⮜ Blog

⮜ List of tags

Showing all posts tagged website-

📝 Posted:
🚚 Summary of:
P0218, P0219, P0220, P0221, P0222
⌨ Commits:
(Website) 21f0a4d...8ebf201, (Website) 8ebf201...52375e2, (Website) 52375e2...ba6359b, (Website) ba6359b...94e48e9, (Website) 94e48e9...358e16f
💰 Funded by:
[Anonymous], Yanga, Ember2528
🏷 Tags:
website-

Yes, I'm still alive. This delivery was just plagued by all of the worst luck: Data loss, physical hard drive failure, exploding phone batteries, minor illness… and after taking 4 weeks to recover from all of that, I had to face this beast of a task. 😵

Turns out that neither part of improving video performance and usability on this blog was particularly easy. Decently encoding the videos into all web-supported formats required unexpected trade-offs even for the low-res, low-color material we are working with, and writing custom video player controls added the timing precision resistance of HTML <video> on top of the inherent complexity of frontend web development. Why did this need to be 800 lines of commented JavaScript and 200 lines of commented CSS, and consume almost more than 5 pushes?! Apparently, the latest price increase also seemed to have raised the minimum level of acceptable polish in my work, since that's more than the maximum of 3.67 pushes it should have taken. To fund the rest, I stole some of the reserved JIS trail word rendering research pushes, which means that the next towards anything will go back towards that goal.


The codec situation is especially sad because it seems like so much of a solved problem. ZMBV, the lossless capture codec introduced by DOSBox, is both very well suited for retro game footage and remarkably simple too: DOSBox-X's implementation of both an encoder and decoder comes in at under 650 lines of C++, excluding the Deflate implementation. Heck, the AVI container around the codec is more complicated to write than the compressed video data itself, and AVI is already the easiest choice you have for a widely supported video container format.
Currently, this blog contains 9:02 minutes of video across 86 files, with a total frame count of 24,515. In case this post attracts a general video encoding audience that isn't familiar with what I'm encoding here: The maximum resolution is 640×400, and most of the video uses 16 colors, with some parts occasionally using more. With ZMBV, the lossless source files take up 43.8 MiB, and that's even with AVI's infamously bad overhead. While you can always spend more time on any compression task and precisely tune your algorithm to match your source data even better, 43.8 MiB looks like a more than reasonable amount for this type of content.

Especially compared with what I actually have to ship here, because sadly, ZMBV is not supported by browsers. 😔 Writing a WebAssembly player for ZMBV would have certainly been interesting, but it already took 5 pushes to get to what we have now. So, let's instead shell out to ffmpeg and build a pipeline to convert ZMBV to the ill-suited codecs supported by web browsers, replacing the previously committed VP9 and VP8 files. From that point, we can then look into AV1, the latest and greatest web-supported video codec, to save some additional bandwidth.

But first, we've got to gather all the ZMBV source files. While I was working on the 📝 2022-07-10 blog post, I noticed some weirdly washed-out colors in the converted videos, leading to the shocking realization that my previous, historically grown conversion script didn't actually encode in a lossless way. 😢 By extension, this meant that every video before that post could have had minor discolorations as well.
For the majority of videos, I still had the original ZMBV capture files straight out of DOSBox-X, and reproducing the final videos wasn't too big of a deal. For the few cases where I didn't, I went the extra mile, took the VP9 files, and manually fixed up all the minor color errors based on reference videos from the same gameplay stage. There might be a huge ffmpeg command line with a complicated filter graph to do the job, but for such a small 4-digit number of frames, it is much more straightforward to just dump each frame as an image and perform the color replacement with ImageMagick's -opaque and -fill options. :tannedcirno:


So, time to encode our new definite collection of source files into AV1, and what the hell, how slow is this codec? With ffmpeg's libaom-av1, fully encoding all 86 videos takes almost 9 hours on my mid-range development system, regardless of the quality selected.
But sure, the encoded videos are managed by a cache, and this obviously only needs to be done once. If the results are amazing, they might even justify these glacial encoding speeds. Unfortunately, they don't: In its lossless -crf 0 mode, AV1 performs even worse than VP9, taking up 222 MiB rather than 182 MiB. It might not sound bad now, but as we're later going to find out, we want to have a lot of keyframes in these videos, which will blow up video sizes even further.

