i assume that is a yes to the latest timing methode i stated here. in that case im satisfied enough with only 2-ish frames of a difference, because this indeed dosn't matter at all in RTA. and im sorry for my harsh comment about RTA accuracy, wasn't meant to dick on anyone, i was just a bit annoyed by my uncertainty, sorry. so if the timing is now confirmed, i can edit it into my video. thanks for the help and i hope you look forward to finally have a link popping up in "guides" here soon!

ps: btw technically gaining control of your character would be the frame he spawns or one after, which is a waaay different time than when he starts moving, especially because he spawns in mid air and has to fall to the ground first. just to make you aware of how "not confusing at all" that rule is...

ok guys, i did some testing and i think if we just use the frame of pressing start at the title screen and count 390 frames forward from that, then we should only get a difference of +-1 frame aka 2 frames on the starting frame. that is way better than i expected! i thought it would vary like the spawning times of the ingame objects, which is 8+ frames. but only 2 frames difference is very good!

can i conclude that this will be the official timing for RTA now? "press start" text disappearing frame plus 390 is the starting frame (0) ? and last dracula explosion disappearing is last frame? can someone confirm please?

thanks for your input crankykong. the -6.5s timer thing is absolutely fine and im supporting that. however, that methode is almost unrealted to what im adressing here! i only refer to the way of measuring your run's time after you made it, i mean the actual timing by frame count. in case your answer was meant to suggest that we should use the first frame of pressing start on the title screen, that is somewhat acceptable for me too, but it would still result in many runs starting at different times of gaining character control... i don't know if that is intended though?

(btw i hope you come back to running this game when you see my tutorial... i hope everyone will)

if i am allowed to state my opinion on the matter: i would suggest to measure runs from the frame christopher stands up on the ground, since this is the first frame you can start walking aka start progressing. (this is technically still unfair and inconsistent, but way less exploitable than any candle rules and counting from the title screen is also a scam since that way you could also get lag pattern that are better or worse to start with.) and i would end it at the frame when the last explosion of dracula disappears, because this is the actual frame where you lose control over your character again. (im not too sure how it was handles previously but i think "when castle starts crumbling" is kind of a wacky term as well, there are lag patterns where the screen is delayed for a few frames until it updates to the crumbling movement, but explosions fading is consistent)

ok, since you most likely have no clue what my issue is, let me explain it a bit more: i got told that the actual run timing starts when the candles become visible in the first screen of level 1. i think the frame where they appear was supposed to be frame 0 of the run iirc. now... i know that RTA people kinda don't care for accuracy at all, but since i'm also a TAS guy it somewhat bugs me that this is so unstrict :/ so my problem with this is that the candle spawn is basically independend from everything else on screen, which means that your character can be anywhere by the time the candle decides to show up, so that methode of measurement has nothing to do with "gaining control over your character" at all! i haven't looked into the details yet but i think candles had a 4 frame spawn cycle, which means depending on the lag pattern you get, the candle could show up 8+ frames later in a theoretical worst case. and not only that but technically, you could even delay it's spawn moment on purpose by utilizing "my" pause delay glitch at the start of your run, resulting in a huge head start... how is that even a thing?! (who came up with those rules...?)

hi everyone! of course it's me again, who else would you expect... well, this should be a short debate but i kinda feel there might be different opinions on that (at least i have a different one already^^). my question is, what are the actual rules about timing your run properly? i mean the video/emulation time that you measure when rewatching a finished run.

what are the detailed rules on first frame and last frame? (i need that for my speedrun guide, which is almost done, so please help me asap! thanks! and the guide will obviously show up here too once it's out. i actually only made it to link it to this website, though)

so the factor is +1.7% now or what exactly did you choose to define it?

i cannot change my thumbnail of the run unless i completely redo it with another image, but i think i might just leave that time there so that viewers don't get confused by the running timer within the video itself. and also that unconverted time is still the actual real time after all... so i guess it should be ok if i only mention it in a new video title and the description part.

other than that, thanks to all for the helpful discussions here and i personally hope to see any new or old competitor to try to beat my run. after taking the new conversion into account, we still didn't see a sub 18:30 run yet, so that is still up for grabs! go get it and claim your gold medal from me! i wish you good RNG and much fun! (because i actually had a lot of fun with it, not kidding)

PS: you could even ask me for tipps for the run as long as my mind can still remember them :D just hit me up on discord or comment on my WR run and i will help you out.

if only i could handle multi screens in my editor... i had quite a struggle making this but here you have it:

that is all i can contribute and i'm not doing any more though, just saying.

i argue that it won't get much closer than what we already have... between 1.6% and 1,9% is already a pretty small window if you ask me. the average of that should be 1.75% but since the 1.9% are a rather extreme case, i would opt for just 1.7%. i don't think we get something more accurate than this and i don't think we even need to. that's my opinion, though, feel free to convince me otherwise.

ok guys, i ran a small test of the eyeball bridge section in level 2 to make use of the heavy lag there. and according to my video frame numbers (which i believe are far from accurate) i calculated a +1.9% difference in that small 48 second clip. of course my numbers aren't too precise and that section of the game is the most horrible one regarding lag, so a bit of an extreme example, but just to have something to compare to the long time test of @spriven which doesn't really take lag into account. bottom line is, i think the factor is somewhere between 1.6% (least lag) and 1.9% (most lag) that's what i can offer so far...

oh and if it wasn't clear enough yet: i'm fine with any new time for my run, no matter what factor you end up using, i'm fine with everything, as long as it makes it officially comparable to the older runs.

