Todd's 5.51 Dragster score

[Thomas Jentzsch]

Since I am not allowed to post in the TG thread, I post my material here. Maybe someone from over there reads this.

As you can see, my disassembly of Dragster is very limited and only concentrating on the important parts. However I am pretty much convinced, that nothing relevant is missed. And IMO the code bears nothing which cannot be emulated perfectly.

The sheet is obviously directly derived from Omnigamer's sheet. But I reordered columns and changed some formulas to match game code flow and logic better. Still the results are 100% identical. The sheet is protected, but you can enter your own input in the cyan cells.

 

The last tab of the sheet contains a much simplified model, which completely ignores gas and tach management. It assumes that the tach is always at maximum, which results in an always maximal acceleration. Only when shifting, the acceleration is zero for one frame. Therefore the results are equal or better than those of the complex model. This should help understanding where the limits of the game are.

Another comment on the discussion at TG:
If you assume that any analysis may have flaws (emulator incorrect, hardware glitches,... neutrinos striking, god's will... whatever!), then it becomes completely impossible to disprove (or prove!) anything by analysis. So unless you are willing to accept certain reasonable constraints, any discussion about evidences resulting from analysis becomes pointless. That's fine, but it should be clearly stated at the beginning and not asked for it.

 

This means on the subject, that there is only one outcome. Either Todd proves his 5.51 again, fine. Or he cannot prove it again (for various well acceptable reasons), then the original 5.51 still remains valid, because there is nothing accepted by TG which can invalidate it.

 

So in both cases the 5.51 will stay and the discussion (81 pages as of now) goes round in circles.

Dragster.asm

Dragster_JTZ.zip

[DirtyHairy]

To add some fuel to the discussion (I neither have time, experience nor sufficient motivation to do it, although the project would be interesting): it should be possible to take an emulator, tap directly into the various variables that describe the game state and feed them to a neural network. This network could then be evolved with a genetic algorithm to score as low as possible

[Kylearan]

it should be possible to take an emulator, tap directly into the various variables that describe the game state and feed them to a neural network. This network could then be evolved with a genetic algorithm to score as low as possible

Or you could use deep learning. https://deepmind.com/research/publications/playing-atari-deep-reinforcement-learning/

[DirtyHairy]

Or you could use deep learning. https://deepmind.com/research/publications/playing-atari-deep-reinforcement-learning/

 

Or do a Monte Carlo simulation and use simulated annealing over the set of possible input sequences in order to determine local minima Or do all of those methods and see how they compare against each other

[Thomas Jentzsch]

Actually optimizing Dragster is not that difficult. For any frame, if (speed + gear*2) and distance are significantly lower than the best so far, you can ignore that path. Those compares could be further optimized, but I think they already cut enough paths to make a brute force attack feasible.

 

So it should be pretty easy (and fast) to find the optimal path.

[andrewg]

I still say it's pretty obvious what happened.

 

- Dragster publishes magazine that states simply : "Dragster - 5.51"

 

- 3 players (including Todd Rogers) see this and decide to fake 5.51 times for the next issue.

 

5.51 times could be fakes by getting a time such as 35.51 and then just cutting off the extreme left edge of the screen to remove the "3."

[Thomas Jentzsch]

Just 4 posts and already on my ignore list. That's a new record. Congratulations!

[+5-11under]

Actually it's different between gas and clutch. The joystick (clutch, restart) is read every frame, but the fire button (gas) only every 2nd one. Since the calculations for each player alternate between frames, the latter is sufficient. And the clutch is stored in a variable, which is evaluated also only every 2nd frame. So effectively both, gas and clutch, are checked only once every 2nd frame.

 

Does the fact that the joystick is read every frame change the model in any way? Sorry, the asm file looks fairly greek to me.

[i'm assuming from the quote above that the joystick is read every 1/60 second, and the fire button every 1/30 second, and the updates to time and distance happens every 1/30 second?]

 

Also, does the order of events in the spreadsheet match the software? Are they both 1) read inputs, 2) calculate new speed, time, distance, etc., 3) print stuff on screen?

 

I'm guessing that at the end of the game, the screen updating is done without anything abnormal happening? i.e. without having to re-draw or recalculate things. /this one is probably kind of like one of my catchphrases, "there's no such thing as a stupid questions, there's just stupid people asking questions"

[Omnigamer]

Thomas was referring to how the two separate players are handled on alternating frames. It's not that gas or shift are read at 60/30 Hz, it's that P1 inputs are read on (for example) even frames, while P2 inputs are read on odd frames.

 

(this is from memory, don't treat it as exact)

 

Frame 20:

-logic-

read P1 gas, use immediately

use stored P1 Left from frame 18

-more logic-

-video logic-

-overscan logic-

read P1 Left, store in memory for frame 22

 

Frame 21:

-logic-

read P2 gas, use immediately

use stored P2 Left from frame 19

-more logic-

-video logic-

-overscan logic-

read P2 Left, store in memory for frame 23

 

Frame 22:

-logic-

read P1 gas, use immediately

use stored P1 Left from frame 20

-more logic-

-video logic-

-overscan logic-

read P1 Left, store in memory for frame 24

 

... and so on. This is why, from the perspective of only one player, the game operates at 30 Hz.

