From LifeWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Quick question -- should this get a pattern infobox? {{Conduit}}, maybe -- or maybe we want a special kind of infobox for edge shooters? Apple Bottom Apple Bottom (talk) 19:59, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

{{Conduit}} seems fine. Maybe just add an optional parameter like "Spartan" to say "Edge shooter? Yes". Possibly "Clearance: 0" (or a larger value for other edge shooters) would be a useful metric as well.
Clearance also kind of sort of applies to other non-edge-shooter conduits, especially ones with transparent lanes. An Fx77 has an extra lane of clearance on one side of the transparent output lane, but not on the other; F171 has three lanes on one side and none on the other; a variant of the Fx119 has much wider clearance on both sides of its first natural glider, etc., etc.
However, the whole idea of "clearance" might not be general enough for glider-producing conduits. F116 doesn't have a transparent output lane -- but it has a wide transparent region pluswards of its first natural glider lane, so you could say it's transparent from +4 to +17, even though it's not transparent at its zero lane. If you need to add a trailing glider four or more lanes out from a salvo that fits in that +4 to +17 region, an F116 might occasionally be a very good way to do it (because you don't use up the signal, as you do with most edge shooters).
I've never collected all the statistics for this kind of thing, because they're painful to work with, especially for conduits that put out multiple gliders, like the F171 or the Lx200. You'd need a separate "Transparent lanes: x-y, z" entry for each output glider.
So maybe just add the "Edge shooter?" and "Clearance:" parameters for now, with "Clearance" to be used only for edge shooters? Dvgrn (talk) 22:09, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
No problem. I've added edgeshooter= and clearance= to the template. The latter only has an effect if edgeshooter=yes is passed, otherwise the stat won't be shown, and the article not included in the relevant category. (This could be changed as desired.)
Right now, the clearance should be passed in hd, e.g. clearance=27hd for an Fx119 inserter. I feel this allows some extra flexibility, but if desired it could also be changed so that "hd" is appended automatically.
I've not started filling in the categories yet (except for Category:Edge shooters); will do so once I get a "Greene light". ;)
As for systematically collecting information on each output glider's transparent lanes, that would take some more effort, but it could be done. Am I right in assuming that the "transparent region" for each output glider would be contiguous? If so, the template could be rigged to accept "minimum" and "maximum" transparent lanes (sorta akin to rulemin and rulemax).
Obviously there'd need to be a separate pair of parameters for each output glider, but that's not an issue and could be solved with a bit of copying-and-pasting, and a helper template that's invoked to produce the relevant table row for each output glider in turn.
So for example, with F116, we'd simply pass tlane1min = +4 | tlane1max = +17 or so, and the infobox would display something like Transparent lanes: +4 to +17.
(Of course, your example above said "Transparent lanes: x-y, z", and I don't know what the z stands for. Perhaps reality is more complicated after all.)
Oh, and as for information being painful to collect -- I think it's still worthwhile collecting the information we do have, at the very least, so long as we don't make it seem as if the lack of information on transparent lanes indicates a lack of transparent lanes in the conduit itself. Also, perhaps this information could be computed by a Golly script. ("Will we ever have a script identifying transparent lanes in conduits?", I hear another user asking...) Apple Bottom (talk) 09:14, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Looks good so far. Yeah, the "z" means there could theoretically be multiple contiguous regions of transparency in each diagonal direction for a single conduit, along with the multiple transparencies for multiple output gliders. Maybe better to keep the transparency data for each output glider as free-form text (?).
Yeah, we could make a Golly script -- it's only slightly painful to do this kind of analysis. Also the existing output glider identifier script could be adjusted so that it works for regular Herschel conduits as well as H-to-Gs. Then it could be run on the Fx119, for example, to discover that it produces a standard NW31T120 (second natural glider) and has transparent lanes NW1-31.
If it's going to be connected to another conduit it's not usually an edge shooter, so there's probably no need to advertise the NW32 and up "transparent lanes" in this context -- all conduits have the equivalent infinite range, until you connect them up to the next thing. Dvgrn (talk) 11:32, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
First of all, thanks! :)
Free-form text sounds like the way to go, then. Do we want one line of text for each output glider, or just one big block of text for all of them?
Ah, and there's a script already to analyze conduits? Nice, I didn't know that.
I'll also just pretend I understood all the rest of what you said. ;) Apple Bottom (talk) 16:59, 11 February 2018 (UTC)