*sigh* I've been stuck on world 7-5 "Accidents Happen" for a few days now. My incomplete solution mostly works except that I've run out of room for the red waldo to return on the phosphorus switch. And things were going well up to now. Ironically, my 7-1 solution (345/1/16) was slower than my 6-4 (273/1/26) solution... despite being the same problem. But the tools available did make it better symbol-wise...
Why in God's name does 47 have to be a prime number?
I think there is some trick to fusion I'm not getting. I seem to be brute forcing everything.
I assume you're talking about Exploding Head Syndrome? Yeah, brute-forcing that one is the easiest way. Fuse whole water molecules (10 protons) until you get Hg (80), then hit the A switch to make it fuse just the hydrogens (sending the H-O to another reactor to make H2 and O2) until you get Pu, then hit the B switch (and turn off A) to send it off.
Alternatively, the blue waldo sitting on a huge line of SYNC instructions is the automated solution, but requires a bit more work I feel. You'd also need a second fusion reactor to perform the second step (Hg -> Pu).
Heh, it would have never, never occurred to me to use a manual switch to control an actual reaction as opposed to routing the outputs. In the event I basically did the huge line of sync instructions. Which is how I ended up doing most of the fusion problems. That's what I meant by "brute forcing".
I was so conditioned to using sync chains that I almost started to use them "The Plot Thickens". Instead, I used this slightly more efficient and elegant method:
Anyone have tips for reducing the number of symbols used? I can consistently get things done really quick, but I always use more symbols than average.
Maybe you can remove sync symbols by changing the path your waldos take to be of equal length.
Or place a symbol such that it runs on an intersection so that it runs twice per loop.
Those are good ideas. I rely on sync way too much. Do arrows count as symbols?
edit: And what's a good way to deal with excess chemicals? I'm on one now where I'm getting one twice as fast as I get the others to combine it with.
Your only real options are to dump the excess molecules into a recycler, or to figure out how to make use of them. Or, just let them pile up, assuming it doesn't stall everything as a result.
Garthor on
0
jackalFuck Yes. That is an orderly anal warehouse.Registered Userregular
edited March 2011
I couldn't sleep last night because my brain was trying to figure out a way to do the methane -> ethane + molecular hydrogen puzzle (Settling into the Routine) with only one reactor. Now I have a headache.
The histogram doesn't show any solutions with less than three reactors, but it seems like it should be possible to do it with two.
e: Oh, you can only assemble or disassemble in a single reactor. Didn't realize that.
Considering how close my passing solution for 7-5, "Accidents Happen", was to my fail solution, I'm surprised it took me so long to crack. Of course, now 7-6 looks like a bit of a beast...
I finally tried this demo last night. Loved it for a while, got overwhelmed, thought "that was fun, but clearly it's too intimidating for me" and deleted it, happy with what pleasure it'd provided. Yeah, bad mistake. I woke up the next morning, my first thought "All I want to do right now is play more SpaceChem."
I redownloaded it and played a couple more levels. Then the next level started, I felt intimidated, and just about deleted it again when I realized... this is just right for a puzzle game. You start to play, make it your bitch, it steps it up a notch, you say "fuck that," then you come back in a day or two and make it your bitch again. Rinse, repeat. I can't wait to be able to afford the full game!
As a reward for reading, here is a FUN FACT: has anyone else found themselves wondering if a "waldo" is a real thing, or, if not, why he chose that name? I sure as hell did. Looked it up, and it is a real thing! Not in chemistry, though. It's a nickname for a "remote manipulator" that is derived from a Robert Heinlein short story. Yet more awesome points for the game designer!
Man, I remember Falling being a huge pain in the ass my first time around, when I used four reactors. Now that I'm revisiting it for the 2-reactor challenge, I realize: holy damn is it like fifty times easier and twice as fast using only two reactors. I just never saw the obvious solution.
I read your post and didn't understand at all. Then I was looking through the challenges and trying to figure out Falling in 2... and you're right, it's so obvious once you think of it.
As a reward for reading, here is a FUN FACT: has anyone else found themselves wondering if a "waldo" is a real thing, or, if not, why he chose that name? I sure as hell did. Looked it up, and it is a real thing! Not in chemistry, though. It's a nickname for a "remote manipulator" that is derived from a Robert Heinlein short story. Yet more awesome points for the game designer!
I had wondered why "waldo" but was too busy trying to cut symbols to look it up and now I'm ashamed that I haven't read enough Heinlein to know it off the top of my head. Thank you for looking that up!
This is going to be so obvious in like 30 minutes when I'm on the road, but I spent 20 minutes now trying to get Under the Ice down to about 12 symbols (at least that's what it looks like is the best score on the graph, it's a very small sliver) and I can get it down to 15 but then I'm stuck. It's a two waldo solution with perfect timing. So far every successful low symbol count solution I've had has been one waldo but this one stumps me because it would take too many direction arrows as I recon it, even though it'd probably save me one drop symbol.
