+1 for traces as the next one :^)
gj on bubble zhu
gj on bubble zhu
[TimingPoints]
1305,272.727272727273,5,1,1,70,1,0
2668,272.727272727273,6,1,1,70,1,0
4304,272.727272727273,5,1,1,70,1,0
5667,272.727272727273,3,1,1,70,1,0
6485,272.727272727273,5,1,1,70,1,0
7575,272.727272727273,4,1,1,70,1,0
8665,272.727272727273,6,1,1,70,1,0
10301,272.727272727273,5,1,1,70,1,0
11664,272.727272727273,6,1,1,70,1,0
13300,272.727272727273,5,1,1,70,1,0
14663,272.727272727273,6,1,1,70,1,0
16299,272.727272727273,5,1,1,70,1,0
17662,272.727272727273,3,1,1,70,1,0
18480,272.727272727273,8,1,1,70,1,0
20662,272.727272727273,6,1,1,70,1,0
479608,689.655172413793,4,2,1,90,1,0
110bpm 11/8 is correct according to the official tabs (http://www.sheethappenspublishing.com/p ... guitarbook) as well as anyone with a reasonable understanding of complex time signatures. (i've discussed it with dsco too) if you want excerpts of the tabs feel free to contact me directly as i don't want to upload them here.Kagetsu wrote:
hi
i have to pop this due to timing issues:
- 110 bpm feels wrong as it ignores a lot of downbeats, (00:05:124 - how is that a downbeat in any case 00:11:664 - 00:14:663 - , just to point some few examples)
- the timing signatures seem to be off as well (it's kind of obvious since the bpm is wrong) in any case, most of your bpm resets are wrong or don't make sense.
thanks for the kind words, happy to hear i achieved what i wanted toBrianTheDrummer wrote:
Discovered this map some time ago and just wanted to say it's absolutely amazing! I've listened to this song many times and besides the mapping itself being really good it supports the song really well. The song is quite complex with small details/accents and I was afraid for a map to ignore these and I'm glad you didn't. This song/artist is amazing and it's good to finally see a proper map being made for it. Keep up the work and hopefully you can get it ranked!
it might be true that 110 bpm is the original one for this song (i actually checked the tab before popping this) however, 11/8 is unsupported by the game so you will have to transcribe 11/8 to more simple time signatures (11/8 is "faster" hence why the current timing doesn't work)Zhuriel wrote:
110bpm 11/8 is correct according to the official tabs (http://www.sheethappenspublishing.com/p ... guitarbook) as well as anyone with a reasonable understanding of complex time signatures. (i've discussed it with dsco too) if you want excerpts of the tabs feel free to contact me directly as i don't want to upload them here.
all of those pops were properly discussed before taking action so nothing to worry about.Zhuriel wrote:
looking also at your pop on taiyou to kurashite kita, i would kindly recommend you to learn more about complex time signatures and rhythms before unnecessarily popping bubbles again. your timing suggestion shows a complete lack of understanding of the rhythmic structure of this song.
Kagetsu wrote:
it might be true that 110 bpm is the original one for this song (i actually checked the tab before popping this) however, 11/8 is unsupported by the game so you will have to transcribe 11/8 to more simple time signatures (11/8 is "faster" hence why the current timing doesn't work)
while the game does not support 11/8, there is nothing unrankable in the way i've timed it according to this piece of wording in the rc as a) it is not possible to use the correct time signature and b) no incorrect time signature lasts for more than one bar.Ranking Criteria wrote:
- Uninherited (red) Timing Sections should be used to accurately map the song's timing. They should synchronize to the beats of the song as accurately as possible and use the correct time signature whenever possible. If an incorrect time signature would last for more than 2 bars, add another timing section to fix it.(...)
things work quite well within the game's limits as-is, the tempo is correct and all the downbeats are in the right place. you can argue that not all the emphasis structure of the 11/8 matches up with the game metronome but that is a rather minor issue, not noticable in gameplay and probably also is the case in a few other examples, such as altale which uses a 3/4 instead of a 6/8 resulting in completely different subdivisions implied in the metronome to those actually used in the song.Kagetsu wrote:
it's not about following an official number, but rather to make things work within the game limits.