So, time to go lossy and maybe take a deep dive into AV1 tuning? Turns out that it only gets worse from there:

Because that's what all this tuning ended up being: a complete waste of time. No matter which tuning options I tried, all they did was cut down encoding time in exchange for slightly larger files on average. If there is a magic tuning option that would suddenly cause AV1 to maybe even beat ZMBV, I haven't found it. Heck, at particularly low settings, -enable-intrabc even caused blocky glitches with certain pellet patterns that looked like the internal frame block hashes were colliding all over the place. Unfortunately, I didn't save the video where it happened.

So yeah, if you've already invested the computation time and encoded your content by just specifying a -crf value and keeping the remaining settings at their time-consuming defaults, any further tuning will make no difference. Which is… an interesting choice from a usability perspective. :thonk: I would have expected the exact opposite: default to a reasonably fast and efficient profile, and leave the vast selection of tuning options for those people to explore who do want to wait 5× as long for their encoder for that additional 5% of compression efficiency. On the other hand, that surely is one way to get people to extensively study your glorious engineering efforts, I guess? You know what would maybe even motivate people to intrinsically do that? Good documentation, with examples of the intent behind every option and its optimal use case. Nobody needs long help strings that just spell out all of the abbreviations that occur in the name of the option…
But hey, that at least means there's no reason to not use anything but ZMBV for storing and archiving the lossless source files. Best compression efficiency, encodes in real-time, and the files are much easier to edit.

OK, end of rant. To understand why anyone could be hyped about AV1 to begin with, we just have to compare it to VP9, not to ZMBV. In that light, AV1 is pretty impressive even at -crf 1, compressing all 86 videos to 68.9 MiB, and even preserving 22.3% of frames completely losslessly. The remaining frames exhibit the exact kind of quality loss you'd want for retro game footage: Minor discoloration in individual pixels, so minuscule that subtracting the encoded image from the source yields an almost completely black image. Even after highlighting the errors by normalizing such a difference image, they are barely visible even if you know where to look. If "compressed PNG size of the normalized difference between ZMBV and AV1 -crf 1" is a useful metric, this would be its median frame among the 77.7% of non-lossless frames:

The lossless source imageThe same image encoded in AV1The normalized difference between both images
That's frame 455 (0-based) of 📝 YuugenMagan's reconstructed Phase 5 pattern on Easy mode. The AV1 version does in fact expand the original image's 16 distinct colors to 38.

For comparison, here's the 13th worst one. The codec only resorts to color bleeding with particularly heavy effects, exactly where it doesn't matter:

The lossless source imageThe same image encoded in AV1The normalized difference between both images
Frame 25 (0-based) of the 📝 TH05 Reimu bomb animation quirk video. 139 colors in the AV1 version.

Whether you can actually spot the difference is pretty much down to the glass between the physical pixels and your eyes. In any case, it's very hard, even if you know where to look. As far as I'm concerned, I can confidently call this "visually lossless", and it's definitely good enough for regular watching and even single-frame stepping on this blog.
Since the appeal of the original lossless files is undeniable though, I also made those more easily available. You can directly download the one for the currently active video with the ⍗ button in the new video player – or directly get all of them from the Git repository if you don't like clicking.