This is going to be so obvious in like 30 minutes when I'm on the road, but I spent 20 minutes now trying to get Under the Ice down to about 12 symbols (at least that's what it looks like is the best score on the graph, it's a very small sliver) and I can get it down to 15 but then I'm stuck.
It's possible that 15 is the minimum! The tiny sliver of a bar there covers the range of 12-15 symbols, so the minimum could be any of those values. If there's something the game is lacking, it's a listing of minimum counts, especially cross tables by number of reactors and some sort of diagram of cycles/symbol tradeoffs.
In personal progress news, I've hit world 8. I don't know if I like these Production levels at all...
I spent a fair amount of time last night trying to do In Place Swap with one reactor. I got so, sooo close, but each time I got to the last couple movements, there was simply no space for either the red or blue lines. This is why I really wish you could see the ranking graphs before finishing. I have a feeling it may just be impossible, space usage wise, to use only one reactor for that level. I'd love to know for certain before just giving up, though.
So, can anyone tell me from experience or look at the graph to see if anyone's done it with one reactor?
The graph shows it being done with a single reactor. I made a solution with two, but getting it down to one is really intimidating.
Ah, dang... I'm so close, I won't feel at peace until I get a workable one-reactor solution. Back to the drawing board!
Haha! Apparently, all I needed was to know it's possible! I just got my solution working. It's a hell of a thing... a beast. I'm sure it could be done much more efficiently, but everything is so interlocked, making it more efficient would take as long, or maybe longer, than the original puzzle! This one is a wrap, folks.
Finally finished No Thanks Necessary. Well, I got a working solution at least. Doesn't come close to the 2200 cycle challenge time though, its pretty bad.
Tynnanseldom correct, never unsureRegistered Userregular
edited March 2011
Oh man. This thread caught my eye the other day, and now I'm hooked. I just got to world three today, can't wait to see what's in store down the line.
Tynnan on
0
OrcaAlso known as EspressosaurusWrexRegistered Userregular
edited March 2011
I got this over the weekend and holy shit it's addicting. Some of those levels are a cast-iron bitch the first half dozen times you attempt 'em. Currently struggling one of the early fusing levels...
I'm already a computer programmer in real life, I don't know if I want to burn up my programming mental energies on this.... even though I really enjoyed the solutions I came up with, even if they were inefficient. I keep getting to wrapped up in the idea of 1 waldo being a simple worker function to drive the main program of the other waldo, which probably isn't the greatest way to approach most problems. I also wish I had 6-8 bonders available instead of 4
I'm sure its been commented on before, but that's essentially what you're doing in this game, programming, using a unique time and space-based language. This game should be required playing in introduction to programming classes, it will get your brain in the right gear to think ahead about how things will run after you set them up, and debugging.
I'm already a computer programmer in real life, I don't know if I want to burn up my programming mental energies on this.... even though I really enjoyed the solutions I came up with, even if they were inefficient. I keep getting to wrapped up in the idea of 1 waldo being a simple worker function to drive the main program of the other waldo, which probably isn't the greatest way to approach most problems. I also wish I had 6-8 bonders available instead of 4
I too have to fight the urge to build my solutions "right" from a software engineering point of view, because there isn't enough space for separation of concerns. I imagine this game to be a little closer to assembly language programming as it was done in the Heroic Age forty years ago, or for a very resource-constrained embedded system (not something I have any experience with).
Trying to get high in the rankings takes more patience than I have, though. I'm happy if my solution is below median in both time and space.
I'm already a computer programmer in real life, I don't know if I want to burn up my programming mental energies on this.... even though I really enjoyed the solutions I came up with, even if they were inefficient. I keep getting to wrapped up in the idea of 1 waldo being a simple worker function to drive the main program of the other waldo, which probably isn't the greatest way to approach most problems. I also wish I had 6-8 bonders available instead of 4
I'm sure its been commented on before, but that's essentially what you're doing in this game, programming, using a unique time and space-based language. This game should be required playing in introduction to programming classes, it will get your brain in the right gear to think ahead about how things will run after you set them up, and debugging.
Oh totally, I also thought this is like programming with 2 threads and 2 memory registers.
I'm already a computer programmer in real life, I don't know if I want to burn up my programming mental energies on this.... even though I really enjoyed the solutions I came up with, even if they were inefficient. I keep getting to wrapped up in the idea of 1 waldo being a simple worker function to drive the main program of the other waldo, which probably isn't the greatest way to approach most problems. I also wish I had 6-8 bonders available instead of 4
I'm sure its been commented on before, but that's essentially what you're doing in this game, programming, using a unique time and space-based language. This game should be required playing in introduction to programming classes, it will get your brain in the right gear to think ahead about how things will run after you set them up, and debugging.
