Thank you !!Lasse wrote:
re #1
:0
forum
gmtn. vs. kozato (fw. LUZE) - squartatrice
posted
Total Posts
124
talked with SBer about sb issues and something opinions
and he rejected things with gud reasons so no need to say more about this maps sb
also, i checked both diffs again which changed after lasses mod so seems fine imo
#2
and he rejected things with gud reasons so no need to say more about this maps sb
also, i checked both diffs again which changed after lasses mod so seems fine imo
#2
Extra.
01:59:098 (2,3,4) - 이거 다 1픽셀 올려서 (1,2) 사이에 follow point 소거합시다. 그게 더 깔금해보이네요.
02:37:098 (5) - 여기 뉴콤 넣으시는게 더 피니시 소리 강조가 좋을거 같네요. (뉴콤 모딩이라니 무슨소리요!)
04:21:430 (1) - 어중간하게 희색 2개 섞느니 차라리 싱글 콤보 깨지더라도 동일한 색상 사용하는게 더 나아보이네요.
04:42:764 (1) - 슬라 멋지네요. 근데 첫번째 루프 구멍 조금 더 둥글게 처리 가능할듯요.
Skystar.
00:52:767 (1,2,3) - Even the music is slightly weaker here, there is an existing piano sound. Consider adding a whistle according to that.
01:22:182 - Leaving this clear beat in the song empty didn't felt to be reflecting the song nicely. Consider adding a rhythm here.
02:00:848 (2,5) - According to the instruments you are following, there isn't an existent beat here. Removing these would follow your rhythm better.
01:59:098 (2,3,4) - 이거 다 1픽셀 올려서 (1,2) 사이에 follow point 소거합시다. 그게 더 깔금해보이네요.
02:37:098 (5) - 여기 뉴콤 넣으시는게 더 피니시 소리 강조가 좋을거 같네요. (뉴콤 모딩이라니 무슨소리요!)
04:21:430 (1) - 어중간하게 희색 2개 섞느니 차라리 싱글 콤보 깨지더라도 동일한 색상 사용하는게 더 나아보이네요.
04:42:764 (1) - 슬라 멋지네요. 근데 첫번째 루프 구멍 조금 더 둥글게 처리 가능할듯요.
Skystar.
00:52:767 (1,2,3) - Even the music is slightly weaker here, there is an existing piano sound. Consider adding a whistle according to that.
01:22:182 - Leaving this clear beat in the song empty didn't felt to be reflecting the song nicely. Consider adding a rhythm here.
02:00:848 (2,5) - According to the instruments you are following, there isn't an existent beat here. Removing these would follow your rhythm better.
Topic Starter
all fixed!Sonnyc wrote:
Extra.
01:59:098 (2,3,4) - 이거 다 1픽셀 올려서 (1,2) 사이에 follow point 소거합시다. 그게 더 깔금해보이네요.
02:37:098 (5) - 여기 뉴콤 넣으시는게 더 피니시 소리 강조가 좋을거 같네요. (뉴콤 모딩이라니 무슨소리요!)
04:21:430 (1) - 어중간하게 희색 2개 섞느니 차라리 싱글 콤보 깨지더라도 동일한 색상 사용하는게 더 나아보이네요.
04:42:764 (1) - 슬라 멋지네요. 근데 첫번째 루프 구멍 조금 더 둥글게 처리 가능할듯요.저가 노력ㅎ해봤어요,,,
Thanks for your modding!
Sprite,Foreground,Centre,"sb\spotlight.png",320,240
M,0,120848,,476,316
F,0,120848,121548,0.9,0.3
S,0,120848,121548,1.4,0.9
P,0,120848,121548,A
Sprite,Foreground,Centre,"sb\spotlight.png",320,240
M,0,121182,,398,137
F,0,121182,121882,0.9,0.3
S,0,121182,121882,1.4,0.9
P,0,121182,121882,A
Sprite,Foreground,Centre,"sb\spotlight.png",320,240
M,0,82265,,495,317
F,0,82265,82965,0.9,0.3
S,0,82265,82965,1.4,0.9
P,0,82265,82965,A
Topic Starter
sonnyc
Sonnyc wrote:
Sprite,Foreground,Centre,"sb\spotlight.png",320,240
M,0,120848,,476,316
F,0,120848,121548,0.9,0.3
S,0,120848,121548,1.4,0.9
P,0,120848,121548,A
Sprite,Foreground,Centre,"sb\spotlight.png",320,240
M,0,121182,,398,137
F,0,121182,121882,0.9,0.3
S,0,121182,121882,1.4,0.9
P,0,121182,121882,ASprite,Foreground,Centre,"sb\spotlight.png",320,240
M,0,82265,,495,317
F,0,82265,82965,0.9,0.3
S,0,82265,82965,1.4,0.9
P,0,82265,82965,A
down
Down wrote:
http://puu.sh/sdx7O/6f07b14619.osz
ㄱㄱ
Thank you!
