Barnstorming - Game #1 - 32.04 - What the...?!?!!

[Thomas Jentzsch]

You don't seem to realize that I can compare the fake with a legit game, even duplicating your game to see if everything jives. This is how I will catch even the most devious edited video.

I don't know who is right or wrong here (but I would like to find out ), but I have one question: Do you have the time to analyze all videotapes? If Pitfall Harry would send you a tape under a different, non-suspect name, would you go that far and analyze it to the bottom? And did you do that with all videotapes in the past?

 

Don't me wrong, I do not think this is necessary, 99.x% reliable scores would do for me.

 

But it looks like you are 100% sure that nobody can fool you and others are 100% sure they can (obviously at least one side must be wrong ).

 

I have learned, that nobody can be 100% sure for anything.

[FirebrandX]

Ron, I have a request about the Barnstorming experiment that you will be doing at the CGE. Please send me a video copy to analyze and compare to the emulator version. I took your word that the emulator is cycle exact, so any 32.50's done on the cartridge will be compared down to each pixel in order to see if it's possible to be done on the rom version.

 

This brings me to another point. Senior referee Robert Mruczek has stated many times that a trick that allows you to go faster than is possible in the game, or gives you some sort of unfair advantage MUST be revealed to all gamers in fairness of the competition. Example is the analog stick trick for Doom64. Robert realized this makes for times that are normally impossible, so he notified all gamers involved.

 

Now since Todd has no problem demonstrating his techniques to "huge public crowds of 40+", I cannot figure out for the life of me why it is forbidden to explain these techniques online. I heard it would make me kick myself if I new what he was doing, yet the persons who were fortunate enough to witness it have refused to describe it. I also hope it has nothing to do with the birds, as my birdless hack totally removes that element.

 

Ron, I hope that you will allow me to analyze the video. Because if I find there is a timing issue compared to the emulator, then we can all relax and be done with this mess. If it's instead a trick like the Doom64 example, then by Robert's ruling, it is our right to know what it is.

[Fretwobbler]

TG ref Mike

 

Us Brits are a bit reserved and so message board fighting is not something I like to partake in, especially not with senior people from a respected gaff like yours, but if yer up for a good old fashioned topical debate, i'm game

 

Fretwobbler - You won't be allowed to just turn in the last few minutes of a Pitfall game to hide save stating. You will have to turn in the entire game, or be disqualified. So much for this arguement...

 

First, if someone with a bigger brain than mine (cue Thomas ) could be so kind as to work his magic and qualify this theory -

 

When you save the game in PCAE, i imagine that the emulator simply saves the current memory state of the game when paused. then when reloaded, the ROM image is 'inserted' into the Atari, and the 4K or RAM(whatever it has??) is loaded into the emulated 4K - Is this true?

 

If the above is true, then when the game is paused all variables controlling any sprites(or whatever the term for a sprite is on the atari), timings, scores, lives, trees blowing in the wind, whatever, will be exactly as before when the game is reloaded.

 

If thats the case it is perfectly feasable to record 30 seconds, press esc , save the game, start the avi dump, do another 30 seconds, press escape and so on and so on.

 

Then paying close attention to the 50 frames a sec PCAE pumps out calculating where to 'join the edits' is simple.

 

I heard a challenge about film producing earlier. Albert here has a perfect game of Pitfall 2 in 6 pieces, from each Red Cross to the next. I can join two of them quite easily, if you send a 512MB PC133 DIMM I'll join all 6 and send you a forged video that will be impossible to differenciate from one that captured in a single dump.

 

I'll accept the challenge if you send me the memory and put up some prize money

 

Adam

[TG Ref Mike]

You don't seem to realize that I can compare the fake with a legit game, even duplicating your game to see if everything jives. This is how I will catch even the most devious edited video.

I don't know who is right or wrong here (but I would like to find out ), but I have one question: Do you have the time to analyze all videotapes? If Pitfall Harry would send you a tape under a different, non-suspect name, would you go that far and analyze it to the bottom? And did you do that with all videotapes in the past?