Oh totally, I also thought this is like programming with 2 threads and 2 memory registers.
On to the last level, hopefully I can tackle it tomorrow. I guess since I've got all the other puzzles complete, I'll post my scores in a spoiler. Some good, some not (In-Place Swap is notably behind the curve). I tend to go for a balance between cycles and symbols, though I tend to go toward minimizing cycles a bit.
World 1: Sernimir II
Of Pancakes and Spaceships ...... [117/1/ 8]
Slightly Different .............. [117/1/ 8]
Crossover ....................... [157/1/ 16]
An Introduction to Bonding ...... [119/1/ 16]
A Brief History of SpaceChem .... [119/1/ 16]
Removing Bonds .................. [ 51/1/ 16]
World 2: Sernimir IV
Double Bonds .................... [137/1/ 21]
Best Left Unanswered ............ [151/1/ 22]
Multiple Outputs ................ [147/1/ 20]
An Introduction to Pipelines .... [407/0/ 0]
There's Something in the Fishcake [494/1/ 16]
Sleepless on Sernimir IV ........ [811/2/ 40]
World 3: Danopth
Every Day is the First Day ..... [ 218/1/ 35]
It Takes Three ................. [ 234/1/ 29]
Split Before Bonding ........... [ 197/1/ 23]
Settling into the Routine ...... [ 988/3/ 50]
Nothing Works .................. [ 825/4/ 74]
In-Place Swap .................. [2214/2/ 56]
World 4: Alkonost
An Introduction to Sensing ..... [ 277/1/ 13]
Prelude to a Migraine .......... [ 175/1/ 14]
Random Oxides .................. [ 438/1/ 35]
No Ordinary Headache ........... [1634/2/ 64]
No Thanks Necessary ............ [1755/4/ 97]
Going Green .................... [2106/4/100]
World 5: Sikutar
Ice to Meet You ................ [ 136/1/ 18]
Under the Ice .................. [ 287/1/ 35]
Unknown Sender ................. [ 146/1/ 32]
Falling ........................ [1222/3/ 85]
Applied Fusion ................. [2133/3/ 78]
World 6: Hephaestus IV
Like a Boss ................... [ 307/1/ 31]
Sacré Bleu! ................... [ 176/1/ 22]
The Plot Thickens ............. [ 1041/1/ 29]
Danger Zone ................... [ 273/1/ 26]
Molecular Foundry ............. [ 2441/3/ 93]
Gas Works Park ................ [ 1147/4/109]
KOHCTPYKTOP ................... [11576/5/158]
World 7: Atropos Station
The Blue Danube ................ [ 331/1/ 16]
No Stomach for Lunch ........... [ 275/1/ 27]
No Employment Record Found ..... [ 577/1/ 27]
Right All Along ................ [1367/1/ 28]
Accidents Happen ............... [ 853/1/ 60]
World 8: Flidais
Special Assignment ............. [ 569/1/ 44]
Suspicious Behavior ............ [2424/1/ 53]
I Told You So .................. [ 888/1/ 71]
Omega-Pseudoethene ............. [3003/2/119]
Sigma-Ethylene ................. [2902/2/123]
I'm already a computer programmer in real life, I don't know if I want to burn up my programming mental energies on this.... even though I really enjoyed the solutions I came up with, even if they were inefficient. I keep getting to wrapped up in the idea of 1 waldo being a simple worker function to drive the main program of the other waldo, which probably isn't the greatest way to approach most problems. I also wish I had 6-8 bonders available instead of 4
I'm sure its been commented on before, but that's essentially what you're doing in this game, programming, using a unique time and space-based language. This game should be required playing in introduction to programming classes, it will get your brain in the right gear to think ahead about how things will run after you set them up, and debugging.
Oh totally, I also thought this is like programming with 2 threads and 2 memory registers.
Next thing you know someone's made a programming language out of this.
If someone proves it's turing complete, I'm going to laugh.
Hrmm.... I haven't gotten very far into the game (need more time to play :P) but unless there is something to emulate a conditional statement to allow looping or recursion, probably not. Still, fun!
Just did Nothing Works in under 1,000 cycles, phew! I think the deconstruction of methane could be optimised a smidge because the blue cycle is just dealing with deconstruction and isn't moving stuff anywhere (and it's easily the slowest reaction), but at only 75 symbols, I'm pretty happy at how it is at the moment
TeeMan on
0
OrcaAlso known as EspressosaurusWrexRegistered Userregular
edited April 2011
The best I've managed is 772 cycles on that one with 95 symbols. Some time/space tradeoffs going on I guess.
