Not because they've lost interest, but because the inability to solve it was driving them insane. Months went by, and most balancer makers had giving up on solving the RNAS Conjecture. Turns out the Algolithu architecture only really works with 8-balancers. Neither approach resulted in efficient 16 balancers, to the disappointment of many. Some tried to place two Algolithu 8-balancers side-by-side, others tried to generalize the architecture and interleave two sub-balancers. Seeking to exploit the efficiency of the Algolithu architecture to solve the RNAS conjecture, attempts were made to incorporate it into 16-balancers. Since its discovery the Algolithu architecture quickly became the preferred architecture for 8-balancers. Intuitively it doesn't seem like a good idea, but the resulting 8-balancer was significantly more efficient than conventional 8-balancers. The Algolithu architecture eschewed the conventional wisdom of placing two sub-balancers side-by-side, and instead placed one in the middle of the other. The only candidate was u/Algolithu's novel architecture used in his 8-balancer. But the Yttrium architecture was already extremely efficient, what can possibly be better? It will need to be a different, more efficient architecture. At this point the balancer maker community was convinced that the Yttrium architecture used in the original 16-balancer cannot be used to solve the RNAS Conjecture. The theoretical advancement did little to help solve the practical problems. However despite the enthusiasm, no progress was made.
And with the Square Conjecture no longer in the way, soon there was renewed interest in solving the RNAS Conjecture. This caused quite a stir among balancer makers. This all changed late August, when I disproved the Square Conjecture by posting 32, 64, and 128 balancers that were all shorter than their widths. And judging by the extraordinary difficulties with solving the RNAS Conjecture, the Square Conjecture started gaining acceptance by balancer makers. Still, the empirical evidences were plenty every inline balancer ever created were at least as long as they were wide. They were talking about the "Square Conjecture", a dubious conjecture as it had no mathematical basis. Others were losing faith, believing that they were prevented from making the last tiny optimization because balancers can never be shorter than they are wide. Some still believed it's possible it's only one splitter sticking out after all. "RNAS Conjecture", that a 16-16 balancer can be created with a footprint of 16x15, had become a major unsolved problem.
Factorio balancer full#
0.15 playtesting was in full swing, but nobody achieved further progress in shrinking the balancer. However, days turned into weeks, and weeks turned into months. Very quickly the balancer makers were able to push one splitter in, and it seemed a matter of time before the other was pushed in as well. "It just needs a bit more optimization" was the common sentiment, "in a few days somebody will be able to push those splitters in".Īnd work was underway. The balancer makers did not think much of it. Indeed, one can see that the balancer was almost 16x15, if not for the two pesky splitters sticking out. Unfortunately I could not get the last two splitters further in. However, RNAS pointed out a glaring ugliness: With a footprint of only 16x16, it was a thing of beauty. u/RedditNamesAreShort, as usual, was the first to strike. The new, longer underground belt lengths opened up a new world of more compact balancer designs. The balancer makers were busy too, for a different reason. Factorio 0.15.0 had just been released in experimental, and players were busy trying out all the new recipes.
0 kommentar(er)