Nominated.
Topic Starter
THANK YOU !!!Sonnyc wrote:
Nominated.
Finally got QF before I go to army loll
now, i don't want to be a spoilsport or a debbie downer, but isn't artificially extending the length of a track by adding a literally thrown in chunk of sound patently unrankable? The entire ending past 4:50 or so is artificially added on and seems to be just a simple soundbyte that isn't even timed or has a beat at all.
It's literally just to push the drain past 5 minutes and is pretty blatantly "I'll do this and try to push the map for approval instead of bothering with getting a full set". I'm all for skirting the rules for the sake of immersion and fun, but this is pretty obviously a "less effort" choice. I'm guilty of doing this in the far past, but emphasis is on guilty in this respect.
Other people who try to push a slightly-below-five-minute track could do something like repeating a small section here or there in a calmer section, where it's nearly unnoticeable if done well.
I'm rather astonished that this didn't come up a single time in the entire thread, I could have sworn I saw something about this map before. Hell, I've kept an eye on this map because I like it a lot but figured it would never be qualified due to the mp3 thing and just kept it as a nice track to check out now and then.
Neat as shit SB though.
It's literally just to push the drain past 5 minutes and is pretty blatantly "I'll do this and try to push the map for approval instead of bothering with getting a full set". I'm all for skirting the rules for the sake of immersion and fun, but this is pretty obviously a "less effort" choice. I'm guilty of doing this in the far past, but emphasis is on guilty in this respect.
Other people who try to push a slightly-below-five-minute track could do something like repeating a small section here or there in a calmer section, where it's nearly unnoticeable if done well.
I'm rather astonished that this didn't come up a single time in the entire thread, I could have sworn I saw something about this map before. Hell, I've kept an eye on this map because I like it a lot but figured it would never be qualified due to the mp3 thing and just kept it as a nice track to check out now and then.
Neat as shit SB though.
Hi guys! Seems like there is some uncertainty about the lenght of the mp3 as Shiirn mentioned, about rather it got extended for the sake of getting this set approved or not. To avoid any further complications we will disqualify the set for now and make sure if mentioned concern is valid. We apologize for any inconvenience during this time and will revert the approval state if the concern proves to be false.
Edit: byby ninja
Edit: byby ninja
apparently that shittily thrown in weird ass noise that isn't timed is legitimately part of the actual track in the album, so i'm wrong
proceed as usual
EDIT: okay they actually injected literal silence between the end of the track and the weirdo noise which is a big no no
proceed as usual
EDIT: okay they actually injected literal silence between the end of the track and the weirdo noise which is a big no no
Except it isn't even extended?
free dqs lul
there is a silent 5 second break that should have a breaktime inserted, the original version ends on 4:57 after the noise while the song starts at 00:02, which means the song ends after 4 minutes and 55 seconds. The original silence is 2,5 seconds long. In this map, it magically increased to 4,6 seconds, so I assume you stretched the silence part.
On top of that, you deliberately didn't place a break, so it does count to the drain time.
Shiirn's point remains valid. Stretching happened.
On top of that, you deliberately didn't place a break, so it does count to the drain time.
Shiirn's point remains valid. Stretching happened.
On top of that, even if we're working with this edited mp3, the spinner at 04:51:430 (1) - ends in absolutely no sound. The sound ends at 05:01:430 - , but as the song starts at 00:01:435 - it'd be less than 5 min drain time anyway.
hey this isn't the first time this has happened in regards to minor stretching, why is it suddenly an issue. can you get some fucking consistency
getting away with it isn't a sudden free pass for it to happen all the time.
to overkill an analogy, almost one third of all american murders go unsolved - that doesn't mean murder is allowed.
to overkill an analogy, almost one third of all american murders go unsolved - that doesn't mean murder is allowed.
so, in a case like this, what must the mapper do to have this be eligible for re-qualification? i assume they'll have to remove the edited mp3 and a map a full spread to the authentic one
but it's not a murder, it's not even a crime or anything disallowed by rules?
