This is a set of model changes which is supposed to facilitate support
for custom sample sets to the beatmap editor that is on par with stable.
It is the minimal set of changes. Because of this, it can probably be
considered "ugly" or however else you want to put it - but before you
say that, I want to try and pre-empt that criticism by explaining where
the problems lie.
Problem #1: duality in sample models
---
There is currently a weird duality of what a `HitObject`'s samples will
be.
- If an object has just been placed in the editor, and not saved /
decoded yet, it will use `HitSampleInfo`.
- If an object has already been encoded to the beatmap at least once, it
will use `ConvertHitObjectParser.LegacyHitSampleInfo`.
As long as that state of affairs remains, `HitSampleInfo` must be able
to represent anything that `LegacyHitSampleInfo` can, if feature parity
is to be achieved.
Problem 2: The 0 & 1 sample banks
---
Custom sample banks of 2 and above are a pretty clean affair. They map to
a suffix on the sample filename, and said samples are allowed to be
looked up from the beatmap skin. `Suffix` already exists in
`HitSampleInfo`.
However, the 1 custom sample bank is evil. It uses *non-suffixed*
samples, *allows lookups from the beatmap skins*, contrary to no bank /
bank 0, which *also* uses non-suffixed samples, but *doesn't* allow them
to be looked up from the beatmap skin.
This is why `HitSampleInfo.UseBeatmapSamples` has been called to
existence - without it there is no way to represent the ability of using
or not using the beatmap skin assets.
As has been stated previously in discussions about this feature, it's
both a *mapping* and a *skinning* concern.
There are many things you could do about either of these problems, but I
am pretty sure tackling either one is going to take *many* more lines of
code than this commit does. Which is why this is the starting point of
negotiation.
Because the flashlight is made to be scaled by playfield, there are
constant scale factors applied somewhere in the
`PlayfieldAdjustmentContainer` which needs to be reflected in the
flashlight size to keep the size the same.
The factor is specifically 1.6x, computed in {Osu,Catch}PlayfieldAdjustmentContainer.ScalingContainer`.
More generally, I've deduced these factors by logging the difference
between the `flashlightSize` before and after b78abe2f.
This change refactors `GetAdjustedDisplayDifficulty()` and
`GetBeatmapAttributesToDisplay()` in two ways:
- Both methods now accept `IBeatmapInfo` instead of
`IBeatmapDifficultyInfo`. This is done in order to make mania key
count display to work, wherein `IBeatmapDifficultyInfo` is not enough
to calculate the final key count.
- `GetAdjustedDisplayDifficulty()` now applies all
`IApplicableToDifficulty` mods itself. I did this after noticing that
every real consumer of this method had to do that themselves for very
little reason.
In stable mania, Hard Rock and Easy mods do not work the same way as
they do on all of the rulesets. The difference is that mania HR and EZ,
rather than apply a multiplier to the map's original Overall Difficulty,
apply multipliers to *the durations of hit windows themselves*.
Prior to the last release, lazer was oblivious to this reality and just
treated mania HR / EZ as it did every other ruleset. Last release, for
the sake for gameplay parity across rulesets, the mods in question were
adjusted to match stable, but in the process, it started looking like HR
/ EZ did not change OD anymore.
The problem is that they do, but applying a multiplier to the map's OD
and applying a multiplier to the hit window duration is not the same
thing. The second thing is actually *much harsher* in magnitude, to the
point where applying HR to any map is almost guaranteed to exceed "the
effective OD" of 10, and applying EZ to any map is almost guaranteed to
result in "negative effective OD".
This change attempts to convey that reality by displaying "effective
OD", similar to what's already done in other rulesets when rate-changing
mods are active. Note that the values this will display *do not match*
stable *and that is correct*, because stable song select *lies* about
the actual impact on OD by just assuming it can treat all rulesets in
the same way.
---
Would close https://github.com/ppy/osu/issues/34150 I guess.
And yes I would like *all of the above* to land on the changelog if
possible if this is merged.
For further convincing that this makes any semblance of sense please see
the following: https://www.desmos.com/calculator/yigt7jycdv
Addresses https://github.com/ppy/osu/discussions/33912 for catch
specifically. Code copy-pasted from osu! ruleset.
I'm leaving taiko be because new combo still doesn't make any sense in
taiko. It'd probably either have to be object index in beatmap period
instead of index in combo, or the `kdkdkdkdkkkdkdkkkdkkdkd` notation
people use.
* Reduce combo scaling for osu!catch
This is a conservative reduction, a middle point between the current
scaling and the CSR proposals.
* Reduce osu!catch combo scaling further
0.45 makes little difference so let's reduce it a bit more.
---------
Co-authored-by: James Wilson <tsunyoku@gmail.com>
Closes https://github.com/ppy/osu/issues/33465 probably.
This reverts the replay frame de-duplication logic to what it was before
https://github.com/ppy/osu/pull/33148#discussion_r2091549388.
I don't have good reproduction steps. I tried to write a test case for
this that isn't just "press and release a key in the same frame",
thinking that maybe there was some loophole in the osu! touch input
mapper that may produce this situation artificially, but I could not in
many configurations. So I have to assume that this just *can happen*
organically.
This PR converts the leaderboard into a full-fledged skinnable component
that can be manipulated by users at will.
Notably, this finally allows https://github.com/ppy/osu/issues/20422 to
be fixed - although it's a very mixed bag, for several reasons:
- Because of taiko players' refusal to see reason^W^W^W^Winsistence on
keeping stable behaviours related to aspect ratio treatment, I have to
assume the worst case scenario, which means than on typical
resolutions like 16:9 (or even worse, 4:3), the leaderboard will
likely not occupy as much vertical space as it probably could.
- Additionally, there's the problem of where to put the spectator list.
I settled on putting it to the right of the leaderboard, but that's
kind of janky, because the leaderboard sometimes collapses and
sometimes fully hides, leading to a very awkward space left behind. If
we had the capability to anchor elements to other elements, maybe this
could be resolved, but for now, I'm not sure what to do. I think if
some users are bothered by it they can move it where they want it. Or
delete it.