that's the problem though. since it isn't possible to set the correct time signature, you should find a better way to represent that signature, (which in this case, would be by doubling the bpm). the current timing is actually an issue, because the metronome doesn't correctly synchronize to the song beats.Zhuriel wrote:
while the game does not support 11/8, there is nothing unrankable in the way i've timed it according to this piece of wording in the rc as a) it is not possible to use the correct time signature and b) no incorrect time signature lasts for more than one bar.
exactly what limits are being pushed here? there shouldn't be a need to stray away from the songs original bpm to reflect more accurate timing - based off your example in your earlier post. Your timing points seem to reflect more of an alternating 5/4, 6/4 rather than what the song was truly written to according to the tabs. I'm going to have to say I agree with Zhur on this one.Kagetsu wrote:
it's not about following an official number, but rather to make things work within the game limits.
i don't think you get the full picture of what i'm trying to explain so i made a video showing what the time signatures and bpm actually mean.squirrelpascals wrote:
there shouldn't be a need to stray away from the songs original bpm to reflect more accurate timing - based off your example in your earlier post. Your timing points seem to reflect more of an alternating 5/4, 6/4 rather than what the song was truly written to according to the tabs. I'm going to have to say I agree with Zhur on this one.
what's in the map currently is not a 6/4 but a 11/8 implemented by resetting the timing with red lines. as far as i'm concerned, (as well as the game mechanically is concerned) this is equivalent to a 11/8 with a different structure (which is not a thing that osu cares about) and thus is the best way to implement a 11/8 time signature in osu.Kagetsu wrote:
- from bar 1 to 6, it shows a 6/4 110 bpm pace (this is what's in the map, currently)
the song's "pace", in my opinion, lies in the subdivisions of the 11/8 (3-2-3-3 for the most part), which is not something that osu is (nor in all likelyhood ever will be given the popularity of songs with the level of rhythmic complexity needed for that to matter) capable of accurately representing. while 220 may cause all metronome beats to land on subdivisons, it also misrepresents the "pace" you seem so intent on. there are no rules in the ranking criteria stating that all metronome beats have to land on subdivisions, and there are ranked maps in 6/8 implemented as 3/4, so i see no argument why 220 11/4 is a more accurate representation of the song than 110 11/8 with a different structure.Kagetsu wrote:
i know you guys are attached to this "110 bpm" number and don't want to change it, but in reality the song's pace is way faster. even if you're trying to represent an 11/8 signature, 220 bpm 11/4 is proven to be more accurate.
i originally timed it like your suggestion, however in the transcription it is written as 4/4 with heavy syncopation so i updated the timing to be accurate to that.frukoyurdakul wrote:
05:19:837 - I don't think this is flat 4/4. I haven't came up with a solution yet but I think that section needs to be fixed as well.
Secondly, the part after that kiai is also wrong (because of the similiar rhythms.)
they're not subdivisions though. if you watched the video, you would understand that you're missing half of the downbeats. the downbeats for 6/8, 11/8, whateverthing/8 are supposed to land twice the speed than it would happen for a /4 song. it doesn't misrepresent the pace of the song, actually it makes more accurate.Zhuriel wrote:
while 220 may cause all metronome beats to land on subdivisons, it also misrepresents the "pace" you seem so intent on.
i insist, they're not subdivisions. and yes, there is a rule that says that the timing should represent the beats of the song which is not the case for this map.Zhuriel wrote:
there are no rules in the ranking criteria stating that all metronome beats have to land on subdivisions,
i don't know how is this a valid excuse. appealing to common practice is a fallacy. i don't see any valid argument here other than you wanting to keep this 110 number for any arbitrary reasonZhuriel wrote:
and there are ranked maps in 6/8 implemented as 3/4, so i see no argument why 220 11/4 is a more accurate representation of the song than 110 11/8 with a different structure.
that's not how it works though. those groupings are meant to clarify how to count the notes in the measure (like 1 2 3, 1 2, 1 2 3, 1 2 3, also known as metre, however that's not the pace of the song. as you might know, 11/8 clarifies that there should be 11 eight notes per measure so that's what the issue is at the moment, you're missing half of the beats in the song, (because the beats are meant to be eight notes).Zhuriel wrote:
Allow me one last attempt at explaining the structure of the 11/8 meter in this song:
similar to a 12/8, each of these groupings structurally works like a beat in a 4/4, whereas that would not be the case in a 220BPM 11/4. this is why i do not consider timing at 220 to be a more accurate representation of the composition.
