I downgraded to whatever the last version was called, 1.21 or what. The one without the zoom feature. Wonder if we have the same situation as in Cover Orange where different hardware gives different scores.
cool... Wow, I was off for 4 days and Pappnase made 4 points! Congratulations! You are catching up... ... what are you paying if I take 8 days off
To be more precise: I got the 551 on iphone 4 with cp 1.22. Do you get 550 with zoom activated AND also with deactivated zoom?
My version does not have the zoom feature. It is the same version as on the ipad. Yes I took up playing again. Fighting with the mushroom now. And I will have to tackle ET.
The ipad is a clone of my phone. I am a bit annoyed by the difference. I should not make a fuss again before talking to the guys from DG. And get the rogue points I am short in. I'll talk to DG in a few months then LOL. Wonder if one of you guys on iPhone 5 can replicate the phenomenon. If you need a screen to check let me know.
DG, helpful as ever, have replied and they don't know yet. Would anybody with an iPhone 5 try and report in order to help them please. I have the issue with 43, 57 and 75. I am attaching screens from the 5. These arrows are not too secret, are they? The identical arrows give 551 on the iPad. Thanks everybody. Papp P.S. I take liberty to quote their mail! >>>>>>>>>>>> Hey Papp! While there have been a few changes to our Front End adding a couple of new features but also introducing the "arrow to my best" bug, we haven't touched the physics engine due to the delicacy of it. Tweaking even the smallest thing could lead to entirely different end results. I really can't explain the differences you're experiencing. It might be a compiler difference (the previous version of Cat Physics was compiled Aug 2011 and XCode has been fiddeling around with the compiler a few times since then), differences in the ARM v6 and v7 architecture, or a silly typo we've accidentially made somewhere. But still, they all feel like long shots... It would be really helpful if a few other catters could report their experience in the matter so that we can see if there's a certain pattern. Best Regards,
No. I still use the old version 1.21, from Aug 2011. I mean the last version before the iP5 update. Maybe. Pfadfinder has since also found that #43 only yields 550 on his iP5 as opposed to 551 on his 3GS. Grmbll.
iphone 5 and physic engine problem Here is an overview of the findings so far. Pappnase posted that screenshot. IP 5, IOS 6.01, cp v 1.21 provided only 550 points in contrast to expected 551 Here is a ss of my ip 3 gs, IOS 4.3.1, cp 1.21 It provides 551 points. Now 3 ss follow I got from a friend with ip 4, IOS 4.3.2 (???), cp 1.21 All ss provide 551 points. Finally I used the arrows of those ip 4 ss on my new ip 5, IOS 6.0.1, cp 1.21. All ss provide only 550. So I could reproduce the error discovered by Pappnase. Conclusions: - cp v 1.22 is not the cause because Pappnase and me we both still use cp v 1.21. Thus new Xcode compiler can be ruled out as the cause. - Furthermore retina display does not seem to be the cause because ip 4 has retina and still you get 551 - It is obvious that the physic engine of cp somehow reacts differently on a ip 5 with IOS 6.0.1 compared to ip 3gs and 4 with IOS 4.3.1 and 4.3.2 respectively. - Maybe the cause has to do with IOS 6.0.1 (does cp use a libary of IOS for some calculations???) or the hardware of the new ip 5 (aspect ratio of screen, faster processor???) It would be interesting how an ip 3 or 4 reacts under IOS 5 or 6. Such test could narrow down the cause. Some tests with Ipad could also help. I hope that DG can somehow correct that even though DG does not seem to be responsible for the differences. IP 5 is worthless if cp does not work correctly We should file a class action.
Thanks Pfadfinder and Pappnase for the helpful feedback. You're right, we can rule out the compiler. And since you're running the version from last year (v1.21) we can also rule out any accidental typo or new bug introduced in the code since last year. The output resolution has nothing to do with the scoring algorithm. For instance, the iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4 and iPad all have different resolutions but still end up giving the same score. And while the iPhone 5 does has a wider aspect ratio than the previously mentioned devices, again the output resolution should have no effect on the gameplay and ball calculations. Hmm, I'm starting to wonder if the A7 CPU does handle floating point values and/or operations slightly different to previous generations of Apple ARM-based CPUs. Or if it's due to a change in any of the iOS 6 libraries like you also mentioned. Trying the above posted ss solutions on an iPhone 4/4S on iOS 5, or perhaps even better iOS 6, would definitely help narrow it down further.
i am truly amazed! i always suspected this thread to stay around for a long while. i never would have guessed, though, that it would take on such a different form. more power to you all. cheers!
Wiz states in #11183 that he gets full 551 with iOS 6. Also my iPad which runs iOS 5.1.1 has no issues. So it is unlikely that the iOS version is the culprit. I wish I had a debug version of CP which outputs the points in floating point before the conversion to integer. The whole story reminds me of the infamous Pentium FDIV error. However a rounding error is not too probable because I have three levels affected. I cannot believe all three have something like 550,500001 points which calculate to 550,499999 on the iP5.
Ip4 Hi, if it helps to find the point: i have iPhone 4 with OS 5.1 and get the 551 on the max. Hope you find it...
Are these 2x3 SS in the same order? I took the first one of each of these 3 SS, resized the IP5-SS to 1036x640 (btw: why didn't you upload them in this original size? ) and put them together on 2 layers. That's what i get: I can either align the arrows or the backgrounds. The arrows are not the same on SS#1 of your friend and SS#1 of yours. Wrong SS-order or wrong arrow-placement?
Well that is bad. I have no clue. I thought that arrow two and three are identical in the 3 ip 4 and 3 ip5 ss. I will doublecheck that asap. Regarding the size of the ip5 ss: again no clue they were supposed to be in original size. Maybe that has to do with the size limitation in toucharcade picture upload function. I am sorry for the inconveneance. Edit: You are right the ip5 ss are resized to 1024 x 577 Pixels (16:9). That has been done automatically by toucharcade. The limit is 1024x1024. It seems that they automatically resize bigger pics to meet that limitation. Is there another way to upload the pics? It might be that due to the resizing back and forth the second arrow seems to be somehow misplaced. I will make a 2 layer pic of the original #1 of ip4 and original #1 of ip5 and post it here.
here we are cy@n was right. the second arrow of the ip4/ip5 ss sets are not identical. The resizing done by toucharcade is not responsible. That may be the reason for the different points or not. Or maybe there are 6 different positions for 551 on ip4 and 6 positions for 550 on ip5. I will doublecheck that asap.
Don't get lost in pixel discussions. Mine are identical on all platforms (saved best positions) and yield different results. Period.