 

Don't me wrong, I do not think this is necessary, 99.x% reliable scores would do for me.

 

But it looks like you are 100% sure that nobody can fool you and others are 100% sure they can (obviously at least one side must be wrong ).

 

I have learned, that nobody can be 100% sure for anything.

 

I srutinize every video that comes my way. I don't get swamped with scores, even during contests, so I do have the time to scrutinize every tape I get. It is my duty to TG and gamers everywhere to make as absolutely certain as I can that a score is legitimate. I am especially careful to watch the timer in slow motion to make sure that no time skips occur (a sure sign of editing). Overlaying different numbers will not work due to this detection process, and the person attempting the fake would have to also play a good enough game that was close enough to fake the numbers. Even if I were fooled by the number editing (which I would not likely be) the person will still have to play at very near the world record level to even have achance for this to work. If this is the case, why wouldn't they just go ahead and get the record legit?

 

Second, if you read my last post, I said that I was not likely to be fooled. I will reestimate my numbers for you... How does 99.9% sure sound?

[Fretwobbler]

Second, if you read my last post, I said that I was not likely to be fooled. I will reestimate my numbers for you... How does 99.9% sure sound?

 

If your that sure, you must be on for a wager

 

Adam

[FirebrandX]

I have to add something to this:

 

TG ref Mike

 

Us Brits are a bit reserved and so message board fighting is not something I like to partake in, especially not with senior people from a respected gaff like yours, but if yer up for a good old fashioned topical debate, i'm game

 

Wells that's kind of a cheap way to make jab at other people's countries of origin. Us Americans are a bit reversed ans so making jabs about other nations is not something I like to partake in. (sorry, but I had to make an example of that statement).

 

 

When you save the game in PCAE, i imagine that the emulator simply saves the current memory state of the game when paused. then when reloaded, the ROM image is 'inserted' into the Atari, and the 4K or RAM(whatever it has??) is loaded into the emulated 4K -  Is this true?

 

From reading the posts, I assumed you guys were the experts on this. I can't really comment on theory instead of procedure.

 

 

If thats the case it is perfectly feasable to record 30 seconds, press esc , save the game,  start the avi dump, do another 30 seconds, press escape and so on and so on.

 

There will be obvious signs of this, such as the time counter's milliseconds not lining up in timing during the splice. Robert actually caught a gamer trying to do this on a console game for Crazy Taxi 2 I think it was. (note: the gamer was disqualified). Not to mention the fact the the gamer would have to take extra special care to make it all look natural and not bust right out with a perfect run.

 

Such issues would then call for us the request the gamer repeat his performance. I have always maitained that this is the best use of live verification.

 

 

 

 

I heard a challenge about film producing earlier. Albert here has a perfect game of Pitfall 2 in 6 pieces, from each Red Cross to the next. I can join two of them quite easily, if you send a 512MB PC133 DIMM I'll join all 6 and send you a forged video that will be impossible to differenciate from one that captured in a single dump.

 

This only proves the point that very few people are going to have the equipment and the knowledge to even attempt this. They would also have to be perfectly accurate on each edit, as well as making the whole thing look natural. For example, I can tell when somebody sends me a tape of an emulator version of a game. There are scrolling frame buffer rates you can measure to detect emulation feed. I actually use this knowledge to improve emulation scrolling for my own rom games.

 

Also, I hope you haven't been playing all your atari games on 50 fps, as many of them were NTSC dumps meant for 60 fps. Be sure to only play PAL versions at 50 fps.

[TG Ref Mike]

I like how you are trying to scare me off with some sort of wager, Fretwobbler, but this is a convenient way to try and steer the arguement down a slippery slope. You guys made the comments about faking video, and that you are sure to fool me. Don't talk about it, do it. Your prize will be the satisfaction of beating me in this arguement.

 

You also don't seem to realize that you guys are actually helping me win this debate. You guys are claiming that you need a $300 camcorder this, and a 512MB PC133 DIMM that. If you guys, who are such experts at faking video don't even have this equipment, how is an average player going to come up with all of this. The odds of someone having all the necessary equipment and expertise to sufficiently fake a video, and having the skills to play a good enough game to give them convincing footage are astronomical.