 

The order of calculations in the spreadsheets matches the order used in the original programming, where necessary.

 

When you "finish" a game, it continues as normal, displaying the graphics based on whatever state they were left in, including timer and car position. It stops from doing any further calculations though, until you force a reset.

Edited September 2, 2017 by Omnigamer

[D.Yancey]

5.51 times could be fakes by getting a time such as 35.51 and then just cutting off the extreme left edge of the screen to remove the "3."

That is NOT possible. If you get higher times like 10.5x or 20.5x etc, the last digit in the times changes. It is no longer 1,4 and 7. Also, do you think that Activision would have accepted a photo for a world record with the left part of the screen missing. NO. They were very particular about world record photos.

Edited September 3, 2017 by D.Yancey

[Omnigamer]

25.51, 55.51, and 75.51 are all valid times.

 

We can speculate all we want about what Activision may or may not have accepted, but there's little chance we'll ever get to see whatever evidence they had for ourselves. You can jump down the conspiracy hole too, since Todd and Activision had something of a working relationship, but really that's not something that's going to be solved.

 

The best we can do now is give a fair assessment of what the game could possibly have allowed, or some scenarios which could have possibly caused faster times to appear.

[+5-11under]

I found a link to this:

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/speedrun/comments/6x9g16/some_more_on_the_dragster_551/

 

From this huge thread:

 

http://www.twingalaxies.com/showthread.php/175364-Dispute-Dick-Moreland-Atari-2600-VCS-Dragster-NTSC-Game-1-Difficulty-B-Fastest-Time-Player-Todd-Rogers-Score-05-51

[R.Cade]

That is NOT possible. If you get higher times like 10.5x or 20.5x etc, the last digit in the times changes. It is no longer 1,4 and 7. Also, do you think that Activision would have accepted a photo for a world record with the left part of the screen missing. NO. They were very particular about world record photos.

 

Also, the time is more toward the center of the screen- it's not on the edge. You'd have a cut off quite a lot...

[andrewg]

I was already on that Thomas guy's ignore list, so whatever I guess.

 

The whole thing is laughable. THREE people were put in Activision's magazine. Why is it that everyone ignores this entirely? No one thinks! 3 people could not get 5.51 if it were difficult, so what's the alternative here? I'm done with this whole Dragster thing. Todd is a good gamer, but stretches the truth as far as he can. Bye.

[Nukey Shay]

Difficult does not mean impossible.

 

Many Activision games are difficult.

Try getting a 6th satellite docking and return with enough fuel to get the highest rank in Space Shuttle. You need a lot of skill and also a bit of luck.

 

No different than what is being presented here. Auto-shifting proves that it IS possible within the programs' own constraints...tho difficult to actually pull off in regular gameplay. "Impossible" would be a time below an auto-shifted round.

[Omnigamer]

5.51 is impossible even for "auto-shifted" gameplay, as discussed earlier in the thread. Even an idealized version of Dragster without acceleration hazards would not be able to achieve a time of 5.51. As yet, no bugs have been found that would allow such either.

[Goochman]

25.51, 55.51, and 75.51 are all valid times.

 

We can speculate all we want about what Activision may or may not have accepted, but there's little chance we'll ever get to see whatever evidence they had for ourselves. You can jump down the conspiracy hole too, since Todd and Activision had something of a working relationship, but really that's not something that's going to be solved.

 

The best we can do now is give a fair assessment of what the game could possibly have allowed, or some scenarios which could have possibly caused faster times to appear.

 

My understanding is the working relationship started after the Dragster incident - they realized that had someone who was excellent on their titles and decided to use that as a marketing item.

 

Someone correct me if Im wrong, but I dont think Todd had anything to do with Activision prior to Dragster.

[Omnigamer]

The only information we know on that front comes from Todd himself. Even so, it would all still be speculative. No matter who had what arrangements or not, the limitations of the game and system provide a more objective piece of evidence than personal accounts.

[andrewg]

Difficult does not mean impossible.

 

Many Activision games are difficult.

Try getting a 6th satellite docking and return with enough fuel to get the highest rank in Space Shuttle. You need a lot of skill and also a bit of luck.

 

No different than what is being presented here. Auto-shifting proves that it IS possible within the programs' own constraints...tho difficult to actually pull off in regular gameplay. "Impossible" would be a time below an auto-shifted round.

 

No one has gotten 5.51 in a period of 35 years, and yet somehow 3 people got 5.51 in the span of a few months; seems plausible. The auto-shift hack is just that, a hack. It's not the actual game. The likelyhood that 5.51 happened is astronomically low. Sure, games are difficult. But if one person can achieve a feat, others can also. Even someone who supposedly has superhuman abilities, well there are still others that do as well. I'm sorry, I just simply don't believe it.

 

I might take you up on Space Shuttle. I'm always looking for difficult gaming challenges.

