???

Report bugs, registration issues, or just suggest some new features in this thread! Guaranteed to have at least 10% more dev attention than other threads!

Re: ???

Postby zhyrek on Tue Jul 17, 2012 9:08 am

rianbay812 wrote:It seems to do that in several areas, plus the places you circled. Although they aren't exact inverse functions. Why is it only repeated in random corners of the graph?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal

"Fractals are typically self-similar patterns, where self-similar means they are "the same from near as from far" Fractals may be exactly the same at every scale, or as illustrated in Figure 1, they may be nearly the same at different scales. The definition of fractal goes beyond self-similarity per se to exclude trivial self-similarity and include the idea of a detailed pattern repeating itself."

And watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_GBwuYuOOs
You will notice that the same patterns appear again and again
User avatar
zhyrek
 
Posts: 3494
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 4:11 pm
Location: RPI

Re: ???

Postby zhyrek on Tue Jul 17, 2012 2:42 pm

I'm also able to replicate the effect in modified designs of the OP one: http://www.fantasticcontraption.com/?designId=11775181

Delete one of the wood rods, and it "works" (not really, it completely misses the general area of the goal)

However, i suspect the patterns of these would be different than those I have found.

Edit: Aaaand... 0-29 is done
Image
User avatar
zhyrek
 
Posts: 3494
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 4:11 pm
Location: RPI

Re: ???

Postby jdccdj1 on Tue Jul 17, 2012 10:02 pm

zhyrek wrote:Hypothesis: The design fails if the bottom half has one more extra wood rod than the top half. The design succeeds if they are equal.


it only succeeds up to 6, then it fails and wood, water, or wheels all have the same outcome...
also, i got conflicting numbers thru 3 test samples:

went from 1 - 22 wood rods adding 1 at a time above the imaginary line and no wood rods below the imaginary line...
recorded which designs and # of rods passed and which designs and # of rods failed...
all 3 times i did this, the passes and fails were different with the only common # being 2 rods failed in all 3 tests...
also, i tried 1 test starting with 22 wood rods above the imaginary line and no wood rods below the imaginary line removing
one at a time and got the same outcome as the 3rd test...have no idea why different results or why this glitch exists...
User avatar
jdccdj1
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 7:59 am
Location: hangin' with Roland of Gilead

Re: ???

Postby zhyrek on Tue Jul 17, 2012 10:18 pm

jdccdj1 wrote:
zhyrek wrote:Hypothesis: The design fails if the bottom half has one more extra wood rod than the top half. The design succeeds if they are equal.


it only succeeds up to 6, then it fails and wood, water, or wheels all have the same outcome...
also, i got conflicting numbers thru 3 test samples:

went from 1 - 22 wood rods adding 1 at a time above the imaginary line and no wood rods below the imaginary line...
recorded which designs and # of rods passed and which designs and # of rods failed...
all 3 times i did this, the passes and fails were different with the only common # being 2 rods failed in all 3 tests...
also, i tried 1 test starting with 22 wood rods above the imaginary line and no wood rods below the imaginary line removing
one at a time and got the same outcome as the 3rd test...have no idea why different results or why this glitch exists...

Yea jdc, that was my old hypothesis, back before I did the graph.

Also, I am unsure if having the wood rods attached to each other affects the results. Is it possible you might have done that?
Edit: I've tested it a bit, and it seems that connecting the wood rods has no effect on the results. So there must be some other reason your data is variate. Hmm... mac or pc?
User avatar
zhyrek
 
Posts: 3494
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 4:11 pm
Location: RPI

Re: ???

Postby jdccdj1 on Tue Jul 17, 2012 10:32 pm

pc..i did connect the rods...also, did some experimenting with rod orientation...try 8 connected rods
horizontal above..fail?...try 8 con above and below..fail?..now try 8 con vertical bisecting the imaginary line..pass?
if all 3 are true for you, then i don't think it's my system that gave me erroneous results...it could my error...will try
again in the morning...but this is a cool mystery and i like what you've done so far!
User avatar
jdccdj1
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 7:59 am
Location: hangin' with Roland of Gilead

Re: ???

Postby rianbay812 on Wed Jul 18, 2012 8:21 am

while we're on the subject of weird glitches...
http://www.fantasticcontraption.com/?designId=11775720
wtf
User avatar
rianbay812
 
Posts: 1792
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 5:55 pm
Location: Tacoma-ish, Washington

Re: ???

