When is a clean bridge not a clean bridge?

"Innocent until proven guilty" also only works if you can replicate the timing on which the bridge breaks. One of the bridges I withdrew actually worked fine on all the runs I did except one, and on that one it completely fell apart.
I couldn't get it to happen again, but my conscience (#### conscience! grrrr!) wouldn't let me leave it in (actually it wouldn't've mattered anyway since Gray beat it in a matter of hours).

[Frish]

bah! this whole clean thing disgusts me . . . .

i mean, most of my bridges pop about 4 links right after test is pushed, but the train can get over them without popping any.  they were just useless links . . .the bridge didn't need them.  you should be able to delete those links from the member that they are in / / it would be useful . .ill post about it in next version ideas

also . .the whole thing where it starts excatly where it was in design mode and then falls and bends and bounces all crazy like when you hit test, you should be allowed to kinda slo-mo that thing . . .where the bridge settles slowly . . . and doesn't bounce or  break links that would normally not be broken . . . . . . . you know what i mean if you ever built a cable stayed bridge .. . . . .

anywho.  um, yah

-Frish

***IF*** we have to start ruling things out, I'd agree with most of what you said, Gray... I'd propose a "commonsense" application of 2 and 10, since the train visibly leaves or collides with the tracks on an awful lot of bridges (any which have deck meeting deck at more than a slight angle).

For 10, I can't really see any current levels where this would be an issue anyway - it was just on the list for the sake of completeness (along with 12, 13, 14, and 15 - scrub those).

For 2, how about ruling out bridges where the entire train is in the air at the same time, except for those levels where this can't reasonably be avoided?

As for 1...as long as the whole train isn't submerged, I'd vote for it to stay legal.

I'm not sure about 3, so I'd leave that up to everyone else.

Gray: "Define 'steep'.... everything but a horizontal deck? These two shouldn't be on the list, after all, why is the player allowed to build decks at any angle in complex mode?"

Doesn't this also apply to slanted deck?

I'd love for it to be legal, I really would! But that #### conscience of mine has caught up with me again... it'd have to be ruled out, because the train wanders off the tracks. http://www.pontifex2.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':('>

I absolutely agree with mendel though about it staying in the game...PLEASE CL, do NOT take it away from us!! It leads to all kinds bizarre fun :-D

The thing is, I don't really want to rule ANYTHING out apart from broken links. I think it discourages creativity, and subtracts greatly from the game. I think broken links are ugly as ####, but I view everything else as a feature of the game that should rightly be exploited.

I'm sure I'll end up being outvoted on this, but at least I've had my little rant! ;)

(Edited by Chillum at 5:10 am on Nov. 6, 2001)

Take a look at this:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/chillum/slant01.pxb" target="_blank">http://homepage.ntlworld.com/chillum/slant01.jpg" border="0">

(click image to download bridge file - thanks mendel!)

Does this count as clean? It doesn't involve deleting/replacing any deck steel (as in the bug that was banned from the contest), but it does use slanted deck.

Personally I think being able to do this is a feature, not a bug, and should therefore be allowed. Let's have a mass debate!

(Edited by Chillum at 12:48 am on Nov. 5, 2001)

[mendel]

Rules 12, 13 and 15 were suggested by my warped mind, so here are some explanations:

Gray wrote:
re 12: I think 'lighter load' should only refer to difficulty settings, after all, the number of cars is set by the level author and changing it changes the way the level has to be solved
A real bridge works at any load up to the rated maximum. A bridge that fails for a train that's lighter than specified (less  cars, lower difficulty) is not clean.
I would (barely) allow specifying a maximum train length, such that a train that's lighter but longer would be forbidden to cross the bridge, too.

re 13: So compressed, 'buckled' cables only result from the exaggerated visuals of the game, those cables are not compressed IMO.
I am not talking about buckling cable, that is a relistic phenomenon, although not commonly found on real bridge types.
On my drawbridge, the cable that hangs down from the counterweight bumps down on the ground in a most unrealistic way. I think that bump compresses it (though it's so slight I haven't been able to make it out). Since cables are modelled as sticks joined together, they can be compressed if the force acts axially or on just one of the sticks. This is unrealistic and should be considered dirty.