Edited September 3, 2017 by andrewg

[D.Yancey]

No one has gotten 5.51 in a period of 35 years, and yet somehow 3 people got 5.51 in the span of a few months; seems plausible. The auto-shift hack is just that, a hack. It's not the actual game. The likelyhood that 5.51 happened is astronomically low. Sure, games are difficult. But if one person can achieve a feat, others can also. Even someone who supposedly has superhuman abilities, well there are still others that do as well. I'm sorry, I just simply don't believe it.

In the early 1980, when Activision was at its peak, 1000's of people were playing Dragster every day. Many of them were seriously competing to get a record score. Few games even existed at the time. When Activision stopped tracking scores and giving away patches and certificates, how many people do you think continued to play Dragster? Certainly not very many -- not nearly the number of serious player as there were previously. They moved on to other games and newer consoles and computers. Additionally, 2 of the 3 people who originally scored 5.51 on Dragster were disqualified by Activision. Their names were never printed in the newsletter again, after that one time.

Edited September 3, 2017 by D.Yancey

[andrewg]

In the early 1980, when Activision was at its peak, 1000's of people were playing Dragster every day. Many of them were seriously competing to get a record score. Few games even existed at the time. When Activision stopped tracking scores and giving away patches and certificates, how many people do you think continued to play Dragster? Certainly not very many -- not nearly the number of serious player as there were previously. They moved on to other games and newer consoles and computers. Additionally, 2 of the 3 people who originally scored 5.51 on Dragster were disqualified by Activision. Their names were never printed in the newsletter again, after that one time.

What I don't get is why you believe it happened. You stated earlier in this thread that Todd had a few other scores that were deemed impossible. So I'm confused as to why you wouldn't question it, especially given your experience with Dragster.

 

Who says they were disqualified? And then how did they get their names in the magazine to begin (The same way Todd I'm sure).

[Thomas Jentzsch]

Additionally, 2 of the 3 people who originally scored 5.51 on Dragster were disqualified by Activision. Their names were never printed in the newsletter again, after that one time.

Do we know why?

[Omnigamer]

ACTUALLY...

 

I was browsing through the archived Activisions here on AtariAge (thanks for having them in full! link: https://atariage.com/magazines/activisions.html) and it seems like the timelines for things is... off.

 

Up until Volume 5 (Dec 1982), the top listed time for Dragster was always 5.57, shared by 3-4 people, Todd among them. In Volume 5, however, is the first time 5.51 is listed. What I hadn't seen before was on the next page, where it shows that only 2 individuals had claimed the time - Todd not among them. In Volume 6 (Spring 1983), Todd is also added to the list. Volume 7, which to my knowledge is the last issue, doesn't include Dragster at all.

 

So yes, D.Yancey is right, their names were never printed in the newsletter again. For that matter though, neither was Todd's (with respect to Dragster). I don't see any notices about disqualifications or otherwise though, so again we only have Todd's word to go on for that.

 

EDIT: Also, to provide some more context, Todd claims he achieved the 5.51 in his home on March/April of 1982. He also claims he achieved it at the Electronic Thing show in ~August of 1982. It seems like a pretty significant time discrepancy for the publications if he wasn't credited until Spring 1983...

Edited September 3, 2017 by Omnigamer

[D.Yancey]

Do we know why?

Todd explains this in his recently released 35th anniversary video that I posted earlier in this thread why the other 2 guys who scored 5.51 were disqualified by Activision. These other 2 guys did appear in Activisions Newsletters volume 5 - December 1982 (NOT TODD for 5.51), and in Volume 6 - Spring 1983 (Todd's name was added also). Nothing was mentioned about Dragster in the newsletter for Volume 7 - fall 1983.

 

In Volume 2 - Winter 1982 Todd and 2 others were listed for Dragster with times of 5.57. This is completely possible by a human and Todd has done this score many times. I hope to get this score for myself one day.

 

In volume 3 - Spring 1982, the same score of 5.57 and the same 3 people.

 

In volume 4 - Fall 1982, 4 people are noted as getting 5.57, but the 4th person is not named.

Edited September 3, 2017 by D.Yancey

[D.Yancey]

EDIT: Also, to provide some more context, Todd claims he achieved the 5.51 in his home on March/April of 1982. He also claims he achieved it at the Electronic Thing show in ~August of 1982. It seems like a pretty significant time discrepancy for the publications if he wasn't credited until Spring 1983...

Todd was playing Dragster all throughout 1980, 1981, 1982, and 1983. His Activision Dragster certificate #2786 for 5.57 is dated January 1982. He got credit from Guinness for his Dragster score of 5.51 on September 1, 1982, shown in the date of the certificate he received from Guinness.. So he did achive the 5.51 score at some point during 1982.

 

I can tell you this about Activision and their newsletter from personal experience of being list in the newsletter -- they were very slow at reporting the scores IMO. Maybe it just seemed like it took forever because I wanted to see my name listed so badly back then.

 

It's clear that he did get this score. Why don't you use your talents to show how it was done as it clearly was, instead of trying to prove that it is impossible on the computer? Activision's computer simulation already said that 5.51 was impossible, so your computer evidence is nothing new. Todd proved them wrong long ago, multiple times. Since you are quite talented on the computer, maybe you can show on the computer exactly how Todd did get a 5.51.

Edited September 3, 2017 by D.Yancey