Redstoneboi wrote:What if the TEST glider (the one to be destroyed by the sliding block dFIRE) came from SW instead of NE? to avoid the crossover that requires the blocks?
The symmetry of the 6fd pull allows us to keep it, but the problem is the dFIRE would have to shoot in the other direction.
Good thing this dFIRE is conveniently much closer to the other side :P
That does seem like it's worth looking into. The problem will be compatibility with chris_c's idea of getting rid of the 1G->9G burst gun (because it's too slow) and instead building the blocks directly in one of two locations, B0 or S0.
I'm inclined to use chris_c's idea, except that I'm thinking that using beehives and running a gun at half the period to convert them to blocks is maybe a bit too clever. Makes it harder to understand the mechanism, without necessarily being any smaller than just using H-to-block factories plus a demultiplexer to choose which factory to activate.
It seems possible that if a third edgeshooter is used instead of a Snark to get that TEST glider into place, the TEST glider can probably be moved close enough to the other lanes that it won't interfere with H-to-block circuitry.
EDIT: Hang on, we might not even need a DFIRE with an output glider in the first place. It could equally well produce some still life, like a beehive, as long as the reaction that makes the still life can be suppressed by a bank of eaters (or other catalysts -- maybe just blocks, if the object is a beehive) and the TEST glider can cleanly delete the still life any time after it has been made successfully (i.e., it hasn't been suppressed by the catalyst in the B or S lookup tables.
That would remove one synchronization problem -- TEST could come along whenever it was convenient.
EDIT2: Here's a recipe that seems to work. The TEST glider is decoupled from the DFIRE shotgun (except that it's not really a DFIRE any more since it just produces a block) and all three gliders can be sent in with cheap NW31s, if they're created in the right order.
Code: Select all
x = 96, y = 59, rule = LifeHistory
8.2A38.2A$8.2A5.2A31.2A5.2A$15.A.A37.A.A$15.A39.A3$14.2D38.2D$14.2D
38.2D2$23.2A38.2A$13.3A7.A.A27.3A7.A.A$2.2C9.A9.A18.2C9.A9.A$.C.C10.A
26.C.C10.A$.C39.C$2C38.2C3$8.2C38.CD$7.C.C11.3A23.C.C11.3A$7.C13.A25.
C13.A$6.2C14.A23.2C14.A3$14.2C38.2C$13.C.C37.C.C$13.C39.C$12.2C38.2C
10$38.3A37.3A$38.A39.A$39.A39.A5$45.3A37.3A$45.A39.A$46.A39.A4$51.3A
37.3A$51.A39.A$52.A39.A5$53.3C37.3C$53.C39.C$54.C39.C!
The only likely improvements I can think of would be
1) an alternate reaction that only needs a block as a catalyst in the lookup table, rather than an eater;
2) some clever way to use one of the block's vanish reactions with just a single glider, instead of a glider pair, and catalyze it to accomplish a similar table-lookup differentiation.
We could have two different catalysts in the lookup table instead of catalyst-vs.-empty-space; we could also make it so that the absence of a catalyst signals B3 or S2 or S3 or whatever -- currently it's the presence of an eater, but it would work just as well the other way.
Pretty much anything that allows TEST to be done with just two gliders instead of three, would be an improvement. (?)