re 14+15: Define 'steep'....
A real railway line in Europe does not incline by more than 1% or so (haven't checked this, anybody who knows exact numbers is very welcome!). There may be some tracks in the Andes that have steeper slopes, I'm not sure.
Dropping 1 HD unit on 8 is a 12.5% slope. If that was a road, you'd see a warning sign posted!
The only way to explain this is to say that Pontifex compresses the X dimension (much like model railways do) by some factor, and differently for the train and the tracks (that's why the train has so few cars, a car probably stands for 5 real cars). Unless this explanation is adopted by the "clean bridge commitee", all sloping deck in Pontifex is unrealistic.

after all, why is the player allowed to build decks at any angle in complex mode?
After all, why is the player allowed to do all the things you're deeming dirty? That argument is hollow.

Very few 'clean' (loosely defined at the moment...) record briges have a level deck now.
You are arguing by precedent, set by the self-appointed record keepers (good job, guys!); it amounts to "this is the way we've always done it" and avoids further justification.

Such a restriction would severely limit the scope of possible designs the player has at his proposal for every given level.
As does any "clean" rule you adopt.

IMO, No. 2, 4, (and 14+15) should be allowed for certain levels
As mentioned on http://www.chroniclogic.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard/topic.cgi?forum=3&topic=51" target="_blank">One-way Bridges, maybe the levels that require breaking these rules should be considered "dirty". In my opinion, if a clean solution can't be found, a clean record does not exist. Leave that spot in the record table empty. If you're not expicitly stating which rules can be broken for that level, confusion might result.

VRBones wrote:
In my mind, slanted deck is a bug. Not because it is unrealistic, but it appears incorrectly in the designer section, therefore unintended by CL.
Could be a bug in the "edit" mode? If you go by CLs intentions, the whole discussion is moot, because you'd then simply adopt the contest policy for the clean records.

Chillum wrote:
(along with 12, 13, 14, and 15 - scrub those).
He killed my babies!

My suggestion is that in the description of the bridge, the designer states the rules that govern a clean score, possibly with respect to some published framework, which means we should adopt some "Clean Rules V1.0" (Chillum's list is a good start), and the designer could then say "Clean V1.0 except 12-15", or "Clean V1.0, only 3a".

Btw, I would have some special rules to add to such a framework concerning budget and width editing, even land editing.

[falkon2]

Heh, I think he misunderstood the term "slanted" =D

[falkon2]

Well, I don't think it would be legal for dwn's map pack, in any case, since the train has to stay on the tracks at all times.

Also, I think it should be illegal because THE s1 RECORD BELONGS TO ME =) =) =)

Anyway all jokes, unless we come up with an overwhelming vote against this, you're now holding the S1 record.

My vote, though is no (nothing to do with the s1 record). It just looks plain stupid, and I think CL will be coming up with a fix against this in their next major version. (Correct me if I'm wrong, though)

[Gray]

Re:12
Mendel wrote:
A bridge that fails for a train that's lighter than specified (less  cars, lower difficulty) is not clean.
Sure, this is bad.
1. Don't you think that it's unrealistic that this can happen in the game? Maybe this only happens because of the higher speed of the easy/med trains? I dunno...
2. Would you want to test every submitted bridge with every possible lighter train (and therefore suggest the authors should do this too, every time)?

Re:13
Mendel wrote:
On my drawbridge, the cable that hangs down from the counterweight bumps down on the ground in a most unrealistic way. (...)
I have yet to see a record bridge using this and being otherwise clean... But I agree this is dirty.

I wrote: After all, why is the player allowed to build decks at any angle in complex mode?
Mendel replied: After all, why is the player allowed to do all the things you're deeming dirty? That argument is hollow.
What I was intending to say was: Being able to build inclined decks is a feature. It's intended by CL.
Doing all the really unrealistic stuff such as making the train turn over to the side or building bridges that drop into place is something that is possible because the engine doesn't limit the player much. It's like experimenting - play with it, everyone agrees it's dirty.
The wet train issue can be viewed this way: Wet trains are legal. Want dry trains? Make levels with more room under the bridge, so it's not advantageous to let the train get wet.