[TimingPoints]
1305,272.727272727273,11,1,1,70,1,0
2123,272.727272727273,11,1,1,70,1,0
2668,272.727272727273,11,1,1,70,1,0
3486,272.727272727273,11,1,1,70,1,0
4304,272.727272727273,11,1,1,70,1,0
therefore, my implementation is now explicitly allowed by ranking criteria.Ranking Criteria wrote:
- Uninherited timing points must be used to accurately map the song's time signatures. If an incorrect time signature lasts for more than one bar, a uninherited timing point must be added on the next downbeat to reset the time signature. For time signatures unsupported in the editor, metronome resets or editing of the .osu file are acceptable.
true, but not exactly for the reasons you pointed. the new RC just doesn't state that the metronome should follow the beats in the song. in any case, it says something about accurately map the song's time signatures but that's now kinda vague in my eyes ¯\_(ツ)_/¯Zhuriel wrote:
a recent RC update was pointed out to me that says:therefore, my implementation is now explicitly allowed by ranking criteria.Ranking Criteria wrote:
- Uninherited timing points must be used to accurately map the song's time signatures. If an incorrect time signature lasts for more than one bar, a uninherited timing point must be added on the next downbeat to reset the time signature. For time signatures unsupported in the editor, metronome resets or editing of the .osu file are acceptable.
please avoid comments like this. it creates a wrong perception of what i was trying to achieve here. this wasn't a personal attack or anything. let's say it's just my "job" as a bn to discuss these type of stuff (because the metronome is still wrong)Turquoise- wrote:
absolutely rekt
not sure how explicitly allowing metronome resets is vague in any way, if anything it is vague in a good way as it allows mappers to choose which of the available inaccurate workarounds works best for them. i feel like you misunderstood my point, i never argued this implementation is accurate to the song, however i consider it more accurate and resulting in a better map than the alternative.Kagetsu wrote:
true, but not exactly for the reasons you pointed. the new RC just doesn't state that the metronome should follow the beats in the song. in any case, it says something about accurately map the song's time signatures but that's now kinda vague in my eyes ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
i never said metronome resets are vague though? i'm questioning the part of Uninherited timing points must be used to accurately map the song's time signatures. it says accurately but doesn't explain what they consider accurate as you can now use a sum of correct bpm + wrong time signature which results in the metronome being off just like in this case.Zhuriel wrote:
not sure how explicitly allowing metronome resets is vague in any way, if anything it is vague in a good way as it allows mappers to choose which of the available inaccurate workarounds works best for them. i feel like you misunderstood my point, i never argued this implementation is accurate to the song, however i consider it more accurate and resulting in a better map than the alternative.
as opposed to your variant which uses both incorrect tempo and incorrect time signature? (refer to my previous posts for the difference between 11/8 and 11/4, not gonna explain this a third time)Kagetsu wrote:
i never said metronome resets are vague though? i'm questioning the part of Uninherited timing points must be used to accurately map the song's time signatures. it says accurately but doesn't explain what they consider accurate as you can now use a sum of correct bpm + wrong time signature which results in the metronome being off just like in this case.
though there is no mechanical difference i can see the point of wanting a cleaner timing, so i'll implement this.dsco wrote:
i do believe, however, it makes more sense to change the time signature from 6/4 to 11/4 so that the 'correct time signature' can at least be ascertained from the timing panel, and maintain at least some level of relationship between the time signature chosen in the editor and the true time signature of the song, though this does not do anything. it should also be noted that this is done later in the map with 7/4 (instead of 4/4) starting at 06:04:331. also 06:16:091 ought to be changed to 9/4 to keep consistent with the measures / time signatures chosen before.
