I'm finally in the records, and it's a serious kick in my pr

I finally got around to entering my times into the records. (as james mcvay, under ntsc, for those that are interested) And I've come to the realization that, well, I'm not very good.

A lot of my times are fairly respectable. I seem to be hovering in the middle to lower half of the top 10. Most of my better times are in the lower classes. (#2 at Sampa Run on Vector! Woo!) I'm guessing that's because most don't bother much with the lower classes.

One thing I did notice is that Al's times are rediculously low! I spent about three hours today racing Porta Kora TT at Phantom. At one point I managed two perfect laps in a row (a first for me! yeah!), and only a couple minor blunders after that. It netted me the 1.48.67 time that's posted. Al's still more than 17 seconds faster! I don't know how you did it, Al, but you are appearantly not human. :grin: The NeGcon is great (wish I still had mine), but it doesn't help that much!

It looks like I need more practice. For now, I'm just going to use the excuse that I've played a lot more 2097/XL than WO3! :lol:

Good, another person on the NTSC tables! :grin:

Heh heh, we need as many people as we can get, especially in some of the TT tables, which in some cases (Raiper) Jay is the only one there! :lol

I keep telling myself that I should just go ahead and put all of my times up, as lousy as some of them are, but I keep then telling myself that "No, you can beat those sucky times, just race the dang circut, then put them up", but I then never get around to it. :lol


But I do have quite a few times on the tables, (all Raiper SR, all Vector TT, all Phantom TT, and all Porta Kora TT) but I maybe I should just put up the rest of my times, sucky as they are, to emberass myself into just doing the dang race again and getting some better times.... :lol

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Wiseman on 2002-02-11 05:36 ]</font>

Once your times are entered into the tables, it's a great motivation for trying to improve them.

I recommend to enter all of your times, even the worst ones... especially the worst ones !
It helps alot for seeing on which track you do need more practice. And when the times are listed, you can easily see how many seconds you have to get to go to the upper/1st place.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: vincoof on 2002-02-11 07:28 ]</font>

Heh, I've been putting it off for months, with the intention of getting some better times first. I finally decided to just suck it up and embarrass myself. :lol:

I was just thinking, though: I've never read the exact reason for the different times between NTSC and PAL, but I assume it's because of the differnce in fps. I could be totally wrong, but assuming the difference between the two is a constant, could there be some sort of equation that could be written into the database, so that the PAL and NTSC tables could be merged, and rankings adjusted according to region?

For example, someone puts in a lap time for NTSC, the database converts it to the PAL equivalent, and orders that number into the rankings. Then, when the the times are displayed, the NTSC times are converted back, but the ranking order remains. Does that make sense?

It would look a little weird to have a lap time of 42 seconds rank above 39 seconds, but it would be so cool to have a single comparison between everybody! Even though I'm sure my ranking would drop significantly... :grin:

Any mathematicians lurking about??

You're right about the ntsc/pal difference : everything's based on the fps difference.

But it's not possible to convert with a simple mathematical formula.

First of all, psygnosis _tried_ to get times working right for both versions. That means they did speed up/slow down the game, so the difference is not 50-to-60 and I don't think it's possible to know the real number.

Secondly, wip3out is a frame-based videogame (like all videogames today), which means that the videogame computes everything on a per-frame basis : everything's done every 1/60 of a second in a ntsc game, whereas everything's done in 1/50 of a second in a pal game. That is, the game displays 60 frames per second (for ntsc), but also it computes 60 AI stuff per second (for ntsc), it gets inputs from a controller 60 times in a second (for ntsc), etc. Replace every number '60' by '50' for pal, and then you'll see the visible part of the iceberg.
I'm sorry, AmishRobot but the problem is not likely to be solved by a simple mathematical formula.

I remember when I stuck my times on the board, look for them, there near the bottom, except for Mega Mall-TT-Vector and Terminal-SR-Rapier ( PAL )

The Terminal one I am most proud of cos I sat there for about an hour racing the circuit and felt so joyous when the time appeared (I'm Alun Haines BTW)

Hyper Shadow finnaly reveals himself! :grin:

What do you mean finally reveals himself???

I mean, you never asked who I was :wink:

yeah, Alun listed his name and location on the old EZ-board data base.

I somehow got into the mistaken notion that if there was a 10fps difference, it would make the ntsc version 17% faster than pal. Yeah, I know... it was really late. :wink:

It's too bad there's no way to measure the difference.

Boy, I remember that feeling of pride when I submitted my first times like it was just last week...

