Chronic Logic

Just to keep the thread going :

In my mind, slanted deck is a bug. Not because it is unrealistic, but it appears incorrectly in the designer section, therefore unintended by CL.

A brief note on point 2. Unless you build perfectly flat bridge deck, your train will ALWAYS leave the track at some point. You just knocked out 90% of the record bridges and the main advantage of complex mode.

Personally all these rules just make me want to build dirty bridges. Anything goes apart from obvious bugs.

 

Mendel replied:
If you go by CLs intentions, the whole discussion is moot, because you'd then simply adopt the contest policy for the clean records.
Fine by me. With all this discussion going on it makes me appreciate the simplicity of CL's ruleset for the comp. It gets my vote (even moreso if the 'settling' time was resolved programatically)

24) You wonder when the newly crowned Pontifex Maximus will tackle world peace

As an exercise in level design, I attempted to build a level to replicate the Firth of Forth crossing. Here's a http://vrworld.qgl.org/pics/firthofforth.JPG" target="_blank">somewhat weak attempt to build a replica. Anyone else try to make replica bridges ?

To me the game is all about problem solving. When I first saw the suspended anchor points and one-way bridges I went "Cool !!". Not because of the unrealistic nature, but because it added a new dynamic into the solution space. Some of the levels I have been impressed with most are the levels exhibiting these properties because you know the solution is going to be non-standard, and could even break down assumptions you unconsciously built up during the easy levels.

Maybe they needed to be seperated a little more, as mendel mentioned, but I'd like to say that not everyone sees them as a 'hindrance'

The tension is killing me!

Ahahaha, Don't "Collapse under the strain" http://www.pontifex2.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':D'>

(Edited by VRBones at 8:29 pm on Oct. 25, 2001)

Would CL be able to clarify point 2 of the rules ?
2. Timing cannot be a factor for your bridge beyond the initial settling point. In other words, we don't want you to say, "It works when you run it 2.5 seconds after the simulation starts." We will run the train a few seconds after the simulation begins to test it.
While doing a lot of tests I noticed some bridges took quite a while to settle, sometimes as much as 30 seconds. Running the train before then has a random chance of breaking. While the initial section seems to imply that you will wait for the bridge to 'settle', the last section implies that this would be expected to be fairly quick (a few seconds).  I've got no problems building a bridge that will withstand a quicker starting time, but at a cost of ~񙇈 extra, it seems a pretty large chunk of cash given up to satisfy a 'fuzzy' rule. Would you be able to state something like 'The settling period is expected to be X' or 'The settlng period is complete when there is no movement visible' or are we able to include screenshots or other proof that the bridge stands (which seems to be what you don't want from the middle section of the rule)

Quote: from brett on 2:58 pm on Oct. 24, 2001
I'd like to see everybody take a screenshot of their bridge (in the edit screen) and let everybody look at all the different designs when the contest is over... especially the winner.
I'd prolly expect CL to make up a bit of a page after the comp with pics etc of the winning bridges, plus possibly some standout design ones. In any event I've got a pic standing by for the thread that's bound to start after the comp is over ;)

Quote: from ChronicLogic on 9:59 am on Oct. 22, 2001
Regarding the settling period:  We will wait until we feel the bridge is "settled" before we test the bridge.  We do not want to specify an exact time, nor do we feel like we should.  Our point is that we don't want bridges that only work under certain conditions (TT'ability being one of them),   we want bridges that, once settled, will always work.  
Thanks for that, much clearer.
The reason we said we'd wait a few seconds, is that we have yet to see a bridge that takes more than that to settle, but in the event we do, we'll give it the time it needs.
I guess you're not sitting in front of a PII/300 then http://www.pontifex2.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':D'>

Congrats Calis, very nice design. That was like a beginning test I did but never got it to stand, didn't think of the internal cable crossbrace. Fantastic!

I'm sure I joined the slew of people around the ๠,000 mark with a similar arched design. From tests it seemed that the lower the arch the cheaper, so I was content to submit a http://vrworld.qgl.org/pics/vrbcompstress.jpg" target="_blank">rather wobbly arch weighing in at http://vrworld.qgl.org/pics/vrbcompdesign.jpg" target="_blank">๣,884. Congrats to Grey & crew to find cheaper, higher solutions.

Overall I must say that the comp has been VERY entertaining, if somewhat stressful. I think that the decision to limit the bridges to 1 and discourage talking has worked in the comps favour. I'm pretty impressed with 108 entries, more than I thought were on this forum. Hopefully some statistics will also show how varied the designs were.

Or better yet, post a link to it if you have a site you can upload it to. That way you don't have to continually download all the pics just to see the new ones at the bottom.

200 - Pontifex Minumus
Eeheheheh - scho schmall ;)

I didn't mind it at all, and it also encourages you to think laterally. If you think floating anchors are wierd, wait 'til you get to some really funky problems along the way ;)

Quote: from Brinx on 9:23 am on Oct. 20, 2001
Hey VRBones! Don't I know you from the Lionhead channel? http://www.pontifex2.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'>Uhh yep, that'd be me (strangely enough I've never seen another VRBones ;) )

I usually look at the anchor points and try to 'visualize' the different types of bridges in place, then go for the one the seemed the most structurally sound. Typically this would be suspension if it has an anchor point outside of the bridge area, supported arch if there is anchors inside the bridge area. Once you get into the complex ones though the standard bridge types don't apply, but you can usually still 'visualize' the end product.  

Then again, Falkon2's bridges end up a lot cheaper than mine, so mebbe I'll stop thinking and start spamming http://www.pontifex2.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':D'>