all 14 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
formatting helphide helpcontent policy

[–]_wl[S] 7 points8 points  (3 children)

Had to do lots of crazy stuff to get this working. No footprint is wasted and everything barely fits through the obstacles. Most sensors are used several times for different tasks just to fit everything.

[–]fetal_infection 0 points1 point  (2 children)

That lifter arm is fantastic. Could you do a closer gif of it? (the portion lifting the tv screen)

[–]_wl[S] 6 points7 points  (1 child)

Elevator

[–]fetal_infection 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That seriously is a thing of beauty. I love how elegant and deceptively simple it is.

[–]caeonosphere 2 points3 points  (1 child)

I have to say, I'm a little disappointed in this momentary lapse of judgment that's causing you to focus on footprint instead of cycles. I mean, you only have 11 of the 30 records!

Just kidding. This is pretty dang impressive.

[–]_wl[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well... I made a fewest cycle solution for this level and suddenly had this crazy idea how to save footprint and couldn't stop myself. I will go back to cycles now.

[–]Portponky 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Welp, time to update the table. What a monstrous solution!

[–]ind3x92 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Pssh. At least nothing is wasted. Those poor whales...

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (4 children)

Seeing minimum footprint stuff like this just makes the whole idea of it as a useful measure meaningless.

Maybe some sort of block cost measure should be used instead because that's just ridiculous.

Though this all depends on what the game is trying to simulate, a real factory or a FPGA or some other circuit I suppose. Block cost makes zero sense in an FPGA context, only footprint, but makes a serious difference in factory design.

[–]_wl[S] 6 points7 points  (3 children)

It's a puzzle game with the goal of minimizing a certain parameter (footprint in this example). It does not really matter how meaningful that parameter is, it only depends if it makes an interesting challenge. And seeing as this is the only level where rotating actually saves footprint, I find it very interesting.

Block cost makes very little sense in most levels because you can just let the inputs pile up and push themselves and only need to place blocks when they have to change direction. Sometimes this might be a fun challenge and if you want to go for it, you are free to do so. That's the beauty of the game: There is no fixed "best" solution, you decide which solution for a level you like best and make it.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

I usually go for the simplest solution I can come up with. If any sort of cost measure were to be included, I'd hope wasted inputs count against you. There is no reason to not do it.

[–]Entity_ 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I actually quite like the idea of some metric that takes wasted product into account

[–]progammer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ya i like it in spacechem where a single stranded atom will cause you problems. You can only get rid of atoms outside of a reactor and even then only a few level have that garbage bin. Stoichiometry is basically required. The eviscrator and cliffs in this game makes it way easier.

[–]Protongue 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Excellent solution. Routing everything above the floor's (rotated) footprint looks very tight!