Manufactoria



  • Possibly everyone else played this out a year ago, because I'm usually late on such things, but:

    Manufactoria



  • I'm currently playing Pragmatica, which is somewhat similar but not quite. Actually, I'm stuck at a level and can't progress.

    I actually started implementing a Manufactoria virtual machine to help me test puzzle solutions without having to use the mouse so much. But then I Iost interest.



  • @intertravel said:

    Possibly everyone else played this out a year ago, because I'm usually late on such things, but:

    Manufactoria

     

    I dragged a conveyor from the round hatch to the square hatch, pressed Play and then a thing went to it and then nothing much really happened. I then clicked a button with a strange incomprehensible sickle-like symbol on it as it was the only button on the screen. I think it took me to a custom level editor. Or leaderboard. I think.I'm not sure what Iwas supposed to do there.

    My point is that this interface is possibly worse than Blender's.

     



  • @dhromed said:

    @intertravel said:

    Possibly everyone else played this out a year ago, because I'm usually late on such things, but:

    Manufactoria

     

    I dragged a conveyor from the round hatch to the square hatch, pressed Play and then a thing went to it and then nothing much really happened. I then clicked a button with a strange incomprehensible sickle-like symbol on it as it was the only button on the screen. I think it took me to a custom level editor. Or leaderboard. I think.I'm not sure what Iwas supposed to do there.

    My point is that this interface is possibly worse than Blender's.

     

    Well, it's been a while. From what I remember, the interface isn't particularly intuitive, but it's simple enough that I'm sure you can work it out - I did. At least there are mouse-over tooltips to tell you. The 'sickle' is a badly-drawn 'return to main menu' button. There's a tree structure on the main menu (which I think is where you should be taken back to after doing a level, but maybe not) with the next levels in. Green ones you've done, white are unlocked but not completed. The first few levels are tutorials to show you how the game works. Worth persevering with, in my opinion, despite the unbrilliant interface - a bit 'what the hell am I supposed to do here' to start with, but only for the first few levels.



  • @intertravel said:

    Possibly everyone else played this out a year ago, because I'm usually late on such things, but:

    Manufactoria

    So... it's basically S.C.Out, but it's been long enough they figure everybody's forgotten about that game and they can rip it off.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @intertravel said:
    Possibly everyone else played this out a year ago, because I'm usually late on such things, but:

    Manufactoria

    So... it's basically S.C.Out, but it's been long enough they figure everybody's forgotten about that game and they can rip it off.

    Doesn't sound like it, going by what Wikipedia has to say about S.C.Out, although I never played it. This one's a Turing machine thing.



  • @intertravel said:

    @blakeyrat said:
    @intertravel said:
    Possibly everyone else played this out a year ago, because I'm usually late on such things, but:

    Manufactoria

    So... it's basically S.C.Out, but it's been long enough they figure everybody's forgotten about that game and they can rip it off.

    Doesn't sound like it, going by what Wikipedia has to say about S.C.Out, although I never played it. This one's a Turing machine thing.

    Hm. The tutorial made it look really similar, but maybe it's not. I just have to show off my knowledge of obscure games, and simultaneously express my disgust at how many Flash games are rip-offs pretending to be original and giving no credit to the original.



  • Well, duh, it's so they can claim "Huh? I've been living in a cave the past 30 years! How am I supposed to have heard of Pac-Man?!"



  • ...speaking of which, I wonder how much Google paid for the rights to Pac-Man for their playable anniversary logo they did earlier this year... Or did they just pirate it like everyone else and figure Namco or Atari or whoever owns Pac-Man now wouldn't bother suing?



  • @ekolis said:

    ...speaking of which, I wonder how much Google paid for the rights to Pac-Man for their playable anniversary logo they did earlier this year... Or did they just pirate it like everyone else and figure Namco or Atari or whoever owns Pac-Man now wouldn't bother suing?
    Which rights? Not a rhetorical question: I think the answer's a lot more complicated than you're assuming. This might be one of those cases where suing would only enrich IP lawyers.