 

Quite simply stated, nobody is going to spend the the money on high tech equipment, the time to become an expert at video fakery, and the time to master the game close enough for convincing material to break a video game world record. Can't you see this point? It would actually be far easier to just break the record legit.

 

As far as splicing together the Pitfall 2 perfect fake. I need to know some facts, first. Did he save out while still moving then dump to avi? This will easily be revealed by the fact that Harry will not be in the exact same position upon reloading. If he stopped, then hit save state, then reloaded, I can catch this by comparing times of an actual perfect game vs the fake. You will not be able to coordinate all of these very intricate details exactly perfect. If you can, then you my friend should be making millions of dollars working for Universal, or Paramount, or FOX, etc.

 

Also, please leave the snide remarks about Americans out of this debate. Thank you.

[RCorcoran]

Ron, I have a request about the Barnstorming experiment that you will be doing at the CGE. Please send me a video copy to analyze and compare to the emulator version. I took your word that the emulator is cycle exact, so any 32.50's done on the cartridge will be compared down to each pixel in order to see if it's possible to be done on the rom version.

 

Not a problem. If I can walk away with the tape (or a copy), I will make sure you get a copy delivered ASAP.

 

This brings me to another point. Senior referee Robert Mruczek has stated many times that a trick that allows you to go faster than is possible in the game, or gives you some sort of unfair advantage MUST be revealed to all gamers in fairness of the competition. Example is the analog stick trick for Doom64. Robert realized this makes for times that are normally impossible, so he notified all gamers involved.

 

If there is in fact a "trick" that allows Todd to go faster than anyone else, I will be the first to disallow it as the Atari Editor.

 

Now since Todd has no problem demonstrating his techniques to "huge public crowds of 40+", I cannot figure out for the life of me why it is forbidden to explain these techniques online. I heard it would make me kick myself if I new what he was doing, yet the persons who were fortunate enough to witness it have refused to describe it.  I also hope it has nothing to do with the birds, as my birdless hack totally removes that element.

 

It's not forbidden, for Todd to explain his technique. It is, in my opinion, a breach of etiquette for me or anyone else to do so. Again, that's just my opinion.

 

Ron, I hope that you will allow me to analyze the video. Because if I find there is a timing issue compared to the emulator, then we can all relax and be done with this mess. If it's instead a trick like the Doom64 example, then by Robert's ruling, it is our right to know what it is.

 

I have no problem what-so-ever in sharing this video as Todd has already given his blessing.

[Fretwobbler]

I have to add something to this:

 

Wells that's kind of a cheap way to make jab at other people's countries of origin. Us Americans are a bit reversed ans so making jabs about other nations is not something I like to partake in. (sorry' date=' but I had to make an example of that statement).

[/quote']

 

Tone down edit

 

Leave me alone I mean no-one any harm. Read the line, not between them.

 

 

 

Anyway TG Ref Mike - I'm still up for that challenge, and a sensible discussion if you are. Just dont bring your mate.

 

Adam

[Fretwobbler]

@TG Ref Mike -

 

TG Ref Mike said -

As far as splicing together the Pitfall 2 perfect fake. I need to know some facts, first. Did he save out while still moving then dump to avi? This will easily be revealed by the fact that Harry will not be in the exact same position upon reloading. If he stopped, then hit save state, then reloaded, I can catch this by comparing times of an actual perfect game vs the fake. You will not be able to coordinate all of these very intricate details exactly perfect. If you can, then you my friend should be making millions of dollars working for Universal, or Paramount, or FOX, etc.

 

Your first point about the break is actually correct, but consider this-

 

You run onto a platform or screen and stop when you are directly under the bat. You can then hold that position and as the sprite moves of the end of the screen and comes back onto the left, it takes the same course and you can then press escape.

 

Then when you reload and start filming harry is stood under the bat, the trick is not to run straight away. If Harry holds his position until the bat has passed over him once you can then start playing again.

