imo the ending is accurate enough as it is and I also brought this up when bubbling the map and was told that there is no problem
forum
Camellia - Feelin Sky (Camellia's "200step" Self-remix)
posted
Total Posts
103
Topic Starter
to elaborate, the current snaps are well timed to the music so i thought that there wasn't an issue with the current setup.ProfessionalBox wrote:
imo the ending is accurate enough as it is and I also brought this up when bubbling the map and was told that there is no problem
funnily enough around 50-60% of the notes after I applied my timing were not more than 1-2 ms off (some were even on point) however the 40-50% rest needed more than 5-10 ms shifts so... in my opinion timing the slowdown is way more accurate than the odd snaps that are currently in place. Let's wait and see what others think about it.
Topic Starter
The point of the current snaps is consistency. Instead of having everything precisely timed to the melody the objects currently have consistent gaps between them which is much more friendly in terms of playability and makes more sense imo than having the objects be snapped precisely to the music. What I mean by this is that if the objects were to be snapped to exactly like they are in the song they would have inconsistent gaps that differ by 5-10ms like you said and adapting to this 5-10ms difference while playing makes much more less sense to me than having the objects be consistent with their gaps as the players assume while playing that the objects are consistent and tied to a certain rhythm which in this instance is not the case (as this part appears to be made in a way that resembles actual instrument playing which is never 100% accurate with bpm). Also even though objects are 5-10ms off you can't really tell by ear anyways without slowing down to 25% speed which I think is a good proof that there is no need to do the changes as a player is more likely to play the objects with my current placements anyways supported by the consistency in rhythm argument pointed out earlier.Raiden wrote:
funnily enough around 50-60% of the notes after I applied my timing were not more than 1-2 ms off (some were even on point) however the 40-50% rest needed more than 5-10 ms shifts so... in my opinion timing the slowdown is way more accurate than the odd snaps that are currently in place. Let's wait and see what others think about it.
ty for elaboration, now that I read what I said it comes off in a different way than I intended for it to.Doormat wrote:
to elaborate, the current snaps are well timed to the music so i thought that there wasn't an issue with the current setup.
from the ranking criteriaProfessionalBox wrote:
Also even though objects are 5-10ms off you can't really tell by ear anyways without slowing down to 25% speed which I think is a good proof that there is no need to do the changes as a player is more likely to play the objects with my current placements anyways supported by the consistency in rhythm argument pointed out earlier.
While the timing errors are still small, they still exist which makes it an rc issue. If fixing them will only move most of the objects by a few ms then i don't understand why you want to keep your current snaps so badly lol. I can only imagine that having more accurate timing would be the most friendly in terms of playability- you seem to be overthinking this
Topic Starter
Lost my reply because phone shut down my browser, will have to rewrite it on computer when I get home in the evening...................
I gotta agree with pascals here. I think accurately timing those is actually more player friendly than leaving them 10ms off because it will probably lead to some frustrating 100s?
Also I can't really see "consistency" being an argument here since rhythm is not kept consistent, as the snaps are wildly varying lol
Anyway it seems not even a single QAT has checked the report so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Also I can't really see "consistency" being an argument here since rhythm is not kept consistent, as the snaps are wildly varying lol
Anyway it seems not even a single QAT has checked the report so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Let's have some time to properly address this issue. Although I agree with that perfect timing has more priority than the "consistency" that ProfessionalBox said (it also doesn't make sense with the time signature at all, which is against the RC I believe), if you get consensus without any changes, we can set it right back to qualified.
Topic Starter
tell me what to fix presicely for this to be good for rank and I'll fix immediately. I have no interest in debating as I just want this to get ranked and over with.
The timing Raiden provided is accurate, I just smoothened it out at the very end, here's a diff to copypaste the red lines from
Topic Starter
fixed with timingpoints bonsai provided
took a quick look; can confirm that the changes to timing at the end have been addressed.
if that's all, let's get the show moving again.
if that's all, let's get the show moving again.
I love the rhythm choice and those cute slider arts :3 but nobody cares ;w;
BibleThumpProfessionalBox wrote:
fixed with timingpoints bonsai provided
Good luck on requalification!
Topic Starter
What I meant was that I directly copied the .osu Bonsai gave but you went through the trouble of making :^)Raiden wrote:
BibleThump
req since timing fixed
01:06:712 (1)
01:11:512 (1)
02:16:012 (1)
02:21:112 (1)
02:24:562 (1)
02:29:662 (1)
02:30:412 (1)
03:42:712 (1)
All of these sliders go offscreen on standard resolution.
01:11:512 (1)
02:16:012 (1)
02:21:112 (1)
02:24:562 (1)
02:29:662 (1)
02:30:412 (1)
03:42:712 (1)
All of these sliders go offscreen on standard resolution.
I didn't see those problem when I playingnon-one wrote:
01:06:712 (1)
01:11:512 (1)
02:16:012 (1)
02:21:112 (1)
02:24:562 (1)
02:29:662 (1)
02:30:412 (1)
03:42:712 (1)
All of these sliders go offscreen on standard resolution.
No they don'tnon-one wrote:
01:06:712 (1)
01:11:512 (1)
02:16:012 (1)
02:21:112 (1)
02:24:562 (1)
02:29:662 (1)
02:30:412 (1)
03:42:712 (1)
All of these sliders go offscreen on standard resolution.
Yeah my bad, the game gave me a resolution of 1280x1024 which is 5:4 under the standard resolution tab and I chose that without realizing it.