ekafjr wrote:

Simple modding \ ( > w<)/

[General]

1. Nice .

[Singing]

1. 00:19:245 (4) - slightly regrettable clickable on white tick 1/2 at here its better 00:19:410 - This is a theme through the entire song where I stick to mapping to the vocals. Changing it only here would be very weird xd
2. 00:23:212 (4) - ^
3. 00:28:666 (3) - ^
4. 00:32:302 (3) - ugly ? blanket this its better I don't know what to tell you. I think it's fine it's just a different slider shape
5. 01:21:393 (1) - slightly not fit add clap on head for better sense But there's no clap in the music xd
6. 02:05:526 (1) - increase spacing ? Would ruin the pattern

Hope this helped
please dont give me kds if my mod it suck XD
Good luck!

1. offset sounds a little bit late. i'd try somewhere ~ 2043
2. 00:50:141 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) - don't you usually use 1/1 sliders for this kind of stuff :] if you were to do this, you should make similar parts about the same density
3. 01:21:380 - having a finish every half beat sounds overdone, the song isn't so intense that you'd need to do so. if you take off every 2nd finish, it sounds a lot more.. refreshing? idk, it just gets tiring to hear. maybe you could leave it for 04:57:579 - , since the voices do make it more intense then the rest of the song
4. 01:53:116 (2) - NC this instead? signifies the start of a new phrase more, like at 03:28:322 -
5. 02:26:670 (1,2,3) - i don't really hear the little trill for this pattern tbh, but whatever
6. 03:24:864 (2) - ctrl+g to emphasize the snare?
7. 04:01:050 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1) - increasing the spacing to reflect the intensity would be cool
8. 04:17:248 (3) - bring this closer? it looks too far away and disconnected from the pattern
9. 04:29:645 (1) - how about placing this at 348|288? that little pull feeling is fun and better than a simple stack imo
10. 04:41:215 (3) - make this curved the same way as (1), looks a lot nicer and would reflect 04:39:727 (1,2) - too
11. 05:12:785 (1) - stack on tail? the previous slider would imply it flowing to there
12. 05:45:182 - i wish artists would make a proper ending instead of a boring fade away

toybot wrote:

hi!! i always thought it was called sing a song I thought so too. However, after speaking with kwan it's pretty clear that this is the correct romanization looking at the music videos for the song.

1. offset sounds a little bit late. i'd try somewhere ~ 2043 Wow, yea, that's a lot better.
2. 00:50:141 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) - don't you usually use 1/1 sliders for this kind of stuff :] if you were to do this, you should make similar parts about the same density I just felt like this part called for some 1/3 tapping. But I do think I managed to make a pattern that has the same low intensity as any other part.
3. 01:21:380 - having a finish every half beat sounds overdone, the song isn't so intense that you'd need to do so. if you take off every 2nd finish, it sounds a lot more.. refreshing? idk, it just gets tiring to hear. maybe you could leave it for 04:57:579 - , since the voices do make it more intense then the rest of the song Love it!
4. 01:53:116 (2) - NC this instead? signifies the start of a new phrase more, like at 03:28:322 - Fixed and changed the pattern a bit as well for it to fit better.
5. 02:26:670 (1,2,3) - i don't really hear the little trill for this pattern tbh, but whatever There's the constant 1/6 in the background but I didn't want to map all of it so I thought making triples just before the most important downbeats would work!
6. 03:24:864 (2) - ctrl+g to emphasize the snare? Nah, I like the flow of the current pattern and I don't have a set spacing for snares to begin with.
7. 04:01:050 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1) - increasing the spacing to reflect the intensity would be cool yes!
8. 04:17:248 (3) - bring this closer? it looks too far away and disconnected from the pattern Fixed
9. 04:29:645 (1) - how about placing this at 348|288? that little pull feeling is fun and better than a simple stack imo Like the idea but I put it under instead of over the slider.
10. 04:41:215 (3) - make this curved the same way as (1), looks a lot nicer and would reflect 04:39:727 (1,2) - too ok!
11. 05:12:785 (1) - stack on tail? the previous slider would imply it flowing to thereFixed
12. 05:45:182 - i wish artists would make a proper ending instead of a boring fade away xd

nice map! good luck

Fuccho wrote:

Cute map meant to put a smile on your face :>

SPOILER

Underforest wrote:

Fuccho wrote:

Cute map meant to put a smile on your face :>

agree

m4m response, sorry for big late

01:01:053 (2) - maybe do this? I've messed quite a lot with this pattern already and I think it works fine as it is even if it might not look it.