 

Then there is an overlap from the 1st dump to the 2nd than can be matched up to the exact same frame (but from a later sequence of the bat moving left-right).

 

I can (and have done) do it with small files but that will not be proof.

 

That thoery is solid 100% and if I had the PC, Id do it for you now and send it to you.

 

Well, why dont you try it yourself, its not difficult.

 

Adam

[ROBERT]

Hello fellow gamers:

 

Okay...some final thoughts, and "food for thought" for the intrepid gamers out there, from me on this topic, as senior Twin Galaxies officials are already well into the process of "due diligence" with the score in question.

 

1st - It is a known fact that in modern system titles such as "Doom 64" and probably several other first person shooters that an adjustment up front can lead to faster game speeds.

 

However, I guarantee you that in Barnstorming, that cannot and is not the case...for one reason. There is no program available to do this, and the screen scrolls, not you. All you control in the program is up and down...you have no control on left or right. Therefore it is impossible to alter the joystick itself to contribute to faster movement.

 

And though I am aware that some ultra-experienced technically savvy gamers might challenge this assessment, keep in focus that I am saying this strictly with respect to Barnstorming in question.

 

2nd - What no one has done, to date, is a flawlessly mathematical assessment of the differential in speed/distance with respect to climbing and diving, assuming button completely held down and no objects in the way. Here is what I suggest to the intrepid programmers that have tested this game thus far...to end all shadow of doubt about secret tricks to picking up speeds.

 

CASE ONE - CLIMBING

 

Eliminate all non essential obstacles from the equation. That's birds, mills and barns.

 

Next. from the starting possition, assuming button hels the whole way, fly straight across. Map and index pixels against clock times.

 

Next, track a perfect ascent from the start to the top of the screen. Drop a perpendicular line down from the plane's nose the moment the plane hit the top.

 

Question...based on a bottom-to-top ascent, what is the variance in distance between the two per whole second of travel ?

 

CASE TWO - CLIMBING

 

Same, but not from a cold start...do this from any given point in the game once the plane is at full speed. Is there an appreciable difference ?

 

CASE THREE - DIVE

 

Obviously this can only be done at full speed in an in-progress game, but if you calculate where the plane that was diving was when it touched flat on the bottom of the border below, how much less did it travel relative to a plane flying straight across from the same pixel column ? This variance should be in terms of extra pixels per second that the plane flying straight may have achieved.

 

RESULTS - PART ONE

 

Determine two variables...

 

1st - Did the ascent itself from a cold start versus the "flying straight" test end up going the same distance, or further, or less further, than when the planes were at full speed in case 2 ?

 

2nd - Did the difference in case two when the planes climbed at full speed come out equal to, less than or greater than the distance in case three.

 

RESULTS - PART TWO

 

Based on test one above, the goal here is to measure whether or not from a cold start if there is any difference at all. Logically, there should NOT be under the purest of circumstances. If there is an appreciable difference, this implies that a plane can achieve maximum velocity faster from a cold start while flying straight as opposed to a cold start while flying upwards.

 

If this is the case, and I hope it's not, it suggests the possibility that regardless of climbs and dives, the immediate goal is not so much to be cutting climbs and dives as close as possible, but ALSO to be maxxing out the distances travelled while in a straight line...in addition to necessary climbs and dives.

 

Assuming that is the case, it would behoove a gamer to "straighten out" their chosen flight path as soon as possible and as long as possible before each climb (or dive) as opposed to "bouncing along" fluidically.

 

However, I believe that the distance disparity in cases one and two will be virtually identical.

 

RESULTS - PART THREE

 

The bigger issue at hand is case 2 and 3 above...if diving effectively picks up speeds lost while climbing. In other words...when you "dive", do you travel faster than when flying straight ?

 

I'd really like to know as it opens up some possibilities.

 

Logically, for every x-pixels you climb, you must inevitably land.

 

POSSIBILITIES - PART ONE

 

Based on the results of the above, assuming conclusions provide valuable assessments that can support further plausible arguments, we might consider the folowing.

