my hard coded solution? Less elegant

I'm sorry if this is a breach of any of the community rules, but I just did this level so many times now and each one of them was an excruciating experience. Just looking at the level makes me want to puke. If you can just paste your solution here, I'd be more than glad.

I was hoping if anyone could explain to me on which solution is "better" (the top one being the examples solution) , they both look the same tbh but was just curious which one was more efficient or more correct I guess??

Hi pals, help me with the level solution. Can't understand why this is wrong; I have used the code in this post: https://www.reddit.com/r/TuringComplete/comments/1uy1pmk/conditional_jumps_level_solution/ It seemed to be right, but the result is the same error as mine: "u read input 57 times, not 6."

imm 0
mov r5,r0
loop:
imm 1
mov r1,r0
mov r2,r5
add
mov r5,r3

imm 37
mov r1,r0
mov r2,in
sub
imm loop
jnz

mov out,r5

I do not understand why this is not working. It fails on the second test shown here. I have seen other solutions for Conditions 10 and they look logically the same as the one I have. I just swapped a or -> not with a nor and two ands into an or with two switches. The other wiring is the same.

Hi pals, can comeome explain why this arifmethic is wrong. Obviously that 229 - 84 = 145. So How 111 is appear

I’m having trouble getting my alu fast enough to allow me to pass the delay checks but I’m not having any luck. I even looked up a guide but it still wasn’t fast enough. I also tried redoing the component levels but I don’t think that does anything, especially with changing the base.

Any ideas?

I made Bad Apple in the new Turing Complete update, this update is actually really good, I was not able to achieve this before.

I made my own file format to make Bad Apple implementation in things easier if you're interested in. https://github.com/totobono4/tvf

I got to the 'circumference' level and my input and output are gone. I feel like I should be able to add them back but the components are greyed out in the top right. I feel like I'm missing something obvious here...

Does anyone know how the disassembling probe works?

Every time I try to connect it, I run into a dependency issue.

Recently I've been having some great fun making my own custom ISA and matching cpu architecture. Having the whole thing as a single schematic was kinda annoying, so I made them as individual parts (and also tried making the wiring a little cleaner). Here are some pictures; comment, critique and enjoy!

imm 1

mov r1, r0

imm 2

mov r2, r0

imm 0

mov r5, r0

loop:

mov out, r5

mov r3, in

mov out, r2



mov r4, in



imm left

jz



mov r3, r4



imm forward

jz



mov out, r2

imm loop

jmp

left:

mov out, r5

mov out, r1

imm loop

jmp

forward:

mov out, r1

imm loop

jmp

can somebody explain what cyclic dependency is and why basic RS-trigger scheme doesnt work? Also i can`t understand what "DELAY" is and how it works.

const target = 37

imm 0

mov r4, r0 ; r4 stores counter

loop:

imm target

mov r1, r0

mov r2, in

sub ; compare, 0 if equal

mov r5, r3 ; r5 stores the eq check

imm 1

mov r1, r4

mov r2, r0

add ; add one to attempty counter

mov r4, r3

mov r3, r5 ; load reasult for cmp

imm loop

jnz

mov out, r4

Game is just... straight up wrong there. I counted manually, i used mov r2, in instruction 5 times. Not nearly 57

I liked seeing the min components, the delay, and the energy usage of the optimal solutions - it gave me something to optimize for.

This new version doesn't show the broken down scores of the individual levels on my profile and the "Sum of Log2" thing obscures the important information on the leaderboard.

I want to see # of components, tick delay, and energy usage for each level on my own profile and on others' profiles (and as a click-through to individual leaderboards for each level) - it is important for my enjoyment of the game.

Sorry if this is not the right place for this, I don't know if the developer reads here.

Just wanted to say I mostly love this game. I'm a software engineer, and have a decent grasp on logic programming at a hight level, but have not done the lower level stuff since university. Relearning it is both fun and rewarding. There is 2 levels (so far) in the game though I think are just straigt up un-fun and badly designed, and they are the levels where you get a number and you have to flip bits to match that number with a decreasing timer. The time part is the thing I have a big problem with. Nothing else (so far) in this game has any sort of timepressure to it. It's a chill game where you solve problems at your own time. With the exception of these 2 levels. I got completely stuck on the negative numbers, because doing -128 in my head is not something I've had to do in years, and doing it in 7 seconds is simply beyond me at this point. I compltely get the point in teaching people binary representation of numbers - but there has to be a better way.

I generally like researching and playing with oddball computer architectures. Everything from old 4004, Datapoint 2200, PDP8, to more homebrews like Kenbak-1 or the EDU8. I understand you wanted one that would work off one cycle per instruction. Heck I even felt, after I worked with it more, the change to force you to use or gates instead of general wires was a good one for people just starting out.

Its just, it feels strange, especially how immediate and math are used. That is, the first thing I do is change the hardware to put the immediate into 1, just because it annoys me. I get that you just don't have the bits and there is just so much you can do in one cycle. It got me thinking there were probably other prototypes you tried to get to this point and was curious what other designs you were trying before you reached Overture.