It has come to my attention that there is a significant discrepancy in some emulators (at least one emulator). The discrepancy is a timing difference that gives a significant time advantage.

I noticed it on a run that was recently submitted and so looked into it a little deeper.

This difference is measurable on the screen below the castle screen. In each run every runner moves non-stop, right to left, without any delays or variation. This means that I could use this to time the screen and work out how many frames to get from one end to the other.

Most emulators + Original Versions take 79 or 80 frames (@30fps) to get across the screen. Some emulators take 72 (@30fps) frames to get across the screen. I compared the clock on the screen to a stopwatch just to confirm the video wasn't sped up or anything like that.

What does this mean: A 35 second run (20th) would become a 31.89 second run (=1st).

Upon inspection I have noticed this has affected at least 1 leaderboard time. I will not provide any details of which run(s) at this time as I do not want it to influence anyone's opinion.

To be clear, I do not believe anything intentional has occurred. This seems to be a previously unknown error in emulation.

I ask this community to please weigh in on this topic. Please provide feedback on each of these items:

1. For timing to be fair, any run that is using the wrong emulation should be removed. Please agree/disagree with this. The other alternative is re-timing them based on a time-slow calculation (but would contain the quicker video).
2. I can do a review of a number of runs and re-time and reject those that are not accurate. Would I need to provide proof of this? What would that proof look like?
3. I would prefer not to have to re-time all 59 runs. Are we happy with top 10? Top 20? etc.
4. We will need to do a review of which emulator(s) cause this and include it in the rules as a banned emulator. Please agree/disagree with this.
5. For future runs, a quick check would need to be made. I again would prefer to keep this top 10/20/etc. Do you agree? Which runs should be timed frame by frame?

Hopefully a large number of people provide feedback to this. I would prefer to make any changes with group-consent. (If no feedback is forthcoming, I will talk to PresJPolk and decide upon the best course of action.)

Thanks.

Great run Azama. Real solid 1st run.

Do you run on PS4 pro? I have concluded you do based upon load times and a lack of lag in certain sections.

I've added PS4 pro to platforms and put your run in under PS4 pro (let me know if I should change it back to just PS4).

Load time difference between our runs is 26s (2:19 of loading for my run and 1:55 of loading for yours)

There seems to be a lot of lag time save in the desert also. Will be hard to quantify how much though.

Retimed your run. Happy to reinstate original time if we can confirm it. Contact me on discord please to chat more.

So just to add a little more substance to my discussion on times in the other forum post:

I started looking into TASing this since it would be pretty quick and easy to do an optimal TAS and I had the idea of a few new strats.

A few important notes:

1. The game operates on a 3-frame movement cycle. This means the main character only moves once every 3 frames (unless a number of specific events occurs such as pushing into a wall or changing opposite direction).

2. The game operates at 60Hz, or 0.01666..... frame time. What this means, however, is the 0.05 timer is actually the resolution of the game in almost all circumstances (key situations can be discussed separately).

3. At the end, the ability to move stops at the 'end' and then 3 frames later, the screen changes colour. This means the colour change is the most accurate solution for time measurement as it is easily discernible and repeatable after loss of movement.

4. On the boards, currently the rules state "Timing ends when you bring the chalice into the golden castle". Technically, the game can end without bringing the chalice into the castle, as the chalice just needs to touch the castle in the correct spot.

5. Entering the castle itself loses 3 frames of time. This should be avoided.

6. The current two leaders have an 0.01 difference. Considering how the movement frames work, this should be either an 0.00 difference, or an 0.05 difference.

7. In their justification one stops the timer when their character disappears 'into' the castle, while the other stops on the colour change. This means that they have mismatched their finish states, leading to in an inaccurate comparison.

So, my conclusion from this is that ON the frame that the colour changes should determine when the game has concluded. (you could do 3 frames before then but that just adds extra unneeded calculations). This is 100% repeatable and consistent after loss of movement. This would need a change in the rules.

The top two times should re-check their times with this in mind to make sure we are looking at an equivalent comparison. I don't think the timing needs to be re-checked for anyone else because their times are not as close and a WR is not on the line.

Please let me know your thoughts on this.

Hey all - just submitted my first run of adventure (just started running it). I put my submission down as Emulator but am posting here to clarify.

I am currently running it on the PS4 atari classics game ( http://au.ign.com/games/atari-flashback-classics-volume-2 ).

This has an in-game timer which seems to be quite accurate (from first castle screen until final screen).

So a number of questions:

1. Has anyone reviewed the console emulation details? Can this be deemed to be an emulated atari system or will there be a new category?

2. Is in-game timing acceptable or does the run have to be timed manually? (I time it manually anyway to check but the in-game timing is more accurate in my opinion).