I wrote: Very few 'clean' (loosely defined at the moment...) record briges have a level deck now.
Mendel replied:You are arguing by precedent, set by the self-appointed record keepers (good job, guys!); it amounts to "this is the way we've always done it" and avoids further justification.
I see, you sould easily sacrifice all existing records for correctness' sake, you don't hold any of them yourself anyway :cheesy:

I wrote: Such a restriction would severely limit the scope of possible designs the player has at his proposal for every given level.
Mendel replied: As does any "clean" rule you adopt.
No other rule limits it nearly as severely. It basically kills 1/2 of the fun of complex mode. Do you really want to put all clean records with an inclined deck in the same category as those with 100 broken links? Does anyone really want more categories between the classic two?

Re:IMO, No. 2, 4, (and 14+15) should be allowed for certain levels
Mendel wrote:
If you're not expicitly stating which rules can be broken for that level, confusion might result.
Obviously, this should be allowed for levels that don't have proper anchor points on every side. By 'proper' I mean anchors on the 'corner' of the terrain where the train falls down if the level is empty (no bridge).

Re:Slanted deck
Mendel wrote:
Could be a bug in the "edit" mode? If you go by CLs intentions, the whole discussion is moot, because you'd then simply adopt the contest policy for the clean records.
As long as it's bugged (even partially), it shouldn't be used IMO. As soon as a new version comes out with this feature fexed or removed, we'll know CL's intentions.

Mendel wrote:
My suggestion is that in the description of the bridge, the designer states the rules that govern a clean score(...)
Maybe we should really develop this...

P.S. I hope we all agree that this discussion is about bridges being clean, not realistic, I agree that ALL the stuff Chillum listed is unrealistic.

[mendel]

NO NO NO CL must not fix the "slanting deck" at any time! I wil refuse to upgrade my pontifex if they do! So there!

Slanting deck is fun and should be allowed, though it would probably make an architect laugh....

I can't decide, I will abstain from voting.

Are "dropping" bridges clean? If they manage to break 0 links?

[mendel]

My monster post deserved a monster reply. Argh. Getting out the scissors...

Re:12
Mendel wrote: A bridge that fails for a train that's lighter than specified
It has been reported somewhere on this forum that this happened at least once. I believe the engine is weaker on those light trains, so speed does not differ much, but I may be wrong.
Would I test every record bridge with every lighter train?
I might, and if this happened more often, I'd get a feel what kinds of bridges might show that behaviour.

Re:13
My drawbridge is breaking some links, and it doesn't work with a lighter train, I think, but other than that, it's clean... :-)
Here's a textbook example of what this rule forbids:
http://pontifex.mendelsohn.de/forum/compcabl.pxb" target="_blank">http://pontifex.mendelsohn.de/forum/compcabl.gif" border="0">

Gray wrote: Being able to build inclined decks is a feature. It's intended by CL.
So how am I to know which feature is intended and which is not? I think making drop-in bridges was intended.

I see, you would easily sacrifice all existing records for correctness' sake, you don't hold any of them yourself anyway
I have never advocated throwing them away, but with new record rules adopted, they'd have mere historic value. (Hey, didn't you ever want to be a historic figure?)

It basically kills 1/2 of the fun of complex mode. Do you really want to put all clean records with an inclined deck in the same category as those with 100 broken links? Does anyone really want more categories between the classic two?
All the "clean" rules kill some fun for someone somewhere. If you follow this principle through, you ought to take a vote: "Which rules would be fun?", put those that get 50%+ in a package, and put that package to the vote again, if you get 50%+ on the package, you have your "league" set up.
I want to put all bridges with 0 broken links in one category.
I also want more categories - we've discussed this http://www.bridgebuilder-game.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard/topic.cgi?forum=7&topic=5" target="_blank">before.