Okay, so it practically was.

I wish I had more time to play, I'm actually doing pretty well on the Vector tables. :smile:

status, which name do you use on the tables?

i actually raced some last night; for the first time in about 3 months i was actually able to get close to a couple of my old times. i gotta get back in practice so i can compete again. the evil Jay and his venom nemesis, Wiseman await the opportunity to destroy any new records i may achieve! bastards!
:wink:

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Lance on 2002-02-12 19:04 ]</font>

:smile:

Wasn't there a post put up a while back with some kind of NTSC/PAL conversion numbers?

Lance, I'm Steven Dixon on the tables. I've only entered times for a handful of tracks, but they're all pretty good times if I do say so. :smile:

i havent really checked out the tables, but i did see you in Porto Kora. you put me back in third! grrrrrrr.

although i was way behind jay already. right now my PK time is as good as i know how to make it, but obviously there is a way to cut more than 3 seconds off my time; i just have to find it. it's experiment time!

there is not a 17% difference between the games. I did a test on porta kora on the old tables and YOu can check it out there. It should be fairly accurate for that track at least, but would be different for others

PAL Wip3out runs at 25 fps hence all the times should be a multiple of 0.04 secs, sometimes the game will register 0.02 seconds when the fps on a busy section of a track but this should equate to 0.04 on the next update when the fps settles out again to 25.

NTSC runs at 30 fps so this versions times will be multiples of 0.033 secs.

There is also the problem of Hz rating related to the Voltage power supply. This differs from the display frequency in Hz check the sticker on the base of a PSX and you'll see the Hz rating next to the voltage requirements, most electrical appliances can select which frequency to run at automatically but the PSX is not so it will run slightly faster or slighty slower than it should depending on which power supply it is running on. If it is designed for 50 Hz and has a 60Hz voltage running through it it will be faster. The PS2 can differentiate between the two different Hz ratings - note the 50/60Hz voltage markings on the rear of the machine. So if a UK spec PS2 was to run on a US power supply it would configure the Hz acceptance to suit 60 Hz instead of its normal 50 Hz and therefore should maintain the same speed for the processor.

I remember reading about US imported DVD players to the UK that had what sounded like slurred speech from movies - sound being more noticeable when slowed down than vision - the reason for this was because the UK power supply was 50 Hz instead of the required 60 Hz making the players codechip run slower.

This may sound like a sad excuse to why Al's times are better than mine ( probably is :razz: ) but it would be interesting to see if times differ between a chipped US PSX running PAL Wip3out SE compared to a PAL PS2 running PAL Wip3out SE on a US power supply.... :wink:

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Sinuous on 2002-02-28 22:24 ]</font>

in all the specs i've seen published for the PSX, regardless of country, power supply, or television display frequency, the central processor runs at approximately 34.xx megaHertz. this is determined from an internal clock whose frequency is dependent on its own internal oscillator. it looks to me that any lap time differences experienced would be from other causes than chip speed, which ought to be the same in all versions. [my 2 cents]

however, it seems that there are some differences. on 3 of the circuits, jay and i have had fairly intensive competitions, and on those, in vector class there seems to be a difference of about 2 seconds for a race of two laps between our NTSC times and the equivalent times on PAL. NTSC being the lower time. NTSC would be about 2.3 to 2.5 percent faster.

it is just too hard to pin down an exact percentage differential that could be applied to everything. so unless we are all playing the same version or unless there is such a huge time differential in favour of one pilot that it's obvious, then we're not going to be able to say with no doubt which pilot is the best in any particular race. i think it's pretty clear which pilot has an overall superiority in phantom class over all races. but other than that, nothing is clear.

if the physics were exactly the same in both PAL and NTSC versions of the game, then someone could come up with some sort of a definate percentage of difference between the two. since the physics are ever so slightly different, though, its really not fair [not to mention rather futile] to try to come up with conversion factors. its kind of like comparing two different games, albiet to very similar games, but different nevertheless.

The main reason for the time difference between NTSC and Pal is the display image NTSC ( 525? lines horizontal ) against Pals ( 675? ) where the processor has to work harder on a Pal machine making it run slower. What the game developer does is speed up the game engine to make the game play similar to the NTSC version. In WipEouts case they must slow down the NTSC version to make it play similar to the Pal game speed.

An unmodified NTSC version sounds ludicrous but thats what WipEouts all about though isn't it? Another level up from Pals Phantom..... :grin:

I wish my TV could display PAL signals since I have both PAL and NTSC versions of all wipeouts and I'd really like to see where I rank on the PAL tables since there are not many people on the NTSC record board.