3. Any other thoughts on using the console emulation for runs?

I may eventually download the original + emulator onto PC but at the moment I am planning on using the PS4 for easy streaming (my PC is not great) and general practice.

Some decision needs to be made on the number of cycles for DOS Box with this run.

I believe my run was made on the standard cycles of 3000. SimonN's run was made on 6000 cycles.

A few questions to answer:

SimonN - why did you choose 6000? What are the effects on cycles on game speed (will need some investigation)?

Can we find out what is closest the original game? Otherwise we'll need to just decide upon the best speed (if it makes a difference).

Just an interesting note:

I did some estimations on time based upon the current IL boards (10 seconds lost at start - 11 seconds after each level - 2 seconds per intentional death).

Here is a comparison between ILs vs my Sum of Best vs the current WR.

End of Chapter 1 WR - 7:54 SoB - 7:33 IL Times - 7:03

End of Chapter 2 WR - 14:22 SoB - 13:49 IL Times - 12:54

End of Chapter 3 WR - 21:32 SoB - 20:30 IL Times - 18:44

End of Chapter 4 WR - 28:19 SoB - 26:55 IL Times - 24:34

Final Time WR - 37:25 SoB - 35:57 IL Times - 32:43

So the lowest current limit is 32:43 if you can do every level like an IL.

Hi guys - this is a rule which we need to look into, whether it is valid or not.

It is for IL runs only. The reason it is not used in standard runs is that it does not save any time RTA (it actually loses time).

At certain locations, you can die. If you press pause on the SAME FRAME as dieing, you will respawn, you will be paused, but it the environment will continue. While you are paused, the in-game timer does not continue.

This means you can respawn on a platform and it will move. You will move through the level while the timer is not operating.

These have not been used yet. Here are 3 places they can be used. The first doesnt save time. The 2nd and 3rd do.

The 3rd one lets the lava be moved to open the new gate while the timer is not operating.

Should this be allowed:

Option 1: Yes.

Reason: ILs go off in-game timer no matter what. These are frame-perfect tricks so add another level of difficulty.

Option 2: No.

Reason: It is not increasing speed, it is actually decreasing RTA speed to stop the timer. Also we may not want a frame perfect trick to make a valid run.

Option 3: Adjust times to always be non-paused time.

Add the amount of time that the game was paused onto the run time in the leaderboards.

Everyone please vote below.

Hi guys - this is a rule which we need to look into, whether it are valid or not.

It is for IL runs only. The reason it is not used in standard runs is that it does not save any time RTA.

When you finish levels 16 and 20, you can pause the timer. In level 16, you pause the timer when you land at the end. You wait about 5 seconds and it finishes the level (saves about 5 seconds)

On level 20, you pause when you hit the switch, you pause. You wait 40 seconds and it finished the level (saving 40 seconds).

How it works is it stops the in-game timer, however the end of level timer keeps going?

Here is it in action:

My run was not great - however it blows away everyone on the leaderboard.

Kongsbirk has also used it partially in level 16.

Should this be allowed:

Option 1: Yes.

Reason: ILs go off in-game timer no matter what. It has already been used by Kongsbirk.

Option 2: No.

Reason: It is not increasing speed, it is just pausing it. Everyone's run would have to be rerun to include this new timer stop.

Option 3: Adjust times to always be non-paused time (or paused time).

If I get a 2:44 using the pause skip, the time on the leaderboard is 3:24.

Everyone please vote below.

So I looked into this game a long time ago. I found some things but didn't like the grind that I suspected was in the run.

So, what major glitches have been found, whether used in runs or not used?

When I looked it up I completed a routing run to see the lowest level I could complete the game at. I gained Dren's 'invincibility' and finished the game at a character level around 9-13 (i really cant remember but I could look it up if I plugged my PS3 back in). Unfortunately this slowed the game down tremendously as fighting against red opponents is just sssoooo sssllllooooowwwww.

There were some XP farming methods but again these were very grindy.

I found some cases of useless wall glitches but nothing I could use in a run.

Has anyone found others? Has anyone tried anything similar to using Dren invincibility or is it just too slow?

TBH I am no longer interested in running this, but since I put in the time previously I was curious to see what had been found.

I am going to start running this (or at least keep skip finding).

You don't need to make the grappling hook in the 2nd level. You can climb the cliff and will be automatically be given it at the start of 3rd level.

The Sticky Bomb is BROKEN. You can plant one under a crate, jump on the grate and get launched. I have skipped at least one section using this but this will let you skip many many more. I will be doing some experiments with this.

Lastly when approaching someone from behind, if you don't stealth and instead jump, you can jump on their back and don't lose time moving in stealth.