  • @intertravel said:

    Doesn't sound like it, going by what Wikipedia has to say about S.C.Out, although I never played it. This one's a Turing machine thing.

    Nah. FSM. You don't actually do anything with the tape except read it once. Basically it's a set of exercises from a first year undergrad course with annoying restrictions on layout.



  • @pjt33 said:

    @intertravel said:

    Doesn't sound like it, going by what Wikipedia has to say about S.C.Out, although I never played it. This one's a Turing machine thing.

    Nah. FSM. You don't actually do anything with the tape except read it once. Basically it's a set of exercises from a first year undergrad course with annoying restrictions on layout.

    Are we still talking about Manufactoria? Once you get past the tutorial levels, you need to read from and write to the tape.



  • @intertravel said:

    @pjt33 said:

    @intertravel said:

    Doesn't sound like it, going by what Wikipedia has to say about S.C.Out, although I never played it. This one's a Turing machine thing.

    Nah. FSM. You don't actually do anything with the tape except read it once. Basically it's a set of exercises from a first year undergrad course with annoying restrictions on layout.

    Are we still talking about Manufactoria? Once you get past the tutorial levels, you need to read from and write to the tape.
    For example, the levels I'm currently at (in the browser I currently have open):

    Accept: (tapes with) Some number of blue then the same number of red.

    Output: The input, but with the last symbol moved to the front.

    Output: the input, but with all the blues moved to the front.

     

    You can only read from the start and write and the end; reading consumes a symbol, obviously. It's not so easy.

     



  • Accept: (tapes with) Some number of blue then the same number of red.

    IIRC I solved this using a layout that implemented this algorithm:

    
    loop {
    	// Each iteration collapses the middle blue-red pair.
    
    // Write green marker for end of sequence
    write(green)
    
    if read(green)? {
    	// sequence is empty
    	success()
    }
    
    if !read(blue)? {
    	// sequence must start with blue
    	reject()
    }
    while read(blue)? {
    	// memorize previous blue for next iteration
    	write(blue)
    }
    
    if !read(red)? {
    	// blue followed by something other than a blue or red
    	reject()
    }
    // don't write previous blue or this red
    
    while read(red)? {
    	// write other reds for next iteration
    	write(red)
    }
    
    if !read(green) {
    	// Bad end of sequence
    	reject()
    }
    

    }



  • @Zecc said:

    Accept: (tapes with) Some number of blue then the same number of red.

    IIRC I solved this using a layout that implemented this algorithm:

    
    loop {
    	// Each iteration collapses the middle blue-red pair.
    
    // Write green marker for end of sequence
    write(green)
    
    if read(green)? {
    	// sequence is empty
    	success()
    }
    
    if !read(blue)? {
    	// sequence must start with blue
    	reject()
    }
    while read(blue)? {
    	// memorize previous blue for next iteration
    	write(blue)
    }
    
    if !read(red)? {
    	// blue followed by something other than a blue or red
    	reject()
    }
    // don't write previous blue or this red
    
    while read(red)? {
    	// write other reds for next iteration
    	write(red)
    }
    
    if !read(green) {
    	// Bad end of sequence
    	reject()
    }
    

    }

    It's simpler just to take the first blue, then the first red each time. How many pieces did you end up with?



  •  I moved this whole deal to General Discussion, btw.



  • @intertravel said:

    It's simpler just to take the first blue, then the first red each time. How many pieces did you end up with?
    I don't remember how many pieces I used. It's been a while and I'd have to reboot to another OS to see it.

    As for taking the first blue and first red... I think you may be right. I can't think of any incorrect edge cases.

    I really like this game. The puzzles are challenging because they force you to think differently. You can't make random-access reads and writes, so you can't just set a flag to and to check it every time you want. You need to figure out how to manipulate the tape using strictly FIFO semantics, while working with a sort of two-dimensional instruction pointer with three-way branching.

     



  • @intertravel said:

    @pjt33 said:

    @intertravel said:

    Doesn't sound like it, going by what Wikipedia has to say about S.C.Out, although I never played it. This one's a Turing machine thing.

