This is still puzzling me because it seem to me that it's not smart to use 3 crusher when only 1 can be used for "smart asteroid processing". But then the winning solution cannot exist because it require 3 crusher.
this is nonsense. the currently leading solution has crushers. i do not know which solution you are refering to.
again i accept your oppinion, it just does not apply here. the rules for this challange are in the first post.I also think smart asteroid processing without reprocessing is missing the point.
This is not true, because in the first post you use one belt for all 3 asteroid, but later you said it was necessary to use 3 crusher to avoid using a single belt of output.Rauschkind wrote: βTue Nov 05, 2024 4:53 pm again i accept your oppinion, it just does not apply here. the rules for this challange are in the first post.
yes. as i am sure you have read, the rules do not state any belt requirements. so, the rules are in post one. if i initialy intended to produce different solutions, i failed.obvioiusly, if i had changed anything about the rules as stated in post one, this thread was now at page 17 and both our post ocunt a few hundred higher.mmmPI wrote: βTue Nov 05, 2024 5:02 pmThis is not true, because in the first post you use one belt for all 3 asteroid, but later you said it was necessary to use 3 crusher to avoid using a single belt of output.Rauschkind wrote: βTue Nov 05, 2024 4:53 pm again i accept your oppinion, it just does not apply here. the rules for this challange are in the first post.
I don't get the purpose of requiring 3 crushers , like isn't it "smarter" if one use only 2 ? or just 1 ?
I am currently trying my best to make sense of the challange, i don't know how i could be more showing my will to participate in helping you
i think it's the same discussion, it's still not making any sense to me, to say a challange for smart asteroid has to comply with 2 imaginary crusher, i understand that is your opinion, but also if you want to make a challange it has to be objective. And as of now, there is no rationnale with that rule regarding the meaning of the challange, it's a leftover remnants from a poorly written rules imo. It's like "make a smart asteroid processing" BUT " you have to use this not-smart thing i didn't thought of properly when making the rules and i don't want to remove as requirement".Rauschkind wrote: βTue Nov 05, 2024 5:07 pm and add 2 disconnected crushers to comply with the rules. so i have decided to accept one crusher in the provided design and use my imagination for the other two. because it makes no difference. we already discussed this. twice i think.
The rules statesRauschkind wrote: βTue Nov 05, 2024 5:07 pm yes. as i am sure you have read, the rules do not state any belt requirements
:Rauschkind wrote: βTue Nov 05, 2024 1:26 am crushers must never lose access to any chunk type by belt overload (running out of collectable asteroids of course does not count)
no dumping allowed.
There is such system installed in the ship, try it in game you'll seeRauschkind wrote: βTue Nov 05, 2024 7:51 pm i realize that this is unlikely to happen. but it CAN happen. so it CAN jam. thats not a valid entry then.
please correct me if i am wrong and you have in fact some system installed that would make make sure that such a condition is impossible.
no the quantity is choosen in the constant combinatorRauschkind wrote: βTue Nov 05, 2024 7:51 pm so, if i undertand this correctly, you just fill up the whole hold of your ship with chunks,
i see a value of 2147483645 for all types which would make it possible to fill the wholes store with one ore type if it was used to limit the quantity.
try it in game and tell me what happens, your speculation on how the machine would function is erroneousRauschkind wrote: βTue Nov 05, 2024 8:03 pm i see a value of 2147483645 for all types which would make it possible to fill the wholes store with one ore type.
That's how i felt about the rules of the challangeRauschkind wrote: βTue Nov 05, 2024 8:11 pm i asked you to explain it.
i feel that i might not be equiped to provide the form of comunication you seem to require and i start to get the feeling that it might not be helpful if i tried further.
To me it seem that those 5 rules are respected with 1 tile of combinator.Rules:
1)must have crushers for iron, ice and carbon
2)all crushers must have access to output of all ore types at all times
3)crushers must never lose access to any chunk type by belt overload (running out of collectable asteroids of course does not count)
4)no dumping allowed.
5)the system might not jam even when all storage is filled. thats all it says, and thats redundant.
the winner will be that design which uses the least ammount of squares for combinators to control the minimum requirements.
Given that 2147483645 is 2^31 - 3, I would presume that the design is using integer overflow in its checks.Rauschkind wrote: βTue Nov 05, 2024 8:03 pmi see a value of 2147483645 for all types which would make it possible to fill the wholes store with one ore type if it was used to limit the quantity.
i see that the inserters try to insert carbon, ore and whatever to the crushers. i do not see how chunks are inserted to the crushers.
i do not see where the quantity is applied to set even a theoretical limit on anything.
so i do not understand your design. maybe you can explain it?