I think extending mp3 is bad... but I don't agree with double standards, if we allow something to happen then we need to be fair to everyone.
Mmmm some maps didn't get away with it, we actually allowed it to happen, there was a discussion about forbid extending a mp3: t/417977&start=0
But most of the community disagree with it, so I don't see any reason to disallow it that suddenly after the mapper worked hard on this. If the problem is the quality of the edition then is fine tho..
Mmmm some maps didn't get away with it, we actually allowed it to happen, there was a discussion about forbid extending a mp3: t/417977&start=0
But most of the community disagree with it, so I don't see any reason to disallow it that suddenly after the mapper worked hard on this. If the problem is the quality of the edition then is fine tho..
but afaik extending mp3 isn't directly disallowed as long as it isn't done badly. (there've been quite a few threads about this topic in the old RC forum) in this case the edited mp3 sounds even better and more natural to me than the original track where the sound gets cut suddenly for no reason
Shortening mp3's to get a "TV Size" set is fine, so why is doing the opposite any different anyways? I don't see a huge issue with this, and it's something that's been done plenty of times. It brings no drawbacks, and it's not like he's extending a 3:50 song to 5:00. I have to take the mapper's side on this one and agree with captin. This needs some consistency.
if I've not misunderstood, it's got disqualified because the mp3 was extended even though that is not any problem according to ranking criteria rules?
I know disqualifying is not happen by following only ranking criteria rules. but I wonder why it's happend.
I know disqualifying is not happen by following only ranking criteria rules. but I wonder why it's happend.
There have been lots of discussion about extending mp3's in order to fit the approval length. Like Natsu's pointed out, the general consensus is that people support extending the mp3, and object to making this a rule that mp3's cannot be extended. It's been well established that mp3 editing, stretching etc... are acceptable, so lets move away from that argument, or discuss it in the Ranking Criteria section. Please redirect your focus to getting this map back into a rankable state.
From what I gather, the argument here really boils down to the fact that a 5 second section of the song that is complete silence is not mapped to a break. Therefore, those 5 seconds of silence are considered part of the drain. If this is the case, then there is some merit to that argument. If HP continues to drain when there is absolutely no sound, it can feel jarring to the mapper. Of course, this can be done for effect, like an extended pause, but since this occurs between two spinners I think the effect of the pause is lost.
One possible solution is to edit the mp3 tastefully, as Shiirn suggested, so that the mp3 becomes 5 minutes long without having to take advantage of silence. I can provide this mp3, just let me know.
From what I gather, the argument here really boils down to the fact that a 5 second section of the song that is complete silence is not mapped to a break. Therefore, those 5 seconds of silence are considered part of the drain. If this is the case, then there is some merit to that argument. If HP continues to drain when there is absolutely no sound, it can feel jarring to the mapper. Of course, this can be done for effect, like an extended pause, but since this occurs between two spinners I think the effect of the pause is lost.
One possible solution is to edit the mp3 tastefully, as Shiirn suggested, so that the mp3 becomes 5 minutes long without having to take advantage of silence. I can provide this mp3, just let me know.
Alright I feel like I should make a post to clarify all this mess because apparently there's too much misunderstanding and assumption going on here.
Here's a screenshot of the ending of original version and edit version in FL Studio:
The above one is the original and the next one is edited. As you can see, the silence of two version turns out to be of a same length. Yes, the original silence is not 2.5 seconds long, but 4.6 seconds too. So Shiirn's assumption that the silence was artificially injected turns out to be invalid here, as that's not the case at all.
Secondly, what's stretched then? It's the noise itself. The only section that's different between both versions is the weird noise at the end, which is weird enough in the original track, where it sounds like the composer forgot to highlight the later parts before rendering the song so it got cut out of nowhere. In the edited version, the noise was looped and flipped by the mapper, let's say, in order to make this over 5 mins. But to me, if I didn't know which is the original and were to guess which is, I'd definitely pick the extended one, as it definitely sounds more natural than the other one that makes it sound like your music player crashes at the end. As I said above, if an edit mp3 turns out to be even better than its original version, why not?
