Open alexrelis opened 2 years ago
3risian
commented
1 year ago Is a checkline needed while the track is split? I don't think there is any need for it. Removing those checklines and having one before the split and one after the split (the lap line) seems like it would be sufficient, avoiding the issue.
If there is a reason to stop people taking that path (I don't see why, I wouldn't call it a shortcut) then a reset would be more appropriate anyway.
kimden
commented
1 year ago As a huge checkline fan, I don't think the principle "don't put checklines on split paths" is really applicable in STK because that can lead to big exploits (Adventure Track is a good example), or inability to prevent some cuts.
In the place shown in the video, without the checkline it's possible to jump down to the left and to the end of another path, which is probably faster. The checkline itself probably doesn't reach its goal right now as some laps are not counted, well, then a reset plane can be added so that a player cannot avoid the checkline. (Assuming that adding or removing new checklines in standard tracks isn't really possible until 2.0 because of compatibility.)
While this checkline cannot be extended in height, some other checklines (e.g. the railway bridge ones) could be extended in width until the (in)visible walls to avoid missing laps. They are missed comparably often online
3risian
commented
1 year ago The track designer Sven has responded they are aware of this issue and going to solve it in STK 2.0. https://forum.freegamedev.net/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=7739&sid=6533d3fde4def480fd403fea00557711&start=100#p110424
I don't think the principle "don't put checklines on split paths"
I wouldn't follow it as a dogma, definitely not, but in this case I would say it comes down to the track-maker's preference. If it were me (it's not) I'd probably say congratulations if someone takes that risk jumping through the trees and reset walls to gain half a second, unless there was some wild unforseen cut. But then again, I enjoy the hacker culture of speedrunners so I have that bias.
While this checkline cannot be extended in height
Is there an issue with working around this with multiple checklines of different height in the same group. If I'm not mistaken, it would act like one taller checkline would.
kimden
commented
1 year ago I would say it comes down to the track-maker's preference
Yeah I agree it should be the creator's decision which is taken as the ultimate one
Is there an issue with working around this with multiple checklines of different height in the same group
It can be done only in 2.0 for standard tracks (otherwise clients with different number of checklines crash). Other than that, there's no issue, a lot of tracks do that
Description
I've been having a blast going though Super Tux Kart's story mode, but I've been having this issue that has happened at least 4 times. If you ever end up off-road either by accident or by purposfully when taking a shortcut, if you don't explictly hit the "checkline", the game assumes you didn't complete the lap. This can completely ruin the outcome of the race, even if you were in 1st and there's no way of knowing where the checklines actually are unless you run the game in debug mode.
Video of the bug in action
Imgur: https://imgur.com/a/hxelARo Mirror (need Matrix account to view): https://matrix.to/#/!dznvMrXNkHTVcfhFmz:matrix.org/$jT0qoOG9j5e2AFAhVuAJoT4M3UOq5Nu7vNGcvcJLUmI?via=libera.chat&via=matrix.org&via=matrix.debian.social
I talked to Ben and he was saying that elongating the checkline isn't possible because the checkline is a fixed height and the road where the checkline resides is a different height to where I was offroad in.
Steps to reproduce
Potential solutions
Not really a dev so I can't speak authoritatively, but...
Configuration
STK release version: 1.3
STK Source (PPA, distribution package, official binary, etc.): flatpak (but this bug affects every version of STK)
System: Debian GNU/Linux 11 (bullseye) x86_64
Graphics card: Intel TigerLake GT2 [Iris Xe Graphics]
CPU: 11th Gen Intel i7-1165G7 (8) @ 4.700GHz
Additional information
stdout.log:
stdout.log.1: