Design Challange: Smart Asteroid Processing!

[Rauschkind]

i agree that i should have worded that rule more preicse.

i do not think so. i think the rules make sense.

I was not saying anything else than what you agreed upon, the imprecision of the rules costed me time to ask question which made me not publish my anterior solution that i had published in a another thread because i asked question about the rules first to know the challange, and this costed me the first place, because the rules were imprecise and i was skeptikal of your ability to hold such challange

i agree there is some room for missunderstanding, i still think that they are clear. as quoted"rules must be met with all ship storage filled" "all ship storage filled" is *part* of this rule, and only a part.
look. i dont really think we need to fight over this. i think you need that constant combinator to fulfill the requirements. if you prove me worng, i happily declare you winner and i will even apologize.

edit: its also not ruled invalid because its set to keep the storage filled, not even because it does not buffer all chunk types (in this, i actually see that i have missed this as a rule and therefore would rule a solution winner that does NOT buffer all chunk types).
its ruled invalid because it starts jammed.

[mmmPI]

look. i dont really think we need to fight over this. i think you need that constant combinator to fulfill the requirements. if you prove me worng, i happily declare you winner and i will even apologize.

I am realizing that you started the challange a few days after i posted my creation there viewtopic.php?f=193&t=119001
and it's a challange asking to do the same thing if i'm not wrong ? the rules are still unclear to me, but it seem to be the goal to do exactly the same thing right ?

I am wishing to get clarification on the requirement, because it's unclear to me which storage you are mentionning, the crusher ? the collector ?

How many combinator do you count ? because on your rules it is written 8, but now ?

[Rauschkind]

look. i dont really think we need to fight over this. i think you need that constant combinator to fulfill the requirements. if you prove me worng, i happily declare you winner and i will even apologize.

I am realizing that you started the challange a few days after i posted my creation there viewtopic.php?f=193&t=119001
and it's a challange asking to do the same thing if i'm not wrong ? the rules are still unclear to me, but it seem to be the goal to do exactly the same thing right ?

I am wishing to get clarification on the requirement, because it's unclear to me which storage you are mentionning, the crusher ? the collector ?

How many combinator do you count ? because on your rules it is written 8, but now ?

that was my entry. my entry clearly is not the winner XD the current leading design uses one constant and one decider combinator, which makes it 3 tiles used for combinators.
as for the other part, i already repied tho this:

indeed i have not. reason: you stated it was simmilar to the previous version, which was valid, and therefore ahead of your solution by the merit of having been postet sooner.

That's a shame because i had posted earlier on another thread just before you started the challange, it's only the time it took me to notice you posted a very similar design, albeit a bit broken and that i didn't understand the rules because it looked like some gameplay help that cost me the time to publish for the first place viewtopic.php?f=193&t=119001 I would have done sooner had i known it was a time challange x).

Also that's not a very good challange if it's already finished like it doesn't give incentive to try better

what you linked does not qualify, it misses crushers. in any case: i am sory if a valid solution was posted on the board before. its simply pretty difficult to rule this out.

[mmmPI]

what you linked does not qualify, it misses crushers. in any case: i am sory if a valid solution was posted on the board before. its simply pretty difficult to rule this out.

Yeah that's why i posted the link on the other thread, because it was posted on the board before, since you made a challange to redo the same thing just a few a days after on the same forum, i thought you would have somewhat like the decency to not act like something was first or not x)

Because as said i could have posted it here (again) but i took a little time to ask question because it seemed weird to me that you'd do this, and then i realized you close the challange before any other entrie, not even verifying some of mine, and from what i understand you judge a tie a in number of combinator with a new rule you added that you can't use priming, and that one was first even if there was mention of any time in the rules ?

I'm a bit salty obvisouly, i don't understand why you want to close the challange, i think it can still be made smarter by not using 3 crushers but just one, however i can't post my design again if i don't know the rules of how you count the storage, and when i ask more question i can't have answer

[Rauschkind]

what you linked does not qualify, it misses crushers. in any case: i am sory if a valid solution was posted on the board before. its simply pretty difficult to rule this out.

Yeah that's why i posted the link on the other thread, because it was posted on the board before, since you made a challange to redo the same thing just a few a days after on the same forum, i thought you would have somewhat like the decency to not act like something was first or not x)

Because as said i could have posted it here (again) but i took a little time to ask question because it seemed weird to me that you'd do this, and then i realized you close the challange before any other entrie, not even verifying some of mine, and from what i understand you judge a tie a in number of combinator with a new rule you added that you can't use priming, and that one was first even if there was mention of any time in the rules ?

I'm a bit salty obvisouly, i don't understand why you want to close the challange, i think it can still be made smarter by not using 3 crushers but just one, however i can't post my design again if i don't know the rules of how you count the storage, and when i ask more question i can't have answer

i agree i should not have closed it. i take that back. the current best entry is:

MBas Tue Nov 05, 2024 1:52 pm
Solution with two combinators only

i will repeat this one more time: i can not rule out that a solution has been posted it the past.
however: it was not yesterday, it it was not in the post you linked.
as why 3 crushers: its just the rules of this one particular challange. it does not matter. as stated before, if you can provide a solution that does it with one cruisher and still provide the least squares for combinators while fullfilling all requirements, i will rule it valid (just because... you could just add 2 crushers connected to nothing and fulfill the requirements anyhow)

[mmmPI]

i will repeat this one more time: i can not rule out that a solution has been posted it the past.
however: it was not yesterday, it it was not in the post you linked.