Unfortunately, even that only made up for half of the complexity in this pipeline. As impressive as the AV1 -crf 1 result may be, it does in fact come with the drawback of also being impressively heavy to decode within today's browsers. Seeking is dog slow, with even the latencies for single-frame stepping being way beyond what I'd consider tolerable. To compensate, we have to invest another 78 MiB into turning every 10th frame into a keyframe until single-stepping through an entire video becomes as fast as it could be on my system.
But fine, 146 MiB, that's still less than the 178 MiB that the old committed VP9 files used to take up. However, we still want to support VP9 for older browsers, older hardware, and people who use Safari. And it's this codec where keyframes are so bad that there is no clear best solution, only compromises. The main issue: The lower you turn VP9's -crf value, the slower the seeking performance with the same number of keyframes. Conversely, this means that raising quality also requires more keyframes for the same seeking performance – and at these file sizes, you really don't want to raise either. We're talking 1.2 GiB for all 86 videos at -crf 10 and -g 5, and even on that configuration, seeking takes 1.3× as long as it would in the optimal case.

Thankfully, a full VP9 encode of all 86 videos only takes some 30 minutes as opposed to 9 hours. At that speed, it made sense to try a larger number of encoding settings during the ongoing development of the player. Here's a table with all the trials I've kept:

Codec -crf -g Other parameters Total size Seek time
VP9 32 20 -vf format=yuv420p 111 MiB 32 s
VP8 10 30 -qmin 10 -qmax 10 -b:v 1G 120 MiB 32 s
VP8 7 30 -qmin 7 -qmax 7 -b:v 1G 140 MiB 32 s
AV1 1 10 146 MiB 32 s
VP8 10 20 -qmin 10 -qmax 10 -b:v 1G 147 MiB 32 s
VP8 6 30 -qmin 6 -qmax 6 -b:v 1G 149 MiB 32 s
VP8 15 10 -qmin 15 -qmax 15 -b:v 1G 177 MiB 32 s
VP8 10 10 -qmin 10 -qmax 10 -b:v 1G 225 MiB 32 s
VP9 32 10 -vf format=yuv422p 329 MiB 32 s
VP8 0-4 10 -qmin 0 -qmax 4 -b:v 1G 376 MiB 32 s
VP8 5 30 -qmin 5 -qmax 5 -b:v 1G 169 MiB 33 s
VP9 63 40 47 MiB 34 s
VP9 32 20 -vf format=yuv422p 146 MiB 34 s
VP8 4 30 -qmin 0 -qmax 4 -b:v 1G 192 MiB 34 s
VP8 4 40 -qmin 4 -qmax 4 -b:v 1G 168 MiB 35 s
VP9 25 20 -vf format=yuv422p 173 MiB 36 s
VP9 15 15 -vf format=yuv422p 252 MiB 36 s
VP9 32 25 -vf format=yuv422p 118 MiB 37 s
VP9 20 20 -vf format=yuv422p 190 MiB 37 s
VP9 19 21 -vf format=yuv422p 187 MiB 38 s
VP9 32 10 553 MiB 38 s
VP9 32 10 -tune-content screen 553 MiB
VP9 32 10 -tile-columns 6 -tile-rows 2 553 MiB
VP9 15 20 -vf format=yuv422p 207 MiB 39 s
VP9 10 5 1210 MiB 43 s
VP9 32 20 264 MiB 45 s
VP9 32 20 -vf format=yuv444p 215 MiB 46 s
VP9 32 20 -vf format=gbrp10le 272 MiB 49 s
VP9 63 24 MiB 67 s
VP8 0-4 -qmin 0 -qmax 4 -b:v 1G 119 MiB 76 s
VP9 32 107 MiB 170 s
The bold rows correspond to the final encoding choices that are live right now. The seeking time was measured by holding → Right on the 📝 cheeto dodge strategy video.

Yup, the compromise ended up including a chroma subsampling conversion to YUV422P. That's the one thing you don't want to do for retro pixel graphics, as it's the exact cause behind washed-out colors and red fringing around edges:

The lossless source imageThe same image encoded in VP9, exhibiting a severe case of chroma subsamplingThe normalized difference between both images
The worst example of chroma subsampling in a VP9-encoded file according to the above metric, from frame 130 (0-based) of 📝 Sariel's restored leaf "spark" animation, featuring smeared-out contours and even an all-around darker image, blowing up the image to a whopping 3653 colors. It's certainly an aesthetic.