PS: btw i compared BizHawk and Nintendo Switch, because those are the two versions i used for TASing and Speedrunning, in case someone needs that info

if only konami would have build in a visual frame counter in the replay option, then i think we wouldn't have much of an issue with research. but i really don't feel like counting thousands of frames manually just for some comparisons. i would rather replay every run of the leaderboard in the AC version than wasting my time with counting frames with my hand... i have to push that task to someone who either has an arduino or something that can do the dirty work for him or maybe a more accurate capture device that can actually be used to count video frames (which as a TASer im not a fan of at all). other than that i can only do very short and basic test sequences, because of my said incapability of serious frame counting on my side. (also i would have to sacrifice my existing recordings to do tests with the replay, which im not sure if im willing to do yet). and in addition, i think this game is rather inconsistent overall, so testing every aspect of it might turn out impossible to do in an accurate way. in my honest opinion we should just agree on any compromising method to make all runs somewhat comparable, because arguing over a few frames of difference in THIS specific game is absolutely overkill in my book. even split seconds do almost not matter for this software, im serious. i know this sounds a bit casual and naive maybe, but you really cannot go too deep into times with this game, i doubt there will ever be a case where frames will matter on this leaderboard, so why would you even bother? even if you press a jump only one single "input frame" later in a run, you may already be up to 10 or 20 actual frames further into the game depending on the situation of the scene, which will then result in like a quarter of a second in realtime already! just think of that! 1 frame of input results in a quarter of a second in the end, let that sink in and then tell me how accurate this time measurements really have to be...

i keep repeating myself, but for me a simple factor for the time conversion will be accurate enough to be considered "fair". i would take on a run without hesitation if it was just a few calculated seconds better than my PB for example. i know that a second is just about 4 input frames of a difference in the end, that is easily inprovable with a bit of practice... i don't know what else i could say, maybe you should express your opinions first, or tell me what i get wrong here? thanks for reading

then i think i would vote for SGB factoring for AC too... i think that was the one with the 1.6% or was it? whatever, i vote for that SGB factor.

ok... i think i'm fine with anything. i mean i'm still the best no matter how you look at it muahaha jk, i would like to have a recalculation factor right away but since i have no real possibility to figure that out on my side, i have to go with what you guys suggest here in the mean time... do what you want, my run is all open for everything.

someone would have to programm an arduino and let it count ingame frames from a long running replay within the AC software and then compare that frame number with a similar run from a PC emulator where we have accurate numbers about framerates already. from that comparison we could get the most accurate factoring. but as i said, i cannot do that, someone else would have to put in some work there, i already sacrificed a lot of time for this game already though...

uuhm... i don't wanna complain, don't get me wrong, but shouldn't AC be listed in the "platform" part instead of "version" ? i mean it is still a gameboy game after all, so that column should be the same, i guess? if anything you could change it to Nintendo Switch if you want, but in my opinion it should be mainly the "platform" / the emulator that is different. just my two cents on that... i'm not the one in charge of those desicions anyway.

and in regards of converting times, i'm still fine with all sorts of messing around with the time measurements to make them comparable to older runs. but i would rather use an incorrect factoring than completely separating AC runs and other runs, to me it feels they all still kinda belong together in one way or the other. and in addition, if the decided factor for the time conversion turns out to be incorrect, then it can easily be changed in the future once there is proof of a more accurate factor then, so i see no real problem with just slapping on a factor to the time, accurate or not. and thanks to everyone for the discussion so far.

@xenkaroshi i would love to see you compete!

btw we could just add an AC notification to the leaderboard, just like all the other emulator options get displayed there. to be honest, i purposedly used the J version to somewhat set it apart from the rest of the board since i couldn't pick an AC marker when submitting my prior WR. please someone add this option!

ok guys, so i finally found my way into this conversation too^^ first thing i wanna point out is that my TAS run was basically my first step into some sort of competitive approach to this game and by the time i made that TAS i was barely even aware of the lag issue, only because my previous TAS didn't even come close to the fastest time then it made me aware that there has to be something else other than gameplay that i had to improve... long story short: my TAS run is far from optimal! it even got rejected from TASvideos leaderboard despite being the WR atm. so what im saying is, that you should not use that TAS to compare anything regarding lag optimization etc. and speaking of my current best run on AC version, im almost certain that this version runs slightly faster so to me it would make sense to put a factor on it so that the time can be compared properly with other versions. the only question is, what exactly is that factor? i would be completely fine with a recalculated time, i would just be glad if there was an accepted agreement on what factor is used. (also i would have to change all my posts and video titles etc to the new timing, plus the running timer within the video would show something different... hmm)

PS: it's great to have a forum here finally^^

PPS: where is Laxxus' run?! why is it gone?