Design Challange: Smart Asteroid Processing!

[Rauschkind]

oh just found out you don't even need to wire the crusher, you can just prime the collector with some asteroids, and make sure you leave at least 1 so it can be used to set its own filter , this way it is possible to not use 3 crushers but only 1 and change its recipe !

minimal.jpg

hm. nope. it starts jamed even if it works flawless after that (and actually is a very smart idea), i declare this as a violation.

[Rauschkind]

correct me if i am wrong, but i do not think this gets any filters for the collector when empty. that would be a jam condition.

You don't even test the things in game ?

not if you dont provide a blueprint.

[mmmPI]

correct me if i am wrong, but i do not think this gets any filters for the collector when empty. that would be a jam condition.

You don't even test the things in game ?

not if you dont provide a blueprint.

I have provided a solution with blueprint already that you ignored

[mmmPI]

hm. nope. it starts jamed even if it works flawless after that (and actually is a very smart idea), i declare this as a violation.

This is why i said you need to prime it

[Rauschkind]

correct me if i am wrong, but i do not think this gets any filters for the collector when empty. that would be a jam condition.

You don't even test the things in game ?

not if you dont provide a blueprint.

I have provided a solution with blueprint already that you ignored

i can not see a bp with this version. i did test the previouis one which i declared valid.

[Rauschkind]

hm. nope. it starts jamed even if it works flawless after that (and actually is a very smart idea), i declare this as a violation.

This is why i said you need to prime it

i understand that and yet i declare that its jammed directly after building it.

[mmmPI]

i can not see a bp with this version. i did test the previouis one which i declared valid.

You haven't tested this one :

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

Copy blueprint

my solution is very similar , but it's using a dummy arithmetic combinator instead, all the value are stored in the constant, which makes it easy to change with a logistic group

[mmmPI]

i understand that and yet i declare that its jammed directly after building it.

I suspect you did something wrong, when placing 1 asteroid of each type in the collector, it works flawlessly

[MBas]

correct me if i am wrong, but i do not think this gets any filters for the collector when empty. that would be a jam condition.

It will. I am using recipe requirements from crushers (which is one asteroid chunk per each collector) instead of constant combinator.

[Rauschkind]

i understand that and yet i declare that its jammed directly after building it.

I suspect you did something wrong, when placing 1 asteroid of each type in the collector, it works flawlessly

well, as said, its a smart idea. its just not technically following the rules, its starting jammed and requiring manipulation. it also loses a part of the buffer of the collector which was required to be used.
also, i notice that you set your inserters to enable when X>10 . is this a bug? why not x>1?
it also seems to fill all free buffer with one ore type if it has the chance.

[Rauschkind]

i can not see a bp with this version. i did test the previouis one which i declared valid.

You haven't tested this one :

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.

[mmmPI]

well, as said, its a smart idea. its just not technically following the rules, its starting jammed and requiring manipulation.
also, i notice that you set your inserters to enable when X>10 . is this a bug? why not x>1?
also, it will will all remaining buffer with one ore type if it has the chance.

This is because the rules says at the end the storage must be full, and i'm not sure what that meant , so i made you the collector stay full to try and follor the rules.

here is a version with 1 if you think it's better

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

Copy blueprint

[mmmPI]

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

[Rauschkind]

well, as said, its a smart idea. its just not technically following the rules, its starting jammed and requiring manipulation.
also, i notice that you set your inserters to enable when X>10 . is this a bug? why not x>1?
also, it will will all remaining buffer with one ore type if it has the chance.

This is because the rules says at the end the storage must be full, and i'm not sure what that meant , so i made you the collector stay full to try and follor the rules.

here is a version with 1 if you think it's better

i agree that i should have worded that rule more preicse. the intention was, that no jamming might occour even if all buffers where full and no output could be processed. its not enough to run untill its full, it also has to be able to resume operation after being filled.

this is better, but still will fill all buffer with all ore type which then would not provide other ores when needed, it still sacrifices part of its buffer and it still starts jammed.
again, its a smart solution. the problem with the buffer allocation should be easily fixed by replaxing the 2.1G by 12. however, i still rule this solution invalid

[mmmPI]

i agree that i should have worded that rule more preicse. the intention was, that no jamming might occour even if all buffers where full and no output could be processed. its not enough to run untill its full, it also has to be able to resume operation after being filled.

That's exactly what i was refering to when i asked if there were no risk you'd get overwhelmed by the complexity of rules. You scoffled at my remark , and yet your imprecision costed me the first place.

Who wouldn't be bitter not receiving at least an apology ?

[Rauschkind]

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.

I am biter because my valid solution arrived second and you closed the challange, but it would maybe arrived first if the rules were explained well enough in the first place and i had not lost time asking clarifications, to realize later that such initial imprecision that cost me the time to post would end up costing me the challange

[Rauschkind]

i agree that i should have worded that rule more preicse. the intention was, that no jamming might occour even if all buffers where full and no output could be processed. its not enough to run untill its full, it also has to be able to resume operation after being filled.

That's exactly what i was refering to when i asked if there were no risk you'd get overwhelmed by the complexity of rules. You scoffled at my remark , and yet your imprecision costed me the first place.

Who wouldn't be bitter not receiving at least an apology ?

i do not think so. i think the rules make sense. they clearly state that "rules must be met with all ship storage filled", not "all storage must remain filled", they also clearly state that no jamming might occour. meaning: no jamming might occour, if empty, partial or completely loaded.

[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.

I am biter because my valid solution arrived second and you closed the challange, but it would maybe arrived first if the rules were explained well enough in the first place and i had not lost time asking clarifications, to realize later that such initial imprecision that cost me the time to post would end up costing me the challange

i am willing to accept that this ruling was premature if you provide a solution that beats the one i ruled winer, if your new solution actually meets the requirements.

[mmmPI]

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