But there simply was no satisfying solution around the ~200 MiB mark with RGB colors, and even this compromise is still a disappointment in both size and seeking speed. Let's hope that Safari users do get AV1 support soon… Heck, even VP8, with its exclusive support for YUV420P, performs much better here, with the impact of -crf on seeking speed being much less pronounced. Encoding VP8 also just takes 3 minutes for all 86 videos, so I could have experimented much more. Too bad that it only matters for really ancient systems… :onricdennat:
Two final takeaways about VP9:


Alright, now we're done with codecs and get to finish the work on the pipeline with perhaps its biggest advantage. With a ffmpeg conversion infrastructure in place, we can also easily output a video's first frame as a poster image to be passed into the <video> tag. If this image is kept at the exact resolution of the video, the browser doesn't need to wait for an indeterminate amount of "video metadata" to be loaded, and can reserve the necessary space in the page layout much faster and without any of these dreaded loading spinners. For the big /blog page, this cuts down the minimum amount of required resources from 69.5 MB to 3.6 MB, finally making it usable again without waiting an eternity for the page to fully load. It's become pretty bad, so I really had to prioritize this task before adding any more blog posts on top.

That leaves the player itself, which is basically a sum of lots of little implementation challenges. Single-frame stepping and seeking to discrete frames is the biggest one of them, as it's technically not possible within the <video> tag, which only returns the current time as a continuous value in seconds. It only sort of works for us because the backend can pass the necessary FPS and frame count values to the frontend. These allow us to place a discrete grid of frame "frets" at regular intervals, and thus establish a consistent mapping from frames to seconds and back. The only drawback here is a noticeably weird jump back by one frame when pausing a video within the second half of a frame, caused by snapping the continuous time in seconds back onto the frame grid in order to maintain a consistent frame counter. But the whole feature of frame-based seeking more than makes up for that.
The new scrubbable timeline might be even nicer to use with a mouse or a finger than just letting a video play regularly. With all the tuning work I put into keyframes, seeking is buttery smooth, and much better than the built-in <video> UI of either Chrome or Firefox. Unfortunately, it still costs a whole lot of CPU, but I'd say it's worth it. 🥲

Finally, the new player also has a few features that might not be immediately obvious:

And with that, development hell is over, and I finally get to return to the core business! Just more than one month late. :tannedcirno: Next up: Shipping the oldest still pending order, covering the TH04/TH05 ending script format. Meanwhile, the Seihou community also wants to keep investing in Shuusou Gyoku, so we're also going to see more of that on the side.

📝 Posted:
🚚 Summary of:
P0170, P0171
⌨ Commits:
(Website) 0c4ab41...4f04091, (Website) 4f04091...e12cf26
💰 Funded by:
[Anonymous]
🏷 Tags:
website- meta+

The "bad" news first: Expanding to Stripe in order to support Google Pay requires bureaucratic effort that is not quite justified yet, and would only be worth it after the next price increase.

Visualizing technical debt has definitely been overdue for a while though. With 1 of these 2 pushes being focused on this topic, it makes sense to summarize once again what "technical debt" means in the context of ReC98, as this info was previously kind of scattered over multiple blog posts. Mainly, it encompasses

Technically (ha), it would also include all of master.lib, which has always been compiled into the binaries in this way, and which will require quite a bit of dedicated effort to be moved out into a properly linkable library, once it's feasible. But this code has never been part of any progress metric – in fact, 0% RE is defined as the total number of x86 instructions in the binary minus any library code. There is also no relation between instruction numbers and the time it will take to finalize master.lib code, let alone a precedent of how much it would cost.