 

In games 3 or 4, I forget which, I found years back a decent pattern where I intentionally hit a bird in order to change where they were relative to the pattern I employed from that point onward. Basically, that one strategic hit lead to a much easier, and faster, finish of the stage. Can't remember the score, but the strategy was sound.

 

I doubt that BS 1B (Barnstorming 1B...pun not intended and it is strictly to save me typing time below) has the luxury of allowing a gamer to whack a bird and still come within 33.00 seconds. But it is an interesting proposition nonetheless.

 

POSSIBILITIES - PART TWO

 

I assume that in a scenario where necessary climbing and diving is involved that testers are determined exactly when the clock stops ticking. In other words, is it based on the plane's nose contacting a certain pixel mark on the game map or what ? I'd speculate that we need to evaluate precisely at what distance AND height the clock stops ticking.

 

In other words, if on final entry to the last barn the player was at ground level versus coming in at the absolute highest line possible without hitting the barn's top...would the clock still register game-end at the same distance, or does height have something to do with it ?

 

Logically, coming in from a dive, you reach the point distance-wise, while at that height level, faster if you do the geometry and trig calcs, which I won't here but trust me that you travel farther in practical terms by travelling to the bottom as opposed to maximum barn height level when swooping downward (decending)

 

However, my point is...if height is a simultaneous factor, meaning your plane has to also be either (A) on the round itself or (B) the top of the plane at or below a certain pixel height, then it may actually be better for you, though you travel farther, to descend straight to the bottom as opposed to coming in high.

 

POSSIBILITIES - PART THREE

 

Todd's "secret strategy"...often debated, never duplicated...is the core of the argument here. While I will not delve into the ethics of TG respecting a gamer's right to withhold the secrets or our own promise to protect them, I will suggest this...

 

With every joystick movement, and there are many, the birds' spacing once the clock starts is identical each and every time until you contact them. It is conceivable that precision timing will allow you to potentially reach a point where you barely have enough room to execute a KEY climb or dive while avoiding obstacles...a point where if you reached it a fraction of a second slower and you would have to take a "longer path".

 

I am not saying that this is the end-all explanation of his strategies, but it IS an integral part of them.

 

I myself achieved a 32.90 last night after some practice...and I can assure you that I was QUITE SLOPPY indeed. Based on this alone, I assess that much faster is possible. And by sloppy, I am not exaggerating.

 

Okay...I gave you some food for thought. My honest opinion is that Twin Galaxies will make an OFFICIAL announcement of the outcome of our testing once it has been completed. Meanwhile, please trust that we perform due diligence on all scores, regardless of gamer, once evidence is presented at any point that a potential discrepancy exists. Twin Galaxies, by it's very nature, cannot afford to do otherwise, as our reputation for integrity must preceed us at all times.

 

Just my two cents.

 

Robert T Mruczek

Twin Galaxies - Editor and Chief referee

Star Wars classic arcade champion

(212) 366-3036 (work-day)

rmruczek@doremus.com (work E-MAIL)

 

*****************************

[Fretwobbler]

I think you guys have got me wrong.

 

Quite simply stated, nobody is going to spend the the money on high tech equipment, the time to become an expert at video fakery, and the time to master the game close enough for convincing material to break a video game world record.

 

Thats right, people probably arent going to bother, I cant imagine somebody even trying that and submitting a score. Im not talking about trying to beat world records or Twin Galaxies. I'm not talking about cheating, im not talking about anything that most of this thread has argued about. My only concern is making a perfect game of Pitfall 2 on avi.

 

This is something I have been working on since long before this thread ever started and I will probably get the memory soon anyway so when I do, I'll be in touch but probably not publicly . Please dont read between the lines of my posts, there is no intended hidden meanings.

 

 

Adam

[StanJr]

The obvious (to me) strategy for Barnstorming is to fly straight at the point JUST above the windmills, and dive to the highest possible point to clear the barns. There will be some adjustment for birds, but these should be minimal and the amount of climb/dive should be as minimal as possible (since that slows you down). The throttle should be held in at all times to maximize speed.