I don't understand that part, and you still haven't answered to my questions about which storage need to be in which state for you to validate an entry with only 1 crusher.

[Rauschkind]

i will repeat this one more time: i can not rule out that a solution has been posted it the past.
however: it was not yesterday, it it was not in the post you linked.

I don't understand that part, and you still haven't answered to my questions about which storage need to be in which state for you to validate an entry with only 1 crusher.

the requirement is, that it might not ever jam. its not enough to run untill the storage is filled. it also might not jam once all storage is used. i understand that the line caused confusion. i will remove it, it does not change the requirements.

[mmmPI]

the requirement is, that it might not ever jam. its not enough to run untill the storage is filled. it also might not jam once all storage is used.

Which storage ?

[Rauschkind]

the requirement is, that it might not ever jam. its not enough to run untill the storage is filled. it also might not jam once all storage is used.

Which storage ?

see previous post.

[mmmPI]

i will repeat this one more time: i can not rule out that a solution has been posted it the past.
however: it was not yesterday, it it was not in the post you linked.

I still don't understand that part.


Which storage need to be in which state for you to validate an entry with only 1 crusher ?


You can take your time to make it clear. because "jamming" is unclear to me, you said the system i posted earlier "jams" which i don't understand why you said it, so that's why i'm asking more question, i have several designs i'm tryinf to understand your rules.

[Rauschkind]

i will repeat this one more time: i can not rule out that a solution has been posted it the past.
however: it was not yesterday, it it was not in the post you linked.

I still don't understand that part.


Which storage need to be in which state for you to validate an entry with only 1 crusher ?

any state. full or empty: it might not jam.

You can take your time to make it clear. because "jamming" is unclear to me, you said the system i posted earlier "jams" which i don't understand why you said it, so that's why i'm asking more question, i have several designs i'm tryinf to understand your rules.

jamming as in: entering a state where it requires manipulation to resume operation.

[mmmPI]

i will repeat this one more time: i can not rule out that a solution has been posted it the past.
however: it was not yesterday, it it was not in the post you linked.

I still don't understand that part.

[mmmPI]

jamming as in: entering a state where it requires manipulation to resume operation.

This is not the same as backing up being full and my previous design did not require manual operation to resume operation it just backed up yet you say "jamming"

[Rauschkind]

no, but it required manipulation when empty.

[mmmPI]

i will repeat this one more time: i can not rule out that a solution has been posted it the past.
however: it was not yesterday, it it was not in the post you linked.

I still don't understand that part.

Are you avoiding this on purpose ?

[mmmPI]

no, but it required manipulation when empty.

Which is not the same as requiring manipulation to "resume operation" as you said you can't even define precisely the rules or what ?

jamming is not the same as requiring priming right ? you do realize it's a different thing ?

[Rauschkind]

i will repeat this one more time: i can not rule out that a solution has been posted it the past.
however: it was not yesterday, it it was not in the post you linked.

I still don't understand that part.

Are you avoiding this on purpose ?

are you? at this point, i can not even re-arrange without repeating me with every letter.

your system starts jammed. so it does not start at all. thats not valid.
i see where a different judge might come to a different conclusion. however: this is my conclusion. as there is no official authority we could take this, i fear we are stuck with my personal ruling. imperfect as my sole ruling might be, based on one oppinion, it was not any more perfect if it was based on another persons sole oppionion (yours).

i will not reply to this one question again because i simply can not see a way to word this differently.

[Rauschkind]

Cause that happens sometimes that people make challenge but then the complexity of defining precisely the rules overwhelm them.

look, here is a peace offer:
for this challange, we are stuck with my ruling. however: i appriciate your input, and i actually like your solution even IF i rule it invalid for this challange. i will name you hornorary mention should not other 2 tile sulution come up.

in any case, i think the complexity of the challange can be increased and the usefulness of the resulting solution be improved by applying rules that prefer smaller designs.
so, why not lets work together with the next one? we can work out the rules together and then do the ruling together, too.

[mmmPI]

i see where a different judge might come to a different conclusion. however: this is my conclusion. as there is no official authority we could take this, i fear we are stuck with my personal ruling. imperfect as my sole ruling might be, based on one oppinion, it was not any more perfect if it was based on another persons sole oppionion (yours).

i will not reply to this one question again because i simply can not see a way to word this differently.

I think it make no sense to now admit your challange is not something objective but based on opinion, it was the meaning of my initial question to make sure the rules were defined properly to avoid such things.

When looking at the blueprint you posted as example, it uses one belt for all chunks, then i asked the question why 3 crusher, you answered because otherwise we could use one belt only.

This is puzzling me.

[Rauschkind]

i see where a different judge might come to a different conclusion. however: this is my conclusion. as there is no official authority we could take this, i fear we are stuck with my personal ruling. imperfect as my sole ruling might be, based on one oppinion, it was not any more perfect if it was based on another persons sole oppionion (yours).

i will not reply to this one question again because i simply can not see a way to word this differently.

I think it make no sense to now admit your challange is not something objective but based on opinion, it was the meaning of my initial question to make sure the rules were defined properly to avoid such things.

When looking at the blueprint you posted as example, it uses one belt for all chunks, then i asked the question why 3 crusher, you answered because otherwise we could use one belt only.

This is puzzling me.

well, you obviously where right that the complexety of comming up with such a challange is easily underestimated.
i actually was thinking about the rules before i did this, but it is true that this, my first attempt, was not up to the highest possible standards. so, see my prevous post.