If we now want to express technical debt as a percentage, it's clear where the 100% point would be: when all RE'd code is also compiled in from a translation unit outside the big .ASM one. But where would 0% be? Logically, it would be the point where no reverse-engineered code has ever been moved out of the big translation units yet, and nothing has ever been decompiled. With these boundary points, this is what we get:

Visualizing technical debt in terms of the total amount of instructions that could possibly be not finalized

Not too bad! So it's 6.22% of total RE that we will have to revisit at some point, concentrated mostly around TH04 and TH05 where it resulted from a focus on position independence. The prices also give an accurate impression of how much more work would be required there.

But is that really the best visualization? After all, it requires an understanding of our definition of technical debt, so it's maybe not the most useful measurement to have on a front page. But how about subtracting those 6.22% from the number shown on the RE% bars? Then, we get this:

Visualizing technical debt in terms of the absolute number of 'finalized' instructions per binary

Which is where we get to the good news: Twitter surprisingly helped me out in choosing one visualization over the other, voting 7:2 in favor of the Finalized version. While this one requires you to manually calculate € finalized - â‚¬ RE'd to obtain the raw financial cost of technical debt, it clearly shows, for the first time, how far away we are from the main goal of fully decompiling all 5 games… at least to the extent it's possible.


Now that the parser is looking at these recursively included .ASM files for the first time, it needed a small number of improvements to correctly handle the more advanced directives used there, which no automatic disassembler would ever emit. Turns out I've been counting some directives as instructions that never should have been, which is where the additional 0.02% total RE came from.

One more overcounting issue remains though. Some of the RE'd assembly slices included by multiple games contain different if branches for each game, like this:

; An example assembly file included by both TH04's and TH05's MAIN.EXE:
if (GAME eq 5)
	; (Code for TH05)
else
	; (Code for TH04)
endif

Currently, the parser simply ignores if, else, and endif, leading to the combined code of all branches being counted for every game that includes such a file. This also affects the calculated speed, and is the reason why finalization seems to be slightly faster than reverse-engineering, at currently 471 instructions per push compared to 463. However, it's not that bad of a signal to send: Most of the not yet finalized code is shared between TH04 and TH05, so finalizing it will roughly be twice as fast as regular reverse-engineering to begin with. (Unless the code then turns out to be twice as complex than average code… :tannedcirno:).

For completeness, finalization is now also shown as part of the per-commit metrics. Now it's clearly visible what I was doing in those very slow five months between P0131 and P0140, where the progress bar didn't move at all: Repaying 3.49% of previously accumulated technical debt across all games. 👌


As announced, I've also implemented a new caching system for this website, as the second main feature of these two pushes. By appending a hash string to the URLs of static resources, your browser should now both cache them forever and re-download them once they did change on the server. This avoids the unnecessary (and quite frankly, embarrassing) re-requests for all static resources that typically just return a 304 Not Modified response. As a result, the blog should now load a bit faster on repeated visits, especially on slower connections. That should allow me to deliberately not paginate it for another few years, without it getting all too slow – and should prepare us for the day when our first game reaches 100% and the server will get smashed. :onricdennat: However, I am open to changing the progress blog link in the navigation bar at the top to the list of tags, once people start complaining.

Apart frome some more invisible correctness and QoL improvements, I've also prepared some new funding goals, but I'll cover those once the store reopens, next year. Syntax highlighting for code snippets would have also been cool, but unfortunately didn't make it into those two pushes. It's still on the list though!

Next up: Back to RE with the TH03 score file format, and other code that surrounds it.

📝 Posted:
🚚 Summary of:
P0143, P0144, P0145
⌨ Commits:
(Website) 9069fb7...c8ac7e5, (Website) c8ac7e5...69dd597, (Website) 69dd597...71417b6
💰 Funded by:
[Anonymous], Yanga, Lmocinemod
🏷 Tags:
website-

Who said working on the website was "fun"? That code is a mess. :tannedcirno: This right here is the first time I seriously wrote a website from (almost) scratch. Its main job is to parse over a Git repository and calculate numbers, so any additional bulky frameworks would only be in the way, and probably need to be run on some sort of wobbly, unmaintainable "stack" anyway, right? 😛 📝 As with the main project though, I'm only beginning to figure out the best structure for this, and these new features prompted quite a lot of upfront refactoring…

Before I start ranting though, let's quickly summarize the most visible change, the new tag system for this blog!

