Kramuals ACTUALLY explained, and why diagonal kramuals are possible

Ok, off topic question (kinda)
why does the white screen glitch happen? (https://youtu.be/ReV4R4WKKLE?t=1m52s)

It seems that if they are alined at the frame of impact, then Bosh will go into a diagonal kramual. But, as soon as the points are not alined, Bosh will stop being in the kramual position. So the only way that a diagonal kramual is possible is to cause zero rotation when putting Bosh into the kramual. If that is achieved by some dark magic, then a diagonal kramual should be the result. I'm not familiar with action script enough to study the code to see it works, but from what shotoku has said and Kramwood's example, it sounds like a logical hypothesis to me.

Kramwood wrote:The ssavefile is in the Sol to "the artist". Looking at it under 3.x's contact pploints they're in a perfectly straight line.

I downloaded the sol and looked at every track. None of them have that set of lines or this "kramual" at 24:03.

Last nail in the coffin. Shotoku's logic says that as long as the angle is the same across every point the kramual will hold. This means that a kramual can occur at ANY ANGLE. So let me ask this:

Spoiler:

[senpai] kevans wrote:

Spoiler:

Because as you said, the X and Y coordinates have to be the exact same every frame to stay in a kramual. It's impossible to get Bosh to rotate at such a smooth motion that his X and Y stay lined up the entire rotation. It would be possible in theory, but it would be impossible even for the most skilled player to ever do anything that exact. Some one would have to figure out how to move his X and Y coordinates to that they stay alined within the correct range of numbers that allow for a kramual position and account for things like inertia and the gravity in game.

acp from my perspective: maths say yes, human limitations say no

the age old struggle

I am pretttyyyy sure it's possible to flip bosh in one frame because I've gotten weird frames where his sled flipped entirely but not his body, and the other way around version of that. he died the next frame in each ofc but if it were possible to so both at once, we could at least flip him 180 degrees.

i gotta hand it to kev, he's pretty much got this down

So do I.
I'm mostly using this as a place to see what CAN be done, rahter than what simply is impossible.

I'm pretty sure they don't work except in vertical/horizontal. Only reason they work then is because the value of 0 makes them impossible to move by multiplication/division
like, normally, some contact points repel others, some stay at a certain distance from others
the way I understand it
but they all move around via multiplication and division
so if they all have the same x coordinate, then when you calculate the distances you get 0s for ALL of them, whihc makes them "lock" in kramual
but if you pull one away from zero (e.g. the shoulder) all of a sudden you have a not-zero in the mix again and the contact points start interacting normally again
aka no more kramual lock

from the chat

kevans, am I thinking about this correctly?

rabid squirrel wrote:

I'm pretty sure they don't work except in vertical/horizontal. Only reason they work then is because the value of 0 makes them impossible to move by multiplication/division
like, normally, some contact points repel others, some stay at a certain distance from others
the way I understand it
but they all move around via multiplication and division
so if they all have the same x coordinate, then when you calculate the distances you get 0s for ALL of them, whihc makes them "lock" in kramual
but if you pull one away from zero (e.g. the shoulder) all of a sudden you have a not-zero in the mix again and the contact points start interacting normally again
aka no more kramual lock

from the chat

kevans, am I thinking about this correctly?

I think so

Yes, that's exactly it.

Forget diagonal kramuals. Horizontal and vertical kramuals are old hat. Perpendicular kramuals are where it's at.

I prefer me some parallel now

If it's still a question about if diagonal kramuals are possible, they are. I just got a two frame one in the Bosh Olympics thing.

Yes most people know it is possible you just cannot lock him in that position

Oh, I get it. So you can't get him off the line then?

you cant get him off the line IN KRAMUAL or get him to stay there IN KRAMUAL, its not necessarily a true kramual either its just a position bosh can be in. Its kinda like how its possible to get invertes shoulder wells that nake bosh look like he is in kramual. I'm assuming you made him survive, well done its more than almost everyone can do haha

yeah the same look is possible with diagonal lines frame-by-frame but in diagonal "kramuals" he doesn't actually lock into that position, and I think most of us define a kramual as him actually getting stuck that way.

After some experimentation, I feel like in my experience kramual position is when the points are for whatever reason pushed into a straight line and actual kramual is when he is locked that way. It's perfectly possible to get him into a kramual without locking him without actually moving all the contact poitns; just move all the ones that AREN'T already in place into the exact position using xy lines paralell to the axis you're kramualing. I've gotten him into kramual where the string  or tail point didn't need to be affected because it just naturally was either already there or is forced there, and then locked him without having to affect the string or tail in the next frame. I've also put a hand well which hit test said affected him while he was in kramual but didn't bring him out of kramual. That well had, logically, to be on the exact same y corrdinate as the rest of the points. So it was like adding 0 to the velocities. It actually did something, but the result was no change.