    Nah. FSM. You don't actually do anything with the tape except read it once. Basically it's a set of exercises from a first year undergrad course with annoying restrictions on layout.

    Are we still talking about Manufactoria? Once you get past the tutorial levels, you need to read from and write to the tape.
     

    Ah, ok. I didn't realise I was still in the tutorial levels, but I must be. If it gets more interesting in later levels I may go back to it.



  • I played that game, completed all but like 3 levels or so.  Got bored, but it was a fun distraction.



  • Fun game.  It'll keep you up late if you let it.  I managed to finish all of the normal "tech-tree", which unlocks a fairly satisfying ending "sequence" and 3 "secret" missions.

    Then a friend showed me how to create custom puzzles.  Custom puzzles aren't as advanced as the built-in (since all you can define are test cases), but there are some painful ones out there (such as implementing RLE).



  • This thread caused me to stay up way too late the other night.

    The one that impressed me the most so far was the "Output: The input, but with the last symbol first" (puzzle #28). I came up with an implementation that worked, but it kept making the Malevolence Engine (that, seriously, is worth it) kept running out of patience (but when I manually ran the test I got a "Pass!"  I couldn't figure out how to get it go faster before falling asleep at the keyboard.



  • @too_many_usernames said:

    This thread caused me to stay up way too late the other night.

    The one that impressed me the most so far was the "Output: The input, but with the last symbol first" (puzzle #28). I came up with an implementation that worked, but it kept making the Malevolence Engine (that, seriously, is worth it) kept running out of patience (but when I manually ran the test I got a "Pass!"  I couldn't figure out how to get it go faster before falling asleep at the keyboard.

    From what I remember, you only get the 'ran out of patience' message when there's an infinite loop, but I may be wrong - and it may depend which version you're using, although I assume it's the one I linked so that's not it.

    Anyway, one of the things I noticed when playing the game is that some of my solutions were rather neat, and others were a complete mess. I was never quite clear if that was to do with the puzzles, or because I had some good solutions, and some which were merely passable. Robomecha - the level you mentioned, don't know where you got the level number from - turns out to have been quite nice looking:

    robomecha



  • @intertravel said:

    From what I remember, you only get the 'ran out of patience' message when there's an infinite loop, but I may be wrong

    I think it has to do with how long the tests take to run, so naturally you'd get this message on infinite loops.  On one of my machines, even though my tests succeeded and it unlocked the next puzzle, I still had a "out of patience" message.

    I glanced through the test results summary, and it told me that my machine worked but was very slow and I could do better.  Since I don't accept criticism from machines, I tried again and found a more efficient solution.



  • @intertravel said:


    robomecha

     

    Aw, flipin' 'ell! I didn't realize you could configure branches and writers to do inline copies like that.  (My general approach was the same, but I took many more conveyors to do it.)   Yay for lack of documentation that arrows just imply exit but don't constrain input.

     



  • @too_many_usernames said:

    w, flipin' 'ell! I didn't realize you could configure branches and writers to do inline copies like that.  (My general approach was the same, but I took many more conveyors to do it.)   Yay for lack of documentation that arrows just imply exit but don't constrain input.
    Not sure what you mean by inline copies, but yeah, the documentation could be clearer. It does show that you can enter from any direction in the very first tutorial, but it's implicit, not explicit.



  • @too_many_usernames said:

    @intertravel said:


    robomecha

     

    Aw, flipin' 'ell! I didn't realize you could configure branches and writers to do inline copies like that.  (My general approach was the same, but I took many more conveyors to do it.)   Yay for lack of documentation that arrows just imply exit but don't constrain input.

    I'm surprised you didn't just try it out, if only to see what would happen.

    Anyway, I'm pretty sure my solution looked like that, but centered on the screen.



  • @too_many_usernames said:

    Yay for lack of documentation that arrows just imply exit but don't constrain input.

    Actually, input does matter sometimes, if you are bridging conveyors.