 

I'm sure this strategy is way off base and if Todd ever reads this he will laugh at me for a week for being so naive. But this is what occurs to me.

 

 

I personally, would be fascinated to see ANYONE sneak a fake video by Mike.

[RCorcoran]

The obvious (to me) strategy for Barnstorming is to fly straight at the point JUST above the windmills, and dive to the highest possible point to clear the barns.  There will be some adjustment for birds, but these should be minimal and the amount of climb/dive should be as minimal as possible (since that slows you down).  The throttle should be held in at all times to maximize speed.

 

I'm sure this strategy is way off base and if Todd ever reads this he will laugh at me for a week for being so naive.  But this is what occurs to me.

 

Actually, you're right on the money about the technique. As for Todd laughing at you, highly doubtful.

[Thomas Jentzsch]

I srutinize every video that comes my way. I don't get swamped with scores, even during contests, so I do have the time to scrutinize every tape I get. It is my duty to TG and gamers everywhere to make as absolutely certain as I can that a score is legitimate. I am especially careful to watch the timer in slow motion to make sure that no time skips occur (a sure sign of editing). Overlaying different numbers will not work due to this detection process, and the person attempting the fake would have to also play a good enough game that was close enough to fake the numbers.

Now, that should let a lot of people sleep better.

 

Even if I were fooled by the number editing (which I would not likely be) the person will still have to play at very near the world record level to even have achance for this to work. If this is the case, why wouldn't they just go ahead and get the record legit?

A very good point.

Still, there might be some people who can't accept to be only second best.

 

Second, if you read my last post, I said that I was not likely to be fooled. I will reestimate my numbers for you... How does 99.9% sure sound?

More than perfect for me!

 

(Sorry, but my English is far from being perfect, so I missed that point.)

[D.Yancey]

I have the second place score listed on Twin Galaxies for Barnstorming. I made a video tape of 32.77. It has 8 course corrections and many obstacles can be skimmed more closely. When one flies a great run, better opportunities arise in the patterns of the geese enabling the score to be lowered even further creating a cascade effect as one achieves a greater and greater skill level. I believe that the fewest number of movements can better the score, not simply the total number of pixels moved by the biplane. Diving may NOT actually slow the forward progress. This could be why one can approach a score made by a hacked version of the game when playing a legitimate game. 32.04 may, perhaps, have been a typo, but I believe 32.50 is attainable.

 

Someone else mentioned reviewing the Freeway scores. Todd's score of 34 is attainable. I have verified score of 33, leaving the chicken in the last lane as time expired, only millimeters from tying the world record. I may play this game again and achieve the renowned 34 crown.

 

Someone posted comments about Data from Star Trek, one of my favorite characters from one of my favorite shows. He and also Spock do indeed have certain abilities above humans. However, human intuition and insticnt ofter prevailed over pure logic. Both characters were often perplexed when their respective captains made incredible achievments and overcame astronomical odds. There was even a special music that played when Spock was pondering this situaton on many episodes; while his active eyebrow tweaked with astonishment.

 

Twin Galaxies has scrutinized all of my submissions. Many tie the scores of Todd. These are the ones of which I'm most proud. Many were achieved and photographed over 20 years ago before digital technology was available to me. My family did not even have a VCR then. An analog photo of the TV screen was required by Activision as proof of world record scores. I was recognized for a few also. It's good enough for me today.

 

Side bar: some of these posts and theories sound like the midnight debates we had in my college dormroom back in the day about government issues and politics.

 

A special thanks goes out to Thomas Jentzsch, a great Starmaster player , with a most highly developed brain. You are #1 with me pal. Keep writing games also. Robert, Ron and Walter; keep up the great work guys. It's the competition which keeps me playing. That's why I originally became addicted to Activision games. The scoreboard, the game clubs and patches, the newsletters were all very exciting. Twin Galaxies is the closest thing to the original Activision that still exists. I didn't play from 1984-2001, but when I discovered Twin Galaxies on the internet my desire to play was rekindled. We are also fortunate to have Atari Age and other Atari sites on the web on which to share our accomplishments and knowledge. We could not have chosen a better time to live out our lives!