I am actually pretty proud of my times, cuz I race Piranah and I get very close to people who race Icaras and faster crafts. So I've decided to get the Icaras craft and see if I can beat more ppl. I've had wo3 since it came out and I never bothered to beat the game >shrugs<



<>< F I S H ><>

couldn't you just apply handicaps or something?

.
apparently there is no way to get a precise conversion factor to allow it. the differences in speed seem to be related not just to display standards, but to tweaks made in the games themselves. since the games are not released in the different marketing regions at the same time, the developers have time to make what they regard as improvements before the game is released in the next region. the ships seem to have differences in performance characteristics from game version to game version. and according to our best expert on this matter, the extent of the variation is different on every racecourse. even if we could be certain of the exact conversion factor for every ship in every race, the number of different conversion factors would make it just too much work. then there is the matter of getting all the pilots to believe that you've really got it exactly right. so the situation remains as always.

a few people, like pavel [zargz] have more than one version, but their times depend on how well they could get into the zone that day that they made their best time, so even that kind of result cannot be taken as a definitive indication of the relative speeds of the different versions.

frustrating, isn't it?
.

right on :o

I don't suppose you've tested this sort of thing with Fusion yet, have you?

fish: u live in the middle of europe and u tv can NOT 'display pal signals'???!!! :o
that's ODD! :roll:

the solution to the pal/ntsc convertion problem is very ez -
just let change all the tv's in north/south america and japan to the pal system & that's it .. :D

.
i may be wrong, but i think fishDK was originally from denmark, but now lives in america and keeps the old location listed as a nostalgia-for-the-old-place thing

tv display standard: i think we should change to something better than either one
.

i bet if infoxicated put some simple description of why there is ntsc and pal on the time charts in the information section on the page we might not see this conversation again :D

i mean, that is after all kind of the purpose for a faq page, isnt it :)

Fair point, I guess it is... I'll see about adding an explanation or proper faq page as soon as I can :)

the info page is already good, all youd have to do is append it i think. and maybe add any other question you get often, like perhaps a question about having the other games in the charts as you seem to get that one often.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lance

.
tv display standard: i think we should change to something better than either one
.

---

how about eveyone should switch to HDTV and we get rid of game and DVD regions once and for all?

Europe is already changing to digital TV (digital broadcasting started this April in Spain) although there are not many digital TVs in the market and all of them are far too expensive at the moment. We'll see what do American people decide but they are pretty sure to choose a different standard. It has more to do with marketing and money than technology.
By the way, PAL is better than NTSC. Why? Basically because europeans almost copied NTSC adding some improvements when the change from B/W to colour had to be made.
And that's why PAL is better : colour. PAL = Phase Alternation Line. This alternation changes phase errors (which mean wrong colours) in amplitude errors (which means slightly wrong brightness) making it quite nicer to the visual human system. NTSC = National Television Standards Comitee but not having phase alternation, colours can get wrong and that's why people joke about it saying NTSC = Never Transmit the Same Color.

In a nutshell, in NTSC you can see blue bananas while in PAL the bananas are of a lighter yellow.

This long explanaition was brought to you by Telecommunication Engineering student xEik. :roll:

.
you exaggerate the ills of NTSC display; i've lived with it for a vEry long time, and i've never seen a banana that was anything other than yellow, green, or brown, depending on its level of ripeness. even those two bananas that wore blue and white pajamas were the right colour.

the only real errors i note are colour fringing due to ghost images that are the result of multipath broadcast signals, and a tendency for pure reds not to be very pure, though this may be due more to problems of phosphor tint balancing of the three colours. but i am no expert, so i don't know. the reds always tend to lean toward orange or magenta instead of being on center as they should be when you see a properly red firetruck onscreen.
.

The thing about the blue bananas was an exagerated joke but it's true that if you could see both what has been sent and what you've received you'd notice the difference.
It's like JPEG: look only the compressed image and you'll think it's fine. Compare with the original and you'll see flaws.
By the way, mine is theoretical knowledge cause I know how they work but in fact I've never watched an NTSC TV.
And if you have no phase errors then your display will be completely right but that's quite improvable. There are always little errors, no matter what. They can be little most times they can be big sometimes.

.
i've never seen PAL, so we're even

if this topic within a topic is to be discussed further, we should start a new one in 'general discussion'. it would be interesting to discuss the effect of screen proportions on different types of game. would wide-screen be better for all games or not? which ones?
.

I thought I was odds :-? :P