    Place a conveyer pointing down, then hold shift and place a conveyer pointing right on the same tile.  Anything coming in from the top will follow the first conveyor, anything coming in from the left will follow the second.

    This is documented, but unfortunately it's hidden in-game, on the puzzle screen, in plain sight, at the bottom of the window, while the conveyor tool is selected ("shift to bridge").  So I didn't see it until after I really needed it and had to solve one of the more difficult puzzles without it.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @boog said:

    Actually, input does matter sometimes, if you are bridging conveyors.

    Place a conveyer pointing down, then hold shift and place a conveyer pointing right on the same tile.  Anything coming in from the top will follow the first conveyor, anything coming in from the left will follow the second.

    This is documented, but unfortunately it's hidden in-game, on the puzzle screen, in plain sight, at the bottom of the window, while the conveyor tool is selected ("shift to bridge").  So I didn't see it until after I really needed it and had to solve one of the more difficult puzzles without it.

    WHAT? Suddenly, this game becomes tolerable.



  • @Weng said:

    @boog said:

    Actually, input does matter sometimes, if you are bridging conveyors.

    Place a conveyer pointing down, then hold shift and place a conveyer pointing right on the same tile.  Anything coming in from the top will follow the first conveyor, anything coming in from the left will follow the second.

    This is documented, but unfortunately it's hidden in-game, on the puzzle screen, in plain sight, at the bottom of the window, while the conveyor tool is selected ("shift to bridge").  So I didn't see it until after I really needed it and had to solve one of the more difficult puzzles without it.

    WHAT? Suddenly, this game becomes tolerable.
    I saw a comment on a Manufactoria forum from someone who hadn't discovered bridging until after they had completed, IIRC, Ophanim (second of the three bonus levels). I wasn't sure whether to be amazed by their ability to get so far without it, or horrified that they'd spent so much time on the game without noticing it.

    I also saw a similar comment from someone who hadn't realised that you could use the space bar to convert a branch piece into its mirror image.



  • @Zecc said:

    I'm currently playing Pragmatica, which is somewhat similar but not quite. Actually, I'm stuck at a level and can't progress.


    Well, thanks for wasting my afternoon. Which level are you stuck at?

    I had a fair bit of trouble with the "destroy the other two robots then make your way to the exit" one, but got there in the end :)



  • @Scarlet Manuka said:

    Well, thanks for wasting my afternoon. Which level are you stuck at?

    I had a fair bit of trouble with the "destroy the other two robots then make your way to the exit" one, but got there in the end :)

    Sounds like that could be the one I'm stuck at. I need to program Group 1 robots to kill Group 2 robots while letting the Group 3 robot reach the exit.

    I'm currently struggling with a surviving Group 1 robot killing the Group 3 robot.

     



  • @Scarlet Manuka said:

    I saw a comment on a Manufactoria forum from someone who hadn't discovered bridging until after they had completed, IIRC, Ophanim (second of the three bonus levels). I wasn't sure whether to be amazed by their ability to get so far without it, or horrified that they'd spent so much time on the game without noticing it.

    I completed all three bonus puzzles before I discovered bridging.  Horrified doesn't begin to describe how I felt when I learned about bridging.

    @Scarlet Manuka said:

    I also saw a similar comment from someone who hadn't realised that you could use the space bar to convert a branch piece into its mirror image.

    On the plus side, I found this feature shortly after getting the branching tool, so it was never really a problem.



  • @Zecc said:

    Sounds like that could be the one I'm stuck at. I need to program Group 1 robots to kill Group 2 robots while letting the Group 3 robot reach the exit.

    I'm currently struggling with a surviving Group 1 robot killing the Group 3 robot.

    That sounds like Assassins! in the Inspection contract. If so, this worked for me:

    See Lit: Turn Right

    See Wall: Reverse

    Start: Wait



  • Incidentally I'm now stuck on the one a couple of levels later, where you have to get the four crates onto the four lights before the other robot goes through.



  • Yep, that did the trick. I'm now stuck at the same level.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.