Postby zhyrek on Wed Jul 18, 2012 9:03 am

rianbay812 wrote:while we're on the subject of weird glitches...
http://www.fantasticcontraption.com/?designId=11775720
wtf

O.o

jdccdj1 wrote:pc..i did connect the rods...also, did some experimenting with rod orientation...try 8 connected rods
horizontal above..fail?...try 8 con above and below..fail?..now try 8 con vertical bisecting the imaginary line..pass?
if all 3 are true for you, then i don't think it's my system that gave me erroneous results...it could my error...will try
again in the morning...but this is a cool mystery and i like what you've done so far!

No, I have a pc as well, and theres no evidence that 7/vista makes a difference. So I guess that idea is struck down

Hmm... I might have an explanation for the bisecting rods. Perhaps a rod that exists in both top and bottom counts as 1/2 top, 1/2 bottom? I'm gonna test that against my graph, see what might be up

Edit: After about 12 spotchecks, it seems to be a remarkably accurate prediction. Also, having 1/2 values for this allows us to have 2x better resolution. :D

Edit2: Not really for the 2x resolution, since we can never have just half, so we cant have, say, 2 rods in the top, and 1/2 rod in the bottom.
Last edited by zhyrek on Wed Jul 18, 2012 9:13 am, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
zhyrek
 
Posts: 3494
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 4:11 pm
Location: RPI

Re: ???

Postby jdccdj1 on Wed Jul 18, 2012 9:08 am

rianbay812 wrote:while we're on the subject of weird glitches...
http://www.fantasticcontraption.com/?designId=11775720
wtf


rainbay-
this one probably has to do with the over-lapping of the static/dynamic (drag) and the
penetration of the dynamic into the water rod. the dynamic and rod are trying to separate,
but held back loosely by the tightness until enough "energy" builds up to overcome the
drag...kinda like the energy discharged when a wound spring is released...anyway, that's
my guess

zhyrek - cool!...gotta run for the time being, but i look forward to what you find out
User avatar
jdccdj1
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 7:59 am
Location: hangin' with Roland of Gilead

Re: ???

Postby zhyrek on Wed Jul 18, 2012 9:30 am

Actually, the graph seems to be isometrically patterned, and the addition of adding a half to both sides allows me to restructure the graph to BE isometric.

That's what Im doing next
User avatar
zhyrek
 
Posts: 3494
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 4:11 pm
Location: RPI

Re: ???

Postby jdccdj1 on Wed Jul 18, 2012 4:36 pm

hey zhyrek-

i think i have enough data to predict passes and failures ie. how many rods above or below
to produce a pass or fail...
i did 2 tests to collect data but found a pattern:
1st test with 1 rod above and 1-51 rods below
2nd test with 2 rods above and 1-52 rods below

with this data i was able to predict let's say a (3,9) as a fail or a (4,23) as a fail or a (5,36) as a pass, etc.
if you want the data, i can pm you with it
User avatar
jdccdj1
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 7:59 am
Location: hangin' with Roland of Gilead

Re: ???

Postby zhyrek on Wed Jul 18, 2012 7:14 pm

jdccdj1 wrote:hey zhyrek-

i think i have enough data to predict passes and failures ie. how many rods above or below
to produce a pass or fail...
i did 2 tests to collect data but found a pattern:
1st test with 1 rod above and 1-51 rods below
2nd test with 2 rods above and 1-52 rods below

with this data i was able to predict let's say a (3,9) as a fail or a (4,23) as a fail or a (5,36) as a pass, etc.
if you want the data, i can pm you with it

I would very much like the data, and if it's not too much to ask, a few example designs showing how you placed the wood rods.
I'd like to compare it with my own data :D
User avatar
zhyrek
 
Posts: 3494
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 4:11 pm
Location: RPI

Re: ???

Postby dmasters on Thu Jan 02, 2014 3:42 pm

So I was wondering... Did anyone figure anything else out with this glitch? It is a very cool and mysterious topic, I am just curious whether or not Zhyrek ever did anything with Foss' data.
User avatar
dmasters
 
Posts: 212
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 6:44 am
Location: My mancave

Re: ???

