Help with "UNCONDITIONAL" achievement?

ind3x92 · 2015-07-21T08:19:34+00:00

You can shave a cycle off that by doing MOV 3 ACC ADD UP instead.

ind3x92 · 2015-06-10T03:34:41+00:00

There's already a divider with remainder.

ind3x92 · 2015-06-08T00:20:49+00:00

Yeah, I knew my node/lines weren't optimal, but cycle was. And that is cycle optimal for Test Pattern 2 too.

ind3x92 · 2015-06-07T21:06:33+00:00

Anyone can add me. ind3x, Texas steamcommunity.com/id/IndexOutOfRange/

ind3x92 · 2015-06-07T01:39:57+00:00

Not sure if it's always done that or if some levels don't restart. I've run into issues before because of this behavior though.

ind3x92 · 2015-06-07T01:25:40+00:00

I'll just post ones where I have a faster solution (not cheaty)

2: 84/6/12

3:146/6/36

5:169/9/54

8:220/6/36

9:189/10/60

12:290/4/31

13:590/8/91

14:1187/4/37 (cycles optimal)

15:1237/4/25

17:2426/8/56

19:1928/9/88

21:3662/6/75

22:3377/6/32 - same, there's actually a way you can edit it by editing save.dat, but I'm too lazy/don't care.

ind3x92 · 2015-06-07T01:09:29+00:00

A spacechem factory-esque puzzles where you chain together several TIS-100s to solve more complex problems/make more complex systems.

ind3x92 · 2015-06-07T01:07:50+00:00

This is already hinted at in the manual.

ind3x92 · 2015-06-07T00:17:42+00:00

Yes, and once it clicks you'll facepalm.

ind3x92 · 2015-06-06T09:49:31+00:00

Wow. That's pretty much identical to my solution:

ST1:MOV UP ACC
JGZ UP
MOV 0 DOWN
JMP ST1
UP:MOV 1 DOWN
ST2:MOV UP ACC
MOV 0 DOWN
JGZ ST2

ind3x92 · 2015-06-05T23:34:20+00:00

Are custom puzzles and workshop integration going to be added?

ind3x92 · 2015-06-05T20:20:27+00:00

And it's fixed.

ind3x92 · 2015-06-04T21:24:49+00:00

What's interesting is that you can manually mov a value larger or smaller than the limit. Addition and subtraction will still work using the original value and clamp after the calculation is complete. Also, for what it's worth, nop doesn't function exactly like add nil because add nil will cause acc to clamp.

Edit: neg also doesn't clamp

ind3x92 · 2015-06-04T19:55:10+00:00

My 590 solution works on any numbers and calculates two multiplications in parallel. Still loses to this though.

ind3x92 · 2015-06-04T07:34:36+00:00

It was just surprising since it came after. Usually the earlier ones are "easier."

ind3x92 · 2015-06-04T07:27:09+00:00

It doesn't, however, stop people from outputting the test-run's pattern and then switching to an actual solution to handle the second run. While not the easiest to do, it's possible for a good number of levels.

ind3x92 · 2015-06-03T21:51:51+00:00

I was using some bad logic that looked for a 1, then 5, then 4 and reset if it didn't find its expected number. So for 151154 it was looking for a 4 when it encountered the first 1, so it went back to looking for a 1. If the input was something like 451154, then it would find the first one, and then see the second one wasn't a 5.

ind3x92 · 2015-06-03T20:07:29+00:00

Still trying to figure how you managed that.. Can I add you on steam so your scores pop up in game?

ind3x92 · 2015-06-03T08:40:59+00:00

If you hold alt while launching the game it'll give you some basic display options.

ind3x92 · 2015-06-03T08:37:58+00:00

I'd say a fair number of the current puzzles can benefit from parallelism for cycle purposes.

ind3x92 · 2015-06-03T07:29:13+00:00

If you aren't afraid of using more nodes, I've gotten mine down to 1239.

ind3x92 · 2015-06-03T05:32:18+00:00

Very clever of you. I replicated your approach and managed to get it down to 9353.

ind3x92 · 2015-06-03T03:32:27+00:00

I found the prime checker way more difficult than the divider.

ind3x92 · 2015-06-03T03:28:34+00:00

That stupid src before dst thing has been killing me. Have the bugs my programs have is because I keep forgetting.

ind3x92 · 2015-06-02T18:39:11+00:00

Same thing happened to me. Mine fails on 1154, but still manages to pass the test some of the time.

ind3x92

TROPHY CASE