[Atarian7]

Something illogical has been happening on this game: When I fly to the bottom of the barns on the first 3 those first 2 birds you have to avoid have been closer to me so that I can go under them right before reaching the windmill. If i go the normal route and fly under the barns at top height those 2 birds are farther ahead and it requires precise timing to make it under them instead of flying between them. However going low on the barns does not improve the time because it does add distance. Why then are those 2 birds closer and not farther ahead when going low on the first 3 barns?

[D.Yancey]

Atarian7: I still believe that diving makes the biplane travel at a different rate opposed to climbing or flying straight. Your observation lends to this belief.

[Thomas Jentzsch]

A special thanks goes out to Thomas Jentzsch, a great Starmaster player, with a most highly developed brain.  You are #1 with me pal.  Keep writing games also.

People should really stop writing those very nice things about me, else my big head might burst.

 

Many thanks to Marco for stopping me from getting completely megalomaniac.

(that's a nice word I should remember )

 

BTW: My brain is absolutely average, maybe except for programming.

[RCorcoran]

I think everyone here at AtariAge is truly exceptional. Perhaps my view is a bit skewed due to the fact that we all love Atari. No matter. Except for a stray comment or two, everyone has been great. This is a class act community and I tip my hat to Albert & Alex and the rest of my fellow Atarians. I am very proud to count myself as one of you.

[StanJr]

Atarian7:  I still believe that diving makes the biplane travel at a different rate opposed to climbing or flying straight.  Your observation lends to this belief.

 

Does this mean that diving does not slow you down and that you will still fly at full throttle in a dive, OR does it mean diving may actually INCREASE your speed?????

 

[Scott Stilphen]

To quote Thomas:

 

"Whenever you move the plane up or down, the throttle is disabled during that period and the plane slightly slows down. This is checked every frame.

 

So, if you move the plane only a little bit more in total (a few pixel), then your time will become higher."

[StanJr]

that's what I thought, but the above statement sounded like it suggested otherwise. Whew! Almost lost my mind there.

 

Thanks for the reset, Scott.

[Thomas Jentzsch]

To quote Thomas:

 

"Whenever you move the plane up or down, the throttle is disabled during that period and the plane slightly slows down. This is checked every frame.  

 

So, if you move the plane only a little bit more in total (a few pixel), then your time will become higher."

Well, I have to admit that the first part is not exactly true. The code is a bit more complicated, but the result is the same.

 

It works like this: If you move the plane up or down, then the speed is reduced a little bit every frame while this happens. I currently don't have the code available, but I could expain it more detailed if somebody really wants that.

[ROBERT]

Hello fellow gamers:

 

Speaking on behalf of my fellow Twin Galaxies senior referee and worldwide Atari editor, Mr Ron Corcoran, I formally announce that, after performing due diligence and after serious consideration of all sides and information and facts at hand, the previously recognized score of 32.04 seconds on game 1B of Barnstorming by Mr Todd Rogers, has been officially rescinded on the Twin Galaxies online scoreboard.

 

Further, we officially and accurately recognize Todd's achievement of 32.77 seconds, same game/difficulty, as the score is captured on VHS videotape, and via recording off of an authentic, original, unmodified Atari 2600 home console system, and an authentic, original, unmodified Atari 2600 cartridge.

 

We recognize and acknowledge that the earlier score of 32.04 seconds was likely to have been the result of either a clerical discrepancy or other circumstances. Due to the extreme longevity of the record trail, it is impossible to validate certain aspects of that achievement. Therefore, based on our own standards of score validation and authentication, the score has been removed.

 

I hope that this brings a final sense of closure to this matter. Thank you.

 

Robert T Mruczek

Twin Galaxies - Editor and Chief referee

Star Wars classic arcade champion

(212) 366-3036 (work-day)

rmruczek@doremus.com (work E-MAIL)

 

*******************************