Postby zhyrek on Fri Jan 03, 2014 12:57 am

He sent me the data, which I confirmed to be the same as mine (with one exception, turned out to just have been a data point put down wrong whoops!)

Looking at this with new eyes: When I said that rods that are half top half bottom count as 1/2 and 1/2 for the graph, it leads me to believe that this glitch is sensitive to the number of JOINTS on top/bottom. Regular rods give 2 on either the top or bottom. bisecting rods give 1 top, 1 bottom.

Edit: this thing I just said has no way of being tested, since its impossible to make a rod with less/more than two joints
User avatar
zhyrek
 
Posts: 3494
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 4:11 pm
Location: RPI

Re: ???

Postby dmasters on Fri Jan 03, 2014 1:03 am

Wow, that certainly gives a new perspective to this glitch. Also, when I was looking through my levels on my "Old" level set, on this level I noticed that the small dynamic squares on the right are also affected by this glitch. When played without any contraption, they all fall down, but on certain saved designs for that level they get stuck. Apparently, it is not just contraptions that are affected by this, but dynamic pieces too.

Edit: Although that theory is untestable, it does seem quite plausible.

Edit: And on the dynamic glitch, it is not a simple pass/fail like the contraption one, but with each piece you add the squares fall in a slightly different way :confused:
Last edited by dmasters on Fri Jan 03, 2014 1:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
dmasters
 
Posts: 212
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 6:44 am
Location: My mancave

Re: ???

Postby zhyrek on Fri Jan 03, 2014 1:10 am

That level is astoundingly weird:
0 rods: All pieces fall, except one block that gets caught on one of the small green pieces
1-2 rods: Stuck
3 rods: Every piece falls, even the one that previously got stuck

More than two modes wat

Edit: My old data vanished when I borked old computer, but I did finish about 40% of the isometric data again. Maybe I'll try to finish that in a few days
User avatar
zhyrek
 
Posts: 3494
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 4:11 pm
Location: RPI

Re: ???

Postby dmasters on Fri Jan 03, 2014 1:13 am

Aaaaagh this is a lot more complex than I thought it was... It is 3am here and I should probably get to bed. Maybe some realization will come to me when I'm not half asleep, but this is some crazy stuff... :???:

Edit: Ok, that would be great. I am really interested in this glitch for some reason haha
User avatar
dmasters
 
Posts: 212
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 6:44 am
Location: My mancave

Re: ???

Postby overkill7 on Fri Jan 03, 2014 7:27 am

zhyrek wrote:Looking at this with new eyes: When I said that rods that are half top half bottom count as 1/2 and 1/2 for the graph, it leads me to believe that this glitch is sensitive to the number of JOINTS on top/bottom. Regular rods give 2 on either the top or bottom. bisecting rods give 1 top, 1 bottom.

Edit: this thing I just said has no way of being tested, since its impossible to make a rod with less/more than two joints

If joints are the key, then wheels (and goal blocks) provide 5 joints which can be arranged as (5,0), (4,1), (3,2)*, (2,3)*, (1,4), and (0,5). This won't provide single-joint granularity at (0,0), but it should prove more than sufficient to test your hypothesis.

* these combinations require using rectangular goal blocks or rotating wheels with FCML
overkill7
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Sun Nov 01, 2009 12:19 am

Re: ???

Postby zhyrek on Fri Jan 03, 2014 12:37 pm

Yeah I tested those and it seems like they don't follow my joint hypothesis if those 5 joints count

However, the wheels do act as if only the top/bottom joints count: fully top or bottom acts as 2 joints top/bottom, while in the middle acts as 1 top 1 bottom
User avatar
zhyrek
 
Posts: 3494
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 4:11 pm
Location: RPI

Re: ???

Postby marjo on Sat Jan 04, 2014 9:37 pm

What about a pin? Could those possibly act as one joint?
User avatar
marjo
 
Posts: 305
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 3:56 pm

Re: ???

Postby zhyrek on Sun Jan 05, 2014 5:26 pm

marjo wrote:What about a pin? Could those possibly act as one joint?

Tried it, pretty sure it still has two joints, the two joints are just at the same point
User avatar
zhyrek
 
Posts: 3494
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 4:11 pm
Location: RPI

PreviousNext

Return to Feedback and Problems



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

cron