said, Biohard will be better for some, for others, Biosoft. It depends on whether you GPU is bad or not.

Edited by the author 7 years ago
England

you both make great points but pc is an evil side to run for fairness all about emu and ds but we could do with a couple of parts being run with milliseconds on the timer that way its easier to determine whats faster where exactly i agree with wulfz there but the question is who will run milliseconds OpieOP im down for that though.

United Kingdom

Even still, emulator (both PSX and DS) still fall under the umbrella of PC in the end. If this issue exists on PC (with loads exempt from the IGT) then the same issue would likely also be present on emulator in general. It sucks, but not really much that can be done.

My personal view is no accurate test for this can be done, because we cannot TAS PC. As good as the top runners of this game are, not a single one of them is exempt from player error and making mistakes. We would basically be making comparisons and coming to a conclusion when said time save could be 99% player error.

Edited by the author 7 years ago
England

yeah i agree its unfortunate but that is the nature of running it but its a shame that the pc is not 100% stable ( currently) but its still fun to run though what i might do later is switch my timer to milliseconds and make around 3 videos for the 45 seconds door to see the differences their between biohard and biosoft is it worth getting 3 for biohard and 3 biosoft ? also if there are any other areas that need checking for milliseconds let me know i will happily get clips of it so we can come to a sort of conclusion where the timer is off or whatever else is possible for timer related issues.

United Kingdom

The weird timer issue on the cutscenes also happens on Biohard alone sadly.

If you wanna see what I mean, watch Clix's Glitchless WR and my Glitched WR. He hits the door at 45.10, and I hit it at 45.13. This isn't anything that can be controlled and it seems to be random, as my Glitchless time also hit the door at 45.10.

Edited by the author 7 years ago
Spain

Well all I can say is that 90% of the people that runs the PC version had no problems at all with the timer once they got the game working with the patch. Biosoft seems to be glitchy and unstable but I think most of the PC runners go with Biohard anyways.

But oh well, after all this is how PC games work and sadly for speedrunning is not ever going to be a 1:1 accurate scenario for every single runner, but hopefully at least the majority.

Believe it or not the most stable and accessible solution to play this game in an official manner is getting the PSN version (PS3 or PSP).

Edited by the author 7 years ago
England

isnt the ps3 version the slowest ?

Spain

Yes, but you have the guarantee that is going to work the same for everybody. I just said that because it's easy and cheap to get (as long as you already have a PS3 of course).

Edited by the author 7 years ago
England

good point ah but i have pc and xbox one/360 currently

England

im not even sure why ps3 is slower considering its an improve from ps1 and ps2 although ps2 is fastest right of you have a fds or something whatever that is

Spain

Well it's on Sony's end because for PS3 they use a different emulator than on PSP, which is the fastest official emulator for PS1 games.

United Kingdom

I'll try run Biosoft later this week and see if there is a difference on my end. After several runs I should be able to determine if Biosoft gains speed over Biohard.

Though I would advise runners go with Biohard if they can because as Zenix said, Biosoft is unstable and very prone to crashing.

I would recommend PSN also as an easy means of getting RE1, except for people in my country on my particular ISP there is an issue regarding PSN downloads on PS3, in that they all corrupt. This is an issue on Sony's end that they've refused to properly acknowledge on PS3 since 2013 and there is almost nothing that can be done. PSTV would still work on the other hand.

It's unfortunate that there isn't one version of RE1 that is both good and easily accessible by all.

Edited by the author 7 years ago
Kyrgyzstan

I thought, all people can use biosoft

England

ok vix thanks let us know what you discover :D

France

Go home Shadow, you're drunk. Keepo

England

omg lol never type on a forum on your phone how the fuck does autocorrect do that ? my bad sorry wulfz

Game stats
Followers
954
Runs
1,938
Players
373
Latest news
Sega Saturn Battle Game - PAL

We have recently come across the fact that the final time on the timer during the gameplay and the final time on the results screen do not match in the PAL version, with the results screen time being lower by up to 9 seconds based on info we've gathered. Frame counting shows that the timer during ga

8 months ago