Testing the Score limit *Movie*
I guess that's another way to get to the same number... I just think it's simpler to come to that conclusion since 65535 = FFFF(hex), and is therefore the largest possible two-byte number. However, tjc's guess makes sense as well, since the game will record negatives. WaLKa's test should be over in a couple of hours, and we'll see. It'd be about our luck that it's a four-byte number, though... I don't think anyone would feel like that much testing.
That's actually irrelevant. It depends on how the system works. If an int just happens to occupy four bytes on the Xbox, I really doubt Bungie would bother to make it any smaller, even if such large numbers would never be needed.it wouldn't make much sense either, i doubt anyone would ever get a number as high as 1000 in actual gameplay
-
- Posts: 449
- Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2003 7:06 pm
![]() |
![]() |
after a while it will start interfering with the score... i guess we'll just have to wait and see..gryphon wrote:That's actually irrelevant. It depends on how the system works. If an int just happens to occupy four bytes on the Xbox, I really doubt Bungie would bother to make it any smaller, even if such large numbers would never be needed.it wouldn't make much sense either, i doubt anyone would ever get a number as high as 1000 in actual gameplay

oddest thing happened.
I got 938 kills
but the other players had 22154, 22161, and 22164 deaths
now, taking into acount that i actualled killed them most of those times, then it resets around 65541, which is awfully close to Gryphons estimate. Those extra deaths can be accounted for by being killed by vehicles while being set up. I can only remeber one.
So as far as the score limit is concerned. It resets after 66540
I got 938 kills
but the other players had 22154, 22161, and 22164 deaths
now, taking into acount that i actualled killed them most of those times, then it resets around 65541, which is awfully close to Gryphons estimate. Those extra deaths can be accounted for by being killed by vehicles while being set up. I can only remeber one.
So as far as the score limit is concerned. It resets after 66540

wait, Ive almost figured out...
anyway, I think the number has to do with Octal, not Hex, so we would be way off...
if you take the number it reset after (66540), and divide it by 100, you get 655.4... and if I'm not wrong, 556 in octal is 777, or vice versa, I cant remember which... more strange calculations:
if you divide 66540 by 556, you get 117.56.... etc (I think it's endless)...
anyway, if you measure throughput in cps, you have to divide it by 117.1875 to get the throughput in kb/s or mb/s etc....
its not an answer, but it's some stuff I found...
also some other calculations I found noteworthy:
66540/111=599
66540/70=950
66540/73=911
66540/74=899
66540/119=559
66540/120=554
66540/123=540
but here's one I found kinda intrest worthy:
66540/128=519
I think this may have something to do with Binary and Octal. remember the numerical patterns you have in Binary, ie multiples of 2; 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, etc.
but also remember that Octal stores numbers in a similar fashion to Binary but a number in Octal does not equal the same number in Binary; for example the 556=777 example...
but meh, Im tired, and Im lazy, so Ill stop here...
anyway, I think the number has to do with Octal, not Hex, so we would be way off...
if you take the number it reset after (66540), and divide it by 100, you get 655.4... and if I'm not wrong, 556 in octal is 777, or vice versa, I cant remember which... more strange calculations:
if you divide 66540 by 556, you get 117.56.... etc (I think it's endless)...
anyway, if you measure throughput in cps, you have to divide it by 117.1875 to get the throughput in kb/s or mb/s etc....
its not an answer, but it's some stuff I found...
also some other calculations I found noteworthy:
66540/111=599
66540/70=950
66540/73=911
66540/74=899
66540/119=559
66540/120=554
66540/123=540
but here's one I found kinda intrest worthy:
66540/128=519
I think this may have something to do with Binary and Octal. remember the numerical patterns you have in Binary, ie multiples of 2; 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, etc.
but also remember that Octal stores numbers in a similar fashion to Binary but a number in Octal does not equal the same number in Binary; for example the 556=777 example...
but meh, Im tired, and Im lazy, so Ill stop here...
This post printed on 100% recycled electrons.
-
- Posts: 370
- Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2004 9:25 am
- Location: Some where other than the Anti Noob HQ
-
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 5:09 pm
- Location: washingtondc
haha
thahah thats pretty awesome, what do you mean someone had alot of free time.. no he didn't. All he did was tape it down, wasn't like he sat there for 10 hours killing people 

it hurts when i pee
-
- Posts: 370
- Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2004 9:25 am
- Location: Some where other than the Anti Noob HQ
Wow hunter did some mathHunterXI wrote:wait, Ive almost figured out...
anyway, I think the number has to do with Octal, not Hex, so we would be way off...
if you take the number it reset after (66540), and divide it by 100, you get 655.4... and if I'm not wrong, 556 in octal is 777, or vice versa, I cant remember which... more strange calculations:
if you divide 66540 by 556, you get 117.56.... etc (I think it's endless)...
anyway, if you measure throughput in cps, you have to divide it by 117.1875 to get the throughput in kb/s or mb/s etc....
its not an answer, but it's some stuff I found...
also some other calculations I found noteworthy:
66540/111=599
66540/70=950
66540/73=911
66540/74=899
66540/119=559
66540/120=554
66540/123=540
but here's one I found kinda intrest worthy:
66540/128=519
I think this may have something to do with Binary and Octal. remember the numerical patterns you have in Binary, ie multiples of 2; 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, etc.
but also remember that Octal stores numbers in a similar fashion to Binary but a number in Octal does not equal the same number in Binary; for example the 556=777 example...
but meh, Im tired, and Im lazy, so Ill stop here...

Signature exceeded 500x120 pixels.