|
Jabor posted:Yes, the "two instructions" are "check for a coin" and "if so, do something". Bonfire Lit posted:The coin counter will only have at most one input high at any one time. Oh my god it took me like an hour but I finally got it working.  I actually found a use for gen. I'm kind of proud of myself. I wonder what else I can do to improve on this design...
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 01:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 08:36 |
|
|
zedprime posted:That's your biggest problem with a delayed start card? I was mostly joking, I was assuming you put two slp 999s because you needed them but I'm not sure why I would think that. Did the patch break stuff? I'm getting weird behavior in some places. Might just be my code but I don't think so. Times have definitely changed so copy + rerun your now-slower solutions. PS: Drinking game: I got a 7 instruction solution. It slows it down and uses two DX300s for me, but it works.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 02:01
|
|
|
Patch notes: Today's update contains the following changes: Instead of 3 fixed test runs and 1 random test run, the game now runs 8 fixed test runs. We're still trying to figure out what needs to be done for verification, but hopefully this will at least be a little less... random. Fixed a bug where you could place some parts on input/output board terminals. Fixed a bug where histograms wouldn’t display for Mac and Linux users. Attempted to fix the PDF opening bug on Linux. Whether it actually works for everyone is yet to be seen. Why is this the hardest part about porting to Linux? Fixed a bug where only comically low resolutions were available to Mac users with Retina screens. Fixed a bug where the breakpoint instruction text was wrong for Mac users. Fixed a bug where you could click the fullscreen button even when it wasn’t visible. Fixed a bug where some developer hotkeys were accidentally left enabled. Fixed a few typos and text content errors. I'm not sure how I feel about verification. Perhaps think there should be two levels. One is the 'customer supplied' one that we have today and can be gamed by precognition. Another would be a complete fuzzer that ensures you meet the spec precisely.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 02:08
|
|
|
I'm seeing some odd behavior with non-blocking XBus connections. I've got a packet of three values coming in, but only two of them are actually going where they need to go - the third gets lost somewhere. In this picture, I'm expecting each of the MCs to have acc equal to 2, but one of them has it equal to -999 instead. Why does this happen?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 02:10
|
|
|
The first one is consumed by your teq instruction. You need to mov it to acc/dat first. I know 
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 02:13
|
|
|
Fuzzy Mammal posted:The first one is consumed by your teq instruction. You need to mov it to acc/dat first. I know  That is dumb as poo poo. Oh well, at least the fix is simple...?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 02:15
|
|
|
Fuzzy Mammal posted:I'm not sure how I feel about verification. Perhaps think there should be two levels. One is the 'customer supplied' one that we have today and can be gamed by precognition. Another would be a complete fuzzer that ensures you meet the spec precisely. It'd be neat if this game gets an addendum campaign, it nods into the personalities present by having a split between total corporate overlord and making bullshit and alternatively needing to make stricter solutions for the dystopic megacorp.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 02:16
|
|
|
Perhaps there should be a score for how closely it meets the spec. You just need to pass the fixed examples to count it as "solved", but the third leaderboard could be about how many cases there are where it fails to do what the customer actually desires. Would be a ton of effort writing something that could evaluate that metric, though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 02:28
|
|
|
Are you expected to use RAM for the Aquaponics puzzle?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 02:36
|
|
|
I think my biggest roadblock is that you can't do real nested conditionals, or at least I haven't figured out a way that doesn't take a million extra commands and status flags. Like, in a regular programming language I might do: pre:if (p0 > 0) {
accvalue(1);
if (p1 > 0) {
datvalue(2);
} else {
datvalue(3);
}
} else {
accvalue(4);
}
pre:tgt p0 0 - mov 4 acc + mov 1 acc + tgt p1 0 + mov 2 dat - mov 3 dat
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 02:37
|
|
|
WhiteHowler posted:I think my biggest roadblock is that you can't do real nested conditionals, or at least I haven't figured out a way that doesn't take a million extra commands and status flags. I'm pretty awful at this myself too so I can't give much advice, but supposedly it's easier to handle with tcp and delegating to helper MCs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 02:38
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:Are you expected to use RAM for the Aquaponics puzzle? It's solvable efficiently w/o any. .
