Leaderboard

http://cdn.akamai.steamstatic.com/steam/apps/443810/header.jpg?t=1491404025 :: This Is the Police is now 50% off in Steam Daily Deal.

That is some really fine work there, Bomb Bloke! It's great to hear that you took it farther. I guess I must have moved on by then (and/or simply wasn't watching that page). I stuck in a mention... wow, what a lot of work! One of these decades, there will probably be AIs that will figure out all kinds of things. Running countless variations on testing, or just figuring it out directly from code. Then we can sit on the beach eating grapes and stuff all day, I imagine. Very interesting examples, Tsathoggua! It makes sense that experience pays off in chemistry. There are so many variables, even past the theory. Thank you for speaking up. Cheers everyone, it's great to talk with you again!

Things like openXcom are a hell of an achievement IMO. Decompiling the code from the game running in memory and then writing a functional (and decently so) improved version in ASM...that isn't trivial, and deserves some recognition. Just my two pence. And as far as book smarts and 'street' (practical) smarts, actually I can relate a lot to that. Being a chemist, there is a lot you can learn from books, but so much you learn on the job, so to speak, and through others who have performed whatever reaction, there are so many things the books don't tell you and you have to learn through experience. To give just one example, books will tell you a stronger base will displace a weaker base, such as caustic soda and an ammonium salt giving ammonia, but through experience, you find you can generate anhydrous ammonia without the need for drying tubes by using quicklime (calcium oxide) as the base rather than an alkali metal hydroxide. Both liberate NH3 but CaO is a powerful dessicant and generates no water during the displacement reaction with the ammonium salt, so it dries the ammonia directly as it is formed. Just one of those little things you learn through experience. So IMO a combination of 'book smarts' and 'street smarts' is the best viable approach. One not only needs know how something works, but actually doing something, getting your hands dirty standing at the bench performing whatever process for oneself, gives as much benefit with regards to knowledge and success as reading even the most detailed textbooks. Sometimes, what SHOULD work, on general principle, doesn't, or, in the chemistry field, gives shitty yields of whatever it is one is seeking to obtain as final product. The book learning gives one the background to understand the 'tricks of the trade'. Say, its all very well saying electrolysis of fused caustic soda works to produce sodium metal, but the books neglect to tell that theres about a 15, maybe 20 degrees 'C difference between the electrolyte melting point, and the produced metal dissolving back into the melt and you don't get so much as a pinhead sized piece back, or to melt it, then the moment electrolysis begins, take the heat right down or even off and rely solely on ohmic heating if you actually want anything but blue-grey stuff thats highly caustic and sparks in water, something halfway between the two. The likes of Xcomutil and openXcom are real achievements IMO, that took some doing, and its impressive that it got done at all. As for the more recent games in the series (post-apocalypse) haven't had the chance to play them yet, but when I do get round to it, you can bet I'll still be playing UFO and TFTD. They have nearly unlimited replay potential, I've been playing those since they came out, probably more than any other games

Sure it's "easiest", but it requires knowledge and experience that most people will never have. Heck, I've been programming since before I hit my teens; but "regular programming skills" don't cut it when it comes to reading op-codes. It took less time to nail down certain data points via empirical research than it would've to learned how to read the code directly. Well, certain data points, anyway. "All of the ones I was interested in"? A different story - so I do regret failing to learn machine code. For example - firing accuracy. We all did tests on it. I did some seriously convoluted ones, writing custom software and automating thousands upon thousands of shots to generate enough data for just a notion as to the "real" chance to hit. It wasn't until kyrub weighed in with what he'd read from the code that I could say "yes, that's how it works!", though. And, um, then I never got around to integrating that information into a rather more visible article. But no one's contradicted the formulas I posted here yet, and I was pretty quick off the mark in figuring them out using observations alone... I do take a small measure of pride in that. Mind you, these "newer" games are far simpler than the originals. It's more precise to just say that formulas derived from decompiled code should be tested for accuracy to guarantee a complete reading. In theory, a thorough analysis will cover all edge cases. In practise, a thorough analysis will only ever be performed if plenty of testing is done on any proposed results. The issue is that just as it's difficult to be sure that the formula you've found in code is the only *relevant* formula unless you observe the in-game behaviour, likewise it's difficult to determine how many formulas are producing in-game results without in turn reviewing the game's code. But that led to a more realistic and in-depth game (certainly compared to the modern titles) - the developers threw in a bunch of principles, play-tested a little to make sure they more or less worked, and then called it a day. If you'd asked any of them, even at the time of release, what the odds of hitting a Sectoid at a given range with a given weapon through a set of different terrain obstacles were, they'd've had no idea. Half of the relevant details weren't solved until well after the bullet was already in the air. Even today I'm sure there are game mechanics buried in there which no player has a clue about. They came about around the same time as OpenXcom really seemed to be taking off. Personally I felt like a member of an older generation watching a younger one take over - happy to provide help when asked, but I didn't see any need to impose myself on them, as much of what I had to say related to games they just weren't playing. For a time there was a renewed interest in image editing tools and then that was that. This sums things up rather well, perhaps. The bulk of my own research has been filled in around the documents you wrote before I got started. There's a reason you're called NKF-sensei. I would like to think that if anyone cares what "Bomb Bloke"'s done, then I've left enough of a trail around the web that it's not all that hard to figure out. I don't much care about anyone who can't (ie most people), as they'd be unlikely to have any interest regardless. Which is fair enough.

True, true. But if you want others (outside the community) to have some idea that you have been doing lots of real things over a long period of time, you need to show them. Most people here probably don't care enough to be able to show, and that is perfectly fine. But if you do... if you want to show a substantial foundation in data analysis for your new project, and you also don't want your past work lost to time... then you have to document it. If a guy says he likes long distance running but can't really say when or how much, you shrug. It might mean he runs a lot. Or it could mean he likes the idea but actually only runs marathons once a decade. However, if he gives you a link to dozens of long runs he's been in across the U.S. over the past 3 decades, it's solid and real. And easy to check. Other people are generally not actually interested in the details of what you or I did, and are not going to check the dozens of different websites and data collections to see what it could all mean. Especially not in this age of Facebook distraction. They just want one list of achievements page that makes sense of it all for them. And so you have to make one, if that's what you're trying to show. Thanks so much brother, it means a lot to me. I would love to stick around more here. But I feel very driven, like I have to be doing new stuff. Maybe I can find a way to translate that into sticking around here? Not sure how it would work on top of all the other stuff. Making your own website (and then company in a few years, maybe) is a never ending trove of challenges. On top of all the regular stuff of life. Maybe I am a little crazy. But I hope it's in a good way. Thanks, man! Good to see you after all this time! Nice hairdo to the rescue, as it were, on your avatar!

Lots of interesting points made by MikeTheRed and everyone else on this thread