technically this falls under the "one bar" rule and reduces rounding errors by eliminating a few red lines but again i can see the point of clean timing so will do.dsco wrote:
i can also verify that the 4/4 section int he middle is indeed 4/4, heavily syncopated groupings, though i dont agree with having truncated measures of 4/4 (starting at 05:35:510) instead of adding a red tick that says 3/4 (as would be correct in the tabulature, as i've gathered from zhuriel)
Bonsai wrote:
the the
[unrelated to the map but]squirrelpascals wrote:
Bonsai wrote:
the the
celerih wrote:
Hello I'm here because Zhuriel doesn't know how to talk to BNs ɿ(。・ɜ・)ɾSPOILER[The End of Everything ]
- 00:27:897 (3) - Have this as a circle + a 1/4 slider because a reverse is too weak imo for the drums on 00:28:034 - i want to emphasize the held guitar note here and that would somewhat take away from that. i tried out a few patterns to increase emphasis on (3) with spacing and have the kick clickable but i can't really find anything that i like
- 00:37:170 (3) - Put this a bit lower so it doesn't touch 00:36:897 (1) - would mess with the triangle pattern in a way i really don't like, alternative would be to increase spacing on the triangle but that would mess with the decreasing spacing in the pattern as well so i think this overlap is the least of the evils there are to choose from
- 01:22:306 (1,2,3,4) - can u make these a bit more parallel or at least be at the same angle pls rotated to sit symmetrically on 01:22:851 (1) -
- 01:23:532 (6) - I don't think there's anything to justify 6 not being grouped with 4 and 5 follows the same pattern as 00:27:079 (1,2,3) - in emphasizing bass drums
- 03:53:602 (1) - For more impact overlap this note with the slider head of 03:52:352 (3) - i want this to follow the back-and-forth pattern of 03:51:102 (5,6,1) -
- 04:09:102 (6,7) - Looks like a 1/4 gap because of 04:08:727 (4,5) - . Try and differentiate them a bit
- 04:23:727 (4,5,6,7) - same as above that would be because the kickslider was added later on, moving the double a bit closer to the kickslider to differentiate
- 05:18:335 (1,2,3,4) - Decrease distance here because pitch is going down starting pitch is lower but it switches from a descending run to an ascending one with wider intervals, so lower spacing would be unfitting imo
- 06:39:566 (1,2,3,4,1) - Why is spacing decreasing here? rhythm guitar descending like the rest of the patterns in this section
- 08:12:366 - What's up with the 5 greenlines here? i covered the other cymbals in the outro with sliderticks but since there isn't a slider tick here i made my own pseudo-tick with sliderslide volume manipulation
Call me back for a rebubble (:
Ohwow wrote:
00:23:534 - why did you skip this? At first, it really seemed like you're following the guitar (since it's really prominent) and all of the sudden you skipped this guitar. Even if you argue that you are following the cymbals, it still feels awkward to have a pause there when there's no pause in the music. I would've liked at least a circle stacked onto 00:23:670 (1) -
01:11:534 - ^ i focus more on the rhythm guitar here, mapping an additional note for the lead would be somewhat awkward and take away emphasis from 00:23:670 - which i consider very important since it marks the song falling back into the earlier pattern
00:36:897 (1,2,3) - why overlap (1) and (3)? it will easily look better if spaced. and why is (1) & (2) aligned while 00:36:625 (1,2) - and 00:36:352 (1,2) - are not? https://i.gyazo.com/09e16055084afd8cf12 ... 457f04.jpg this is consistent with other triangle based patterns as explained in celerih's mod response
04:08:727 (4) - there's no snare here in the music, so should remove drum-normal. like 04:23:727 (4) - there are ghost notes on the snare here so i consider this fitting
04:08:852 - on top of that, not really liking how the actual snare (which is the loudest) is mapped to slider end. the primary emphasis in this section is put on the bass, while the snare might be the loudest it is by no means the most important here
06:21:731 (5,1) - The flow here is really bad compared to the rest of the streams you did. i use the somewhat umcomfortable movement for the difference in emphasis between lead and rhythm guitar, and while this particular instance worked out a bit differently than others i think it achieves the desired effect
07:31:288 (1) - there's no snare on the sliderend. it sounds like a double hit on the snare to me which is one of the reasons i mapped short kick sliders here
07:57:698 (2) - make this a slider? again with the rhythm pauses. same reasoning. it's not required to map everything and rests are a powerful tool for adding emphasis
meh. cool stuff, but I feel like this map could be improved. Feel free to decline everything.