I made a line which is one pixel away from forcing him into an angled kramual position and the result was that his points are nowhere near kramual but he survives. For some reason, that one extra pixel is read by the game as being a case where it's easier for physics to just line up the points (or get them so close it's essentially easy to say it's the same). Don't know what signifigance that carries yet, but I can promise you it matters to me and I will keep it in mind.
Also, side note, I made a surve of kramual positions which survives in an upcoming track of mine. Kramual position is achieved succesfully over the course of several frames at severaal non-xy angles. <---- this and any related information to this trick is sadly currently unavailable :/
But however the hell you got him to stay in k-position on a 45 degree line for 2 frames and got him out is beyond what I can comprehend without further context.

So I propose a new terminology system:
Kramual position is when his points are aligned or for all intents and purpose are there, kramuwells are when he simply kinda looks like he's in kramual (kinda being his hands and feet can be out of place..some people identify kramuals as by the way his string or other poitns look but I can tell you I can see from a mile away if he's visually matching the criteria for close even if most people don't think he looks like he should be in kramual from a position), sled kramual is when the sled is aligned, body kramual is when the body is aligned, kramual wells are wells done in kramual (see Inhibitions for a few wells (especially the hyperkramual) which count as kramual wells )done in kramual position) which seem to defy the current accepted norm for what visually constitutes a kramual,), and an actually LOCKED kramual is the term we can use for what we've (you all) been calling kramuals for years. We can call them locked kramuals if we need that context, but there are plenty of kramuals I have done which aren't locked but were on the x or y axes just to add one to my kramual count in a track. In regular context, saying kramual would mean a locked kramual which would survive without the help of more lines after 2 frames (or 1 frame if you make a one lined kramual which stops his movement in the direction you squish him in and doesn't need a stablizer to keep him that way)

One added bit: I once made a one lined kramual upwards in inhibitions in which I found out the only point that was unlocking on the next frame and needed a stablizer was the tail. So I put a dot there and he obeyed kramual physics and locked for 2 frames.

Kramual is getting less and less black and white to define as more is discovered about it. I have made cannons the basis of which force him into kramual and then have an added well to keep him out of it and cause all the points to misalign on that frame. I at first called them kramual cannons, but simply cannon is more appropriate even though they are built on a kramual as the basis. Sheldon never actually made a kramual cannon in a save before me, even though his xy super stack .sol floating around has a cannon which counts as one if you take away the top shoulder well. I say that to explain the difference, and as well as for the added posterity (you still did it first basically lol)

I rambled I soz but tl;dr? Kramuals need more context when spoken about.

We shall never call them pancakes. Ever, This is a decree as sacred as anomoly's dubbing the term "gravity wells" to the ever popular code abuse. stahp pls

dude one of the saves literally had a kramual cannon lol

So um, yeah. lol

Petition to call Kramual Cannons Pancake Stacks

Petition moved
Pancake stacks confirmed

Jk we will kill you and your family

lol fauxfyre so how is it being so right?

Fauxfyre wrote:You are partially correct, but it isn't just based on everything being 0 in one way or the other. It is based on the angles or the lines, and the adjustments between them, not the directions the points are moving.

AKA THE MOMENTUM VECTORS
EVERYTHING IS SO CLEAR NOW

Dapianokid wrote:

Fauxfyre wrote:You are partially correct, but it isn't just based on everything being 0 in one way or the other. It is based on the angles or the lines, and the adjustments between them, not the directions the points are moving.

AKA THE MOMENTUM VECTORS
EVERYTHING IS SO CLEAR NOW

I'm pretty sure the momentum vectors are the directions the points are moving. The adjustments are a feature that I can neither confirm or deny the existence of in an unreleased or future version of Line Rider

rabid squirrel wrote:

Dapianokid wrote:

Fauxfyre wrote:You are partially correct, but it isn't just based on everything being 0 in one way or the other. It is based on the angles or the lines, and the adjustments between them, not the directions the points are moving.

AKA THE MOMENTUM VECTORS
EVERYTHING IS SO CLEAR NOW

I'm pretty sure the momentum vectors are the directions the points are moving. The adjustments are a feature that I can neither confirm or deny the existence of in an unreleased or future version of Line Rider

I can neither confirm nor deny the existence of an unreleased version, anyway.