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 02:39
|
|
|
It's relatively easy to do things like "if A and B and C...":code:It's when you want to do complex stuff like "if A and B do X, if A and not B do Y, otherwise do Z", which is usually where I start breaking out the jmp s.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 02:42
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:It's solvable efficiently w/o any. . I'm having a little trouble figuring out what to do once I get the # of station to move to. I need to be able to record what my current and previous stations are, but also do some math to find the distance/how much to move and where, and sub and friends are destructive so acc and dat are unreliable. Am I just misunderstanding the requirements again?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 02:45
|
|
|
One insight that might be helpful is that subtraction is reversible. You can reconstruct the number you "lost" simply by adding things back together again.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 02:50
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:I'm having a little trouble figuring out what to do once I get the # of station to move to. I need to be able to record what my current and previous stations are, but also do some math to find the distance/how much to move and where, and sub and friends are destructive so acc and dat are unreliable. Am I just misunderstanding the requirements again? Do you really need to figure out how many steps you need to move?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 02:54
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:Do you really need to figure out how many steps you need to move? Well, yeah. The test expects the motor to "move" (100-50 or 0-50 pulse) by (destination - origin) steps. For example, if the robot is at Station 2 and you receive an order to move to Station 5, the test data says the motor should take three rightward steps. That means I should make sure my robot takes that many steps. Is that not correct? As for how to do it without figuring out how many steps you need to take, there's no way to programmatically tell what station you're currently at, so you can't exactly iterate until you reach your destination. At least, I don't see an input for it anywhere...
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 02:58
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:Well, yeah. The test expects the motor to "move" (100-50 or 0-50 pulse) by (destination - origin) steps. For example, if the robot is at Station 2 and you receive an order to move to Station 5, the test data says the motor should take three rightward steps. That means I should make sure my robot takes that many steps. Is that not correct? Maybe telling too much: My solution just kept track of what station I was at.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 03:03
|
|
|
You can iterate in conditional loops. You probably want to make a while loop with conditionals. While I am behind my target, travel forward until I'm not. While I am ahead of my target, travel backwards until I'm not. More explicitly, in my solution that's not going to receive any histogram awrads, I had a controller who's job was to keep track of where it is at in acc. It receives updates from the master controller and places it in dat. If acc > dat, I sent a signal to a separate motor controller that moved back one spot, and updated acc accordingly. Same for acc < dat but other direction. Iterate on acc using commands on the motor controller until acc = dat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 03:09
|
|
|
WhiteHowler posted:I think my biggest roadblock is that you can't do real nested conditionals, or at least I haven't figured out a way that doesn't take a million extra commands and status flags.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 04:27
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:This is my biggest problem too. You can't easily reverse conditionals either, because there's no tne,tge,or tle. That would save me a bunch of cycles on a few puzzles. You can flip the order of operands to get effectively X-or-equal, though the tense obviously isn't the same if you're trying to build compound expressions. Jabor fucked around with this message at 04:34 on Oct 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 04:31
|
|
|
http://i.imgur.com/Jd6GIX7.gifv I made this golf game. I also don't know how to make a good recording.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 05:16
|
|
|
probably a stupid question, but can anyone explain to me why i keep getting "part not sleeping" on the mc6000 chip up front on this infrared sensor machine: I've tried a bunch of things to fix it but i keep getting that part sleeping. it runs until it's time to send a signal to the mc4000 that reads the sensor and activates the alarm. as soon as the alarm is supposed to activate i get part not sleeping
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 05:30
|
|
|
You don't ever read the value it sends out. Every time you write to an xbus, the chip will wait for someone to read that value. This doesn't count as sleeping. Since nothing ever reads that value, the chip just gets stuck.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 05:34
|
|
|
Hell Yeah posted:probably a stupid question, but can anyone explain to me why i keep getting "part not sleeping" on the mc6000 chip up front on this infrared sensor machine: The "slx" command only detects that there is a packet being sent on the x0 input - it doesn't actually do anything WITH the input from x0, so the 6000 is trying to send something but it's not getting received.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 05:37