Finally, the order page now shows the exact number of pushes a contribution will fund – no more manual divisions required. Shoutout to the one email I received, which pointed out this potential improvement!


As for the "invisible" changes: The one main feature of this website, the aforementioned calculation of the progress metrics, also turned out as its biggest annoyance over the years. It takes a little while to parse all the big .ASM files in the source tree, once for every push that can affect the average number of removed instructions and unlabeled addresses. And without a cache, we've had to do that every time we re-launch the app server process.
Fundamentally, this is – you might have guessed it – a dependency tracking problem, with two inputs: the .ASM files from the ReC98 repo, and the Golang code that calculates the instruction and PI numbers. Sure, the code has been pretty stable, but what if we do end up extending it one day? I've always disliked manually specified version numbers for use cases like this one, where the problem at hand could be exactly solved with a hashing function, without being prone to human error.

(Sidenote: That's why I never actively supported thcrap mods that affected gameplay while I was still working on that project. We still want to be able to save and share replays made on modded games, but I do not want to subject users to the unacceptable burden of manually remembering which version of which patch stack they've recorded a given replay with. So, we'd somehow need to calculate a hash of everything that defines the gameplay, exclude the things that don't, and only show replays that were recorded on the hash that matches the currently running patch stack. Well, turns out that True Touhou Fans™ quite enjoy watching the games get broken in every possible way. That's the way ZUN intended the games to be experienced, after all. Otherwise, he'd be constantly maintaining the games and shipping bugfix patches… 🤷)

Now, why haven't I been caching the progress numbers all along? Well, parallelizing that parsing process onto all available CPU cores seemed enough in 2019 when this site launched. Back then, the estimates were calculated from slightly over 10 million lines of ASM, which took about 7 seconds to be parsed on my mid-range dev system.
Fast forward to P0142 though, and we have to parse 34.3 million lines of ASM, which takes about 26 seconds on my dev system. That would have only got worse with every new delivery, especially since this production server doesn't have as many cores.

I was thinking about a "doing less" approach for a while: Parsing only the files that had changed between the start and end commit of a push, and keeping those deltas across push boundaries. However, that turned out to be slightly more complex than the few hours I wanted to spend on it. And who knows how well that would have scaled. We've still got a few hundred pushes left to go before we're done here, after all.

So with the tag system, as always, taking longer and consuming more pushes than I had planned, the time had come to finally address the underlying dependency tracking problem.
Initially, this sounded like a nail that was tailor-made for 📝 my favorite hammer, Tup: Move the parser to a separate binary, gather the list of all commits via git rev-list, and run that parser binary on every one of the commits returned. That should end up correctly tracking the relevant parts of .git/ and the new binary as inputs, and cause the commits to be re-parsed if the parser binary changes, right? Too bad that Tup both refuses to track anything inside .git/, and can't track a Golang binary either, due to all of the compiler's unpredictable outputs into its build cache. But can't we at least turn off–

> The build cache is now required as a step toward eliminating $GOPATH/pkg. — Go 1.12 release notes

Oh, wonderful. Hey, I always liked $GOPATH! 🙁

But sure, Golang is too smart anyway to require an external build system. The compiler's build ID is exactly what we need to correctly invalidate the progress number cache. Surely there is a way to retrieve the build ID for any package that makes up a binary at runtime via some kind of reflection, right? Right? …Of course not, in the great Unix tradition, this functionality is only available as a CLI tool that prints its result to stdout. 🙄
But sure, no problem, let's just exec() a separate process on the parser's library package file… oh wait, such a thing doesn't exist anymore, unless you manually install the package. This would have added another complication to the build process, and you'd still have to manually locate the package file, with its version-specific directory name. That might have worked out in the end, but figuring all this out would have probably gone way beyond the budget.