As for Deif's post:
Edit: Made a new mp3. Now the last spinner starts at 04:51:264 (1) - and ends at - 05:01:930 -, snapped to where the sound starts and ends.
Shiirn wrote:
EDIT: okay they actually injected literal silence between the end of the track and the weirdo noise which is a big no no
First of all, the 'silence' between the end of track and the noise was NOT artificially stretched.Loctav wrote:
there is a silent 5 second break that should have a breaktime inserted, the original version ends on 4:57 after the noise while the song starts at 00:02, which means the song ends after 4 minutes and 55 seconds. The original silence is 2,5 seconds long. In this map, it magically increased to 4,6 seconds, so I assume you stretched the silence part.
Here's a screenshot of the ending of original version and edit version in FL Studio:
The above one is the original and the next one is edited. As you can see, the silence of two version turns out to be of a same length. Yes, the original silence is not 2.5 seconds long, but 4.6 seconds too. So Shiirn's assumption that the silence was artificially injected turns out to be invalid here, as that's not the case at all.
Secondly, what's stretched then? It's the noise itself. The only section that's different between both versions is the weird noise at the end, which is weird enough in the original track, where it sounds like the composer forgot to highlight the later parts before rendering the song so it got cut out of nowhere. In the edited version, the noise was looped and flipped by the mapper, let's say, in order to make this over 5 mins. But to me, if I didn't know which is the original and were to guess which is, I'd definitely pick the extended one, as it definitely sounds more natural than the other one that makes it sound like your music player crashes at the end. As I said above, if an edit mp3 turns out to be even better than its original version, why not?
As for Deif's post:
Indeed. One possible solution of this is to fade in and out the ending better, so the head and the tail of the spinner is snapped to the start and the end of the noise respectively. I'll see if I can try to make a mp3 to solve this.Deif wrote:
On top of that, even if we're working with this edited mp3, the spinner at 04:51:430 (1) - ends in absolutely no sound. The sound ends at 05:01:430 - , but as the song starts at 00:01:435 - it'd be less than 5 min drain time anyway.
Edit: Made a new mp3. Now the last spinner starts at 04:51:264 (1) - and ends at - 05:01:930 -, snapped to where the sound starts and ends.
???: I have no time for games
If you "Un-shortened" a "TV-Size", you'd re-add the content that was removed, no? That'd be tastefully extending the content by mimicking or duplicating portions of the already-existing song, not messing with a weird noise at the end that is musically irrelevant to the track.Ascendance wrote:
Shortening mp3's to get a "TV Size" set is fine, so why is doing the opposite any different anyways? I don't see a huge issue with this, and it's something that's been done plenty of times. It brings no drawbacks, and it's not like he's extending a 3:50 song to 5:00. I have to take the mapper's side on this one and agree with captin. This needs some consistency.
There's a chunk near the end that repeats 3 times (or so Krah told me, I haven't actually sat down and listened to the music in a while), repeat it another and it's over 5 minutes cleanly and even musically makes sense. I don't see why we're screwing with semantics about the dumb static when there's a more elegant solution right there that would easily make everyone happy.
You can even cut the entire weirdo static at the end out entirely.
It sucks anyway.
I mean I'd rather touch the weirdo noise at the end that doesn't even matter in the song structure than the actual parts of the song, especially when the thing we're doing here is to make the ending even better
everyone's happy once you're happy with it ahaShiirn wrote:
I don't see why we're screwing with semantics about the dumb static when there's a more elegant solution right there that would easily make everyone happy.
skystar's reply seems good for me
even if the extended mp3 is fine (which i personally think it is) both diffs' spinners should still probably end at 05:01:430 - since thats where the sound cut off, as opposed to at 05:01:930 - , at which they currently end at
i want to die 😋🔫
😋🔫
😋🔫
why i can't see this in ranked
so sad
so sad
Beautiful song with two awesome diffs graveyarded because "oh noes they increased weird noise duration by 2.5 seconds"
Left wrote:
why i can't see this in ranked
so sad
pls rank
rank when
This modding thread has been migrated to the new "modding discussions" system. Please make sure to re-post any existing (and unresolved) efforts to the new system as required.