Anddddd the next two missions look horrifying so I'll call it a night for SpaceChem. I'm bouncing between this and Fate Of The World so the ol' melon is getting a workout these days!
Posts
e: The histograms torment me.
Maybe I'll try this after I do my talk at the ACS conference, but by god I don't need any more distractions now.
Forums no likey hd=1&.
One-reactor solution, too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2N_VbWgB0k
Maybe you can remove sync symbols by changing the path your waldos take to be of equal length.
Or place a symbol such that it runs on an intersection so that it runs twice per loop.
Those are good ideas. I rely on sync way too much. Do arrows count as symbols?
edit: And what's a good way to deal with excess chemicals? I'm on one now where I'm getting one twice as fast as I get the others to combine it with.
Your only real options are to dump the excess molecules into a recycler, or to figure out how to make use of them. Or, just let them pile up, assuming it doesn't stall everything as a result.
The histogram doesn't show any solutions with less than three reactors, but it seems like it should be possible to do it with two.
e: Oh, you can only assemble or disassemble in a single reactor. Didn't realize that.
I redownloaded it and played a couple more levels. Then the next level started, I felt intimidated, and just about deleted it again when I realized... this is just right for a puzzle game. You start to play, make it your bitch, it steps it up a notch, you say "fuck that," then you come back in a day or two and make it your bitch again. Rinse, repeat. I can't wait to be able to afford the full game!
As a reward for reading, here is a FUN FACT: has anyone else found themselves wondering if a "waldo" is a real thing, or, if not, why he chose that name? I sure as hell did. Looked it up, and it is a real thing! Not in chemistry, though. It's a nickname for a "remote manipulator" that is derived from a Robert Heinlein short story. Yet more awesome points for the game designer!
Steam BoardGameGeek Twitter
I read your post and didn't understand at all. Then I was looking through the challenges and trying to figure out Falling in 2... and you're right, it's so obvious once you think of it.
I had wondered why "waldo" but was too busy trying to cut symbols to look it up and now I'm ashamed that I haven't read enough Heinlein to know it off the top of my head. Thank you for looking that up!
This is going to be so obvious in like 30 minutes when I'm on the road, but I spent 20 minutes now trying to get Under the Ice down to about 12 symbols (at least that's what it looks like is the best score on the graph, it's a very small sliver) and I can get it down to 15 but then I'm stuck. It's a two waldo solution with perfect timing. So far every successful low symbol count solution I've had has been one waldo but this one stumps me because it would take too many direction arrows as I recon it, even though it'd probably save me one drop symbol.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoyJh9bgkyE
I haven't even finished the game yet, I keep working on the same puzzles until I like my chart score.
Oh my god, bear is driving!
I hate this level
It's possible that 15 is the minimum! The tiny sliver of a bar there covers the range of 12-15 symbols, so the minimum could be any of those values. If there's something the game is lacking, it's a listing of minimum counts, especially cross tables by number of reactors and some sort of diagram of cycles/symbol tradeoffs.
In personal progress news, I've hit world 8. I don't know if I like these Production levels at all...
So, can anyone tell me from experience or look at the graph to see if anyone's done it with one reactor?
So close... must... give...
Steam BoardGameGeek Twitter
Steam BoardGameGeek Twitter
Here's the YouTube
Here's the interior:
Steam BoardGameGeek Twitter
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nb4vqtPlkKo
I'm already a computer programmer in real life, I don't know if I want to burn up my programming mental energies on this.... even though I really enjoyed the solutions I came up with, even if they were inefficient. I keep getting to wrapped up in the idea of 1 waldo being a simple worker function to drive the main program of the other waldo, which probably isn't the greatest way to approach most problems. I also wish I had 6-8 bonders available instead of 4
I'm sure its been commented on before, but that's essentially what you're doing in this game, programming, using a unique time and space-based language. This game should be required playing in introduction to programming classes, it will get your brain in the right gear to think ahead about how things will run after you set them up, and debugging.
I am a freaking nerd.
I too have to fight the urge to build my solutions "right" from a software engineering point of view, because there isn't enough space for separation of concerns. I imagine this game to be a little closer to assembly language programming as it was done in the Heroic Age forty years ago, or for a very resource-constrained embedded system (not something I have any experience with).
Trying to get high in the rankings takes more patience than I have, though. I'm happy if my solution is below median in both time and space.
Oh totally, I also thought this is like programming with 2 threads and 2 memory registers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?hd=1&v=GCZ_ERkkOSw
Such a pain in the ass because the product is huge
Pretty close anyway, crazy fun is had here.
I am a freaking nerd.
Next thing you know someone's made a programming language out of this.
Hrmm.... I haven't gotten very far into the game (need more time to play :P) but unless there is something to emulate a conditional statement to allow looping or recursion, probably not. Still, fun!
I am a freaking nerd.
WTB more complex branching statements.