| « home | Browsing all comments (spoilers: on | off) (info: on | off) | next 25 |
 |
<Dave> OK, I'll have a quick try at explaining the transponder version because I'm never going to upload it anyway. I never fully tested it because it wasn't good enough but ... You have a grid full of panles with crossovers in bizzaro and park transponders on it. The panels map to an identical grid of remotes with blocks in bizzaro. The remotes map back to the same spots on the original grid. If the bizzaro grid is fired horizontally from the right from it will turn all the crossovers making a path to the rightmost transponder, repeat from the left. Fire across the original grid, any number other than 2 or certain cases of higher even numbers will fail, 0 cancels out. Higher evens than 2 can be ignored anyway. Refire the same way to reset the grid to its original state and repeat vertically. Hope this makes sense ... <Dave> PPS. I am still clueless about your dalek/teleport direction reversal mechanism. Every time I tried I came unstuck with multiple consecutive reversals. <Dave> N7. Continuing from previous comment outside of the level comments ... I'm curious, you are full of interesting ideas, how far did you get with this before? The difficult bit is testing two axes using only one 'singularly active' piece without introducing a huge maze of remotes. (by 'singularly active' I mean a piece that can only switch over one other cell). In the transponder version I mentioned before, the transponders are 'multiply active' because they are used as both a trigger and part of the test procedure allowing a bi-axial test for exactly two pieces on each line on both axes, this makes the zero test redundant. The final implementation using 'singularly active' pieces (ie. spheres) only checks for an even number on each axis but is backed up by a 'fail on zero' test. This only works becuse four in a line is not possible without failing either the 'zero test' or the 'parity test' somewhere else. PS. If you solve these levels every dalek dies, if you fail they don't. If you have access to a large enough monitor (I only have this at work), the animation of the test procedure, especially for Queens, is really good. :) |
 |
<Dave> (SPOILER) Hi N7. I found the easist and most compact way to implement this would be to use transponders as the pieces. It's rather hard to explain it in a few sentences though. The problem is: the underlying puzzle, although mathematically interesting, is way to easy to make a decent Escape level. So I ditched the idea completely and set about making it work with balls. This way it would not be too hard but make a really interesting speedrun challenge. Although the final parity checking mechanism is really simple, it did take me a while to come up with it. Does this answer your question? |
 |
<N7DOT> woo solved it :) (with 2007 version of course) |
|
|
<N7DOT> Oops, forgot a question I had: Is there a good reason why spheres were used instead of steel? <N7DOT> You beat me to it! I had been planning an implementation of No Three in a Row, but that didn't get much work on it. <mark> (SPOILER) Added speedrun: 478 moves (old: 578). Nice puzzles Dave.This one justed clicked on the first thing i did. N queens (9x9)took me over an hour. <Dave> The rules: Every sphere must be in the 9x9 field, no more than two in any row or column. Simple as that. |
|
|
<Dave> (SPOILER) I've got a couple more levels for the 9x9 series. Nine queens is pretty simple, it was just fun to implement with the self-imposed restriction of an orthagonal d-map. |
 |
<Jim> (SPOILER) Added solution "Untitled": Not much different really but I uploaded it anyway so you could see Dave. |
|
|
<Dave> (SPOILER) Mark, after you suggested 9x9 I just decided to build the level and hope I would be able to figure out a way of solving it afterwards. Never been much of a chess player, I've always prefered games with a mixture of skill and chance. Jim, I think you've nailed it with Improv 2.5. I don't think I'll be taking it any further either. <Jim> (SPOILER) Thanks Mark, I'm glad you enjoyed it. On my 2nd attempt at the 9X9, I was only 4 moves away but I have been unable to better that since.... as for chess, it was the first thing I did online. I used to play the speed chess versions, two minutes for each player to make 40 moves then I think it was 5 seconds additional for each move over 40. I haven't played that in years now though, but was super fun at the time. <mark> (SPOILER) Jim i think that 2.5 was fantastic it took me a fair while,great usage of all the blocks. With thinking time and wasted moves it took me nearly 500 more to do first solve. When i went to score it i again scored the wrong level.I scored the deleted level as i wanted to see Dave's cookrun. I've lowered deleted level score to what Dave put. Really enjoyed it and i won't be adding anymore,think i'll leave 2.4 up for now. Dave thanks for making the 9x9 i've had a couple of goes following my pattern and i'm getting closer. I don't think i'll solve it to soon though because it so annoying to get close and not solve it i'm probably just going to have one try a day. Failing that i'll have to read up on math side of it and try and do it that way. Did you now how to do it when you made it or did you just solve it? Is it being a larger square easier than the 8x8? When i said i knew how 8x8 was done it did not mean i worked it out it was something i'd looked up years ago after being set lot's of chess puzzles. Not even played chess much pretty rubbish at it,but i used to go to a social club where a wise old chess player used to set me problems. I'd go back the next week with the answer memorised courtsey of the internet and he thought I was smart. Thanks to all see you soon. <Dave> (SPOILER) Jim, you were one step ahead of me! You uploaded the fix at the same time I was posting the cookrun. Ignore previous comment. We'll have to time it better next time :) <Dave> (SPOILER) Jim, I'm unlikely to have time to mod 2.5, so have uploaded alternative solution as speedrun. |
 |
<Jim> (SPOILER) I was already thinking along the same lines Mark, I also solved Dave's 2.3 completely different but I can't see how to force my solution and stop all the others at the same time. |
 |
<Jim> (SPOILER) Nice one Dave, and I think you are right, this should open the template for more ideas. |
 |
<mark> (SPOILER) Added speedrun: 630 moves (old: 636). Basicly Jim's solution but the way i ended it was a little quicker. Great mod Jim. <Jim> (SPOILER) The length of some of these author lines are so long you can't see who did them until you get into the level, I was simply trying to avoid that. Regardless, I'm sure I will be deleting this level halfway soon so it won't be an issue. I'm still hoping Dave's 2.2 solution can be incorporated, I wanted to use that in this level but was unable to find a way to do that. |
 |
<Dave> (SPOILER) Added speedrun: 31 moves (old: 33). I really don't know how to rate this. It is certainly not trivial though! |
|
|
<Dave> (SPOILER) Jim, this a really good level and by far the best of the series. I solved it as intended, every piece ended up in the same place as the original solution. First time yet in this series! N7 has a point though. How about re-uploading with different credits. I will stand by my rating. |
 |
<devin> Well, I see that the challenge was a bit different than what I had expected until I had figured the alternate solution in a few minutes or less... <devin> (SPOILER) Added speedrun: 197 moves (old: 427). Hopefully I did this correctly, if not... here... |
|
|
<N7DOT> Hmm. When I said I was going to make Improv into a series, I meant as in a more 'classic' type of series (like Kacper's 'Small' levels or the recent 'Learn a trick' ones) where each level is unique but all have a over-arching theme, and not like a 'evolutionary' series like the Mods levels. I have to say, I do like how these modifications are going, and am in no way trying to discourage these re-interpretations. The one thing that set off an alarm in my head was the usage of the 'Mod Squad' blanket to describe the history of the level; while I feel that simplifying the author line makes sense when it starts to get long enough, I'm not sure if I want the 'mods' term to be used to describe this level as it did not form in the same manner. (also, everyone is free to make brand new additions to the series. any such additions should be made by a process similar to that described on Improv 1) |
| « home | Browsing all comments (spoilers: on | off) (info: on | off) | next 25 |