|
|
|
so is moving the x0 input on the second chip after it wakes up into the acc the best way to solve that? just to do something with the signal?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 05:49
|
|
|
WhiteHowler posted:I think my biggest roadblock is that you can't do real nested conditionals, or at least I haven't figured out a way that doesn't take a million extra commands and status flags. pre:tgt p0 0 - mov 4 acc - tcp 0 0 # clear flag so we don't execute mov 3 dat + mov 1 acc + tgt p1 0 + mov 2 dat - mov 3 dat
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 05:52
|
|
|
Hell Yeah posted:so is moving the x0 input on the second chip after it wakes up into the acc the best way to solve that? just to do something with the signal? Anything at all, really. Note that there's a bonus register that silently eats everything you put into it, so the usual instruction for "read from x0 but ignore the value" is mov x0 null.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 05:59
|
|
|
thanks, the chips not sleeping anymore btw now i have a different problem that i think i'll be able to figure out on my own.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 06:06
|
|
|
Instead of passing a dummy value and writing it to null you can often pass the initial loop count or the first value in a chain or some other init type data too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 06:12
|
|
|
I found a way to make a zero power oscillator! A not chip looping back on itself will produce a single 100 value then advance one sleep unit. Pass that plus the output of an xor unit back into the xor unit and voila. To avoid the "pin connected to itself" error break up the paths with or units. Every time an xbus operation happens elsewhere it will flip too, but it's usually predictable whether you'll have an even or odd number of those per sleep cycle.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 06:31
|
|
|
Here's my wireless gaming controller, real simple and straightforward
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 09:16
|
|
|
If they keep fiddling around with the verification, I suspect that before the game comes out of early access they'll nuke the scores database. The histograms people see when they buy the game will need to reflect what they can actually achieve with what they purchased rather than what was possible with a beta version. I was playing last night and realised my biggest problem is thinking in production mode like I'm working. Instead of trying to design something to pass verification, I sit there thinking about edge cases and how to make it robust.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 10:19
|
|
|
Yeah, they blew up the leaderboards on TIS before it left early access, also
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 11:47
|
|
|
New Zealand can eat me posted:Here's my wireless gaming controller, real simple and straightforward You can easily save several lines of code here, and even improve performance. Check e.g. your MC4000 connected to X-Y. code:After removing that line, you notice that both the + branch and - branch end in a "slp 1" instruction, so you can remove the - branch one and remove the condition from the + branch one turning it unconditional. Result: code:Even more efficient (power-wise) would be to replace the slp with slx so the chip isn't constantly polling, but then you'd also have to change the logic of the connecting chip.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 13:56
|
|
|
I'm having an issue with the Virtual Reality Buzzer. My first two lines are: teq x0 -999 - mov x0 dat x0 is connected to the RX pin of the sensor, and I do see the correct signals appearing on the wire. But for some reason, when the second line executes, it always puts -999 into dat. I've also tried: teq x0 1 +mov x0 dat And it also puts -999 into dat when it executes. Which makes no sense, but I think I'm missing something important. Edit: Wait, is this happening because it's asking for a new chunk of data off the XBus every time I reference x0?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 14:43
|
|
|
WhiteHowler posted:I'm having an issue with the Virtual Reality Buzzer. Yes. Using an xbus value in any operation consumes the packet, so typically you need to either save the value to a register or figure out a way to only poll the xbus once. fomo sacer fucked around with this message at 14:57 on Oct 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 14:53
|
|
|
Static Equilibrium posted:Yes. Using an xbus value in any operation consumes the packet, so typically you need to either save the value to a register or figure out a way to only poll the xbus once. I should stop trying to optimize everything and just work on progress, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 15:01
|
|
|
WhiteHowler posted:I'm having an issue with the Virtual Reality Buzzer. Tip to simplifying things: Do you ever get an "off" command that doesn't have a matching "on" command before it? Or two "on" commands in a row?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 15:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 08:36 |
|
|
Jesus Christ. I was just about to post "I wish labels didn't have to be on their own lines" when I realised I'd just assumed that out of nowhere, despite knowing it wasn't the case in TIS-100. http://i.imgur.com/f9FW2.mp4 Edit: time to re-do all my branching dumpster fire loops with JMPs GotLag fucked around with this message at 16:03 on Oct 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 16:00
|
|