OK, but who cares about packages? We just care about one single file here, anyway. Didn't they put the official Golang source code parser into the standard library? Maybe that can give us something close to the build ID, by hashing the abstract syntax tree of that file. Well, for starters, one does not simply serialize the returned AST. At least into Golang's own, most "native" Gob format, which requires all types from the go/ast package to be manually registered first.
That leaves ast.Fprint() as the only thing close to a ready-made serialization function… and guess what, that one suffers from Golang's typical non-deterministic order when rendering any map to a string. 🤦

Guess there's no way around the simplest, most stupid way of simply calculating any cryptographically secure hash over the ASM parser file. 😶 It's not like we frequently change comments in this file, but still, this could have been so much nicer.
Oh well, at least I did get that issue resolved now, in an acceptable way. If you ever happened to see this website rebuilding: That should now be a matter of seconds, rather than minutes. Next up: Shinki's background animations!

📝 Posted:
🚚 Summary of:
P0016, P0017
⌨ Commits:
(Website) 98b5090...bca833b, (Website) 3f81d1f...d5b9ea2
💰 Funded by:
qp
🏷 Tags:
website-

Website development time: 12/12

Calculating the average speed of the previous crowdfunded pushes, we arrive at estimated "goals" of…

Crowdfunding estimate at 60235fc

So, time's up, and I didn't even get to the entire PayPal integration and FAQ parts… 😕 Still got to clarify a couple of legal questions before formally starting this, though. So for now, let's continue with zorg's next 5 TH05 reverse-engineering and decompilation pushes, and watch those prices go down a bit… hopefully quite significantly!

📝 Posted:
🚚 Summary of:
P0013, P0014, P0015
⌨ Commits:
(Website) b9805d2...efeddd8, (Website) 31474a0...9dc9632, (Website) 9dc9632...8d3652f
💰 Funded by:
qp
🏷 Tags:
website-

Website development time: 10/12

In order to be able to calculate how many instructions and absolute memory references are actually being removed with each push, we first need the database with the previous pushes from the Discord crowdfunding days. And while I was at it, I also imported the summary posts from back then.

Also, we now got something resembling a web design!

Crowdfunding logBlog
📝 Posted:
🚚 Summary of:
P0012
⌨ Commits:
(Website) b9918cc...b9805d2
💰 Funded by:
qp
🏷 Tags:
website-

Website development time: 7/12

So yeah, "upper bound" and "probability". In reality it's certainly better than the numbers suggest, but as I keep saying, we can't say much about position independence without having reverse-engineered everything.

Next up: Money goals.

Upper bound of remaining absolute memory references at 60235fcProbability of position independence at 60235fc
📝 Posted:
🚚 Summary of:
P0011
⌨ Commits:
(Website) 40c1e98...b9918cc
💰 Funded by:
qp
🏷 Tags:
website-

Website development time: 6/12

Here we go, overall ReC98 reverse-engineering progress. Now viewable for every commit on the page.

Number of not yet reverse-engineered x86 instructions at 60235fcReverse-engineering completion percentage at 60235fc
📝 Posted:
🚚 Summary of:
P0010, P0054, P0055
⌨ Commits:
(Website) cbda977...94127fb, (Website) 94127fb...3161d7e, (Website) 3161d7e...40c1e98
💰 Funded by:
DTM, Egor
🏷 Tags:
website-

Website development time: 5/12

Now with the number of not yet RE'd x86 instructions the you might have seen in the thpatch Discord. They're a bit smaller now, didn't filter out a couple of directives back then.

Yes, requesting these currently is super slow. That's why I didn't want to have everyone here yet!

Next step: Figuring out the actual total number of game code instructions, for that nice "% done". Also, trying to do the same for position independence.