SPOILER

02:26:673 (1,2,3) - 02:28:656 (1,2,3) - 02:34:606 (1,2,3) - are you sure about this? this would be very hard to follow yes. I wanted these to be a bit more special than just some triples and this is what I'm sticking with.
04:18:904 (1,2) - decrease spacing a 0.15-0.20x to do consistence with 04:19:235 (1,2,1,2) - and do a beautiful pattern I actually prefer it with varying DS's.
04:53:615 - break I've tried with and without and definitely prefer without.
04:56:590 (1,2,1,2) - maybe do the hitsound: dclap-dclap-dclap, dfinish-dfinish-dfinish instead of dclap-dclap-dfinish 2 times Changed it around a bit.
05:45:268 - a spinner would fit here until fading out end hrm.. no. A spinner can feel super straining and it definitely isn't what I want for this calm outro.

sorry for shit + short mod, your map is pretty well polished
i like this song so have an star ^^ good luck

IamKwaN wrote:

Unicode Title: シンガソン
Romanised Title: singason
Artist: Various Artists (common practice in this game)

References:
http://www.nicovideo.jp/watch/sm21597186
http://puu.sh/rSGHG/a03d17729d.jpg
http://puu.sh/rSGIO/b71170f932.jpg

Sonnyc wrote:

03:32:788 (2,1,2) - Having such a similar spacing concept made the 1/3 rhythm of (1,2) unintuitive. Using a different spacing concept to indicate the different rhythm is recommended.

Sonnyc wrote:

Sonnyc wrote:

03:32:788 (2,1,2) - Having such a similar spacing concept made the 1/3 rhythm of (1,2) unintuitive. Using a different spacing concept to indicate the different rhythm is recommended.

I don't think something was done for this issue I've addressed. Mind voicing out your reason of keeping it? As some suggestion, just ctrl+G 03:33:284 (2) - and adjusting the pattern of 03:33:284 (2,1,2,1,2,3) - to fit your flow idea a bit better would be enough.

Fuccho wrote:

Added video and some extra combo coloring, so you might want to check that as well when it is!

Also, is it possible to upload above the size limit without changing diff name to Marathon? If so please tell me 'cause I have a video with higher quality.

Kalibe wrote:

this song is lovely, grats!

pingal1ty wrote:

121,14 is the right bpm. Seems not much difference with 121 but for consistency as its a long song seems important, try raise OD to 8-9 and you'll notice its not good at some points.

Fuccho wrote:

pingal1ty wrote:

121,14 is the right bpm. Seems not much difference with 121 but for consistency as its a long song seems important, try raise OD to 8-9 and you'll notice its not good at some points.

Are you saying that after trying it out in the editor? A change in BPM that big will move the last objects by almost an entire beat. The current BPM is fine as it is, it's just that a lot of the instruments are a little off 'cause it's recorded in studio. This is especially noticeable in the piano solo, but there isn't much to really do about that.

pingal1ty wrote:

Fuccho wrote:

Are you saying that after trying it out in the editor? A change in BPM that big will move the last objects by almost an entire beat. The current BPM is fine as it is, it's just that a lot of the instruments are a little off 'cause it's recorded in studio. This is especially noticeable in the piano solo, but there isn't much to really do about that.

http://www.mediafire.com/file/mhmfn3b26 ... est%5D.osu
https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/8197613

Excuse the couple misses, I'm human :<

I readjusted on that test version all the timming points to match the slider speed, since changing the bpm makes everything messy, I also used the resnap function in the editor so all circles should be placed where they should really be.

I had this same issue with my map, firstly thinking it was 150bpm and then it was 149.86. The difference is very very minimal but it does make a tiny difference, just try yourself on that test I sent you and you'll see.

03:10:256 - Go into your test diff, listen to this, and tell me that is on beat.
03:15:292 - Then it just shifts everything over 1/6 of a beat and is just as messy until the end where it gets about right again.

I'm telling you, 121 BPM is the right one, enough BNs and experienced mappers have been through to check already. If anything is wrong, it's mininal and, as you said, can only be felt with very high OD, which this map doesn't have.

pingal1ty wrote:

03:10:256 - Go into your test diff, listen to this, and tell me that is on beat.
03:15:292 - Then it just shifts everything over 1/6 of a beat and is just as messy until the end where it gets about right again.

I'm telling you, 121 BPM is the right one, enough BNs and experienced mappers have been through to check already. If anything is wrong, it's mininal and, as you said, can only be felt with very high OD, which this map doesn't have.

I mean.... I told you the bpm is wrong and I took the time to change few stuff to make it work, and proof it to you, don't expect to be a perfect work, its just a concept proof, 121.14 is more accurated than just 121, and if something is off just go and fix it

You're either going to end up with objects near the end being an entire beat off rhythm or you're gonna end up with what happened in your test difficulty where this can be found various places: 03:15:209 - Image & 04:26:284 - Image
You've just randomly moved the objects over a tick to compensate for the wrong timing. I'll say it again, 121 BPM is the right BPM.

Hope this makes it a bit clearer.

pingal1ty wrote:

You're either going to end up with objects near the end being an entire beat off rhythm or you're gonna end up with what happened in your test difficulty where this can be found various places: 03:15:209 - Image & 04:26:284 - Image
You've just randomly moved the objects over a tick to compensate for the wrong timing. I'll say it again, 121 BPM is the right BPM.

Hope this makes it a bit clearer.

I haven't moved anything, I just used the built-in editor option to "resnap all notes".