Re:IMO, No. 2, 4, (and 14+15) should be allowed for certain levels
If I understand you right, if every shore has a pair of anchors on the ground you can attach deck to, centered on the train path, no exceptions are allowed except 14+15 which you don't hold valid anyway? And if the anchors allow building of level deck between them, even 14+15 could be in effect, provided the train can get from these anchors to the borders of the level?

Gray wrote: As long as it's bugged (even partially), it shouldn't be used.
Simple, clear, agreed. That doesn't apply to the deck cheat, though, because that "could" be a feature. Hmmm, is building deck with heavy steel clean?

[falkon2]

Generally, a dropping bridge *SHOULD* lose to a bridge supported by an anchor, even if the anchored bridge costs more. Come on, those anchors have to be in the level for a reason.

[VRBones]

Mendel replied:
If you go by CLs intentions, the whole discussion is moot, because you'd then simply adopt the contest policy for the clean records.
Fine by me. With all this discussion going on it makes me appreciate the simplicity of CL's ruleset for the comp. It gets my vote (even moreso if the 'settling' time was resolved programatically)

[Gray]

IMO the slanted deck 'feature' doesn't have to be removed, but it shouldn't be allowed for records, not the clean ones anyway - even if the only reason is because it's unrealistic. Besides, I did the same bridge on Oct. 23, mendel might even have the file... So I would hold the (dirty?) record anyway http://www.pontifex2.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'>

[Gray]

Re:

Mendel wrote: Would I test every record bridge with every lighter train? I might, and if this happened more often, I'd get a feel what kinds of bridges might show that behaviour.
I mean if the rule we're talking about here was used for the record lists, someone would have to test every submission with every train, which can't be done... Getting a feel for it is something different, and might in fact be worth spending some time on.

I wrote: Being able to build inclined decks is a feature. It's intended by CL.
Mendel replied: So how am I to know which feature is intended and which is not? I think making drop-in bridges was intended.
The inclined decks are one of the major differences between normal and complex mode, which makes me think it's intentional. Drop-in bridges might only work 'because we're lucky'... Sure, this whole discussion is pretty much about personal taste and 'what's more fun' http://www.pontifex2.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'>, but I think falling bridges are further away from reality than inclined deck ones. Besides: a level only needs 1 pair of anchors (or even just one anchor) so you can start building. So falling bridges can't be intended on levels with more than 1 pair of anchors, I don't think anchors are just used for distraction on the original levels http://www.pontifex2.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'>

Mendel wrote: I have never advocated throwing [the current records] away, but with new record rules adopted, they'd have mere historic value.
If we do it the democratic way (poll), we might even get a ruleset which 'saves' most or all of them...

Mendel wrote: if every shore has a pair of anchors on the ground you can attach deck to, centered on the train path, no exceptions are allowed except 14+15 [...]? And if the anchors allow building of level deck between them, even 14+15 could be in effect, provided the train can get from these anchors to the borders of the level?
Hmmm... yes, I guess I agree. I'd still say 'corner where the train falls off' to exactly describe the perfect anchor position http://www.pontifex2.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'> And I still don't like 14+15 (even if the only real reason is the fun they kill)

I wrote: As long as it's bugged (even partially), it shouldn't be used.
Mendel replied: Simple, clear, agreed. That doesn't apply to the deck cheat, though, because that "could" be a feature. Hmmm, is building deck with heavy steel clean?
I thought CL had already stated this whole thing wasn't intended... Do you seriously think it could be a feature? Something that only works on one side of the bridge? Come on...

Maybe we should work out a good poll on this all, so we could ask CL to put it on the members page...

Re: VRBones: I also find the contest ruleset kinda attractive... Perfect simplicity http://www.pontifex2.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'> ... BTW, settling time IS realistic, it's actually unrealistic to run the train while the bridge gets used to gravity...

Here's a list I made with mendel's help of Pontifex features that could be considered unrealistic:

1. Trains that dip into the water
2. Trains that leave the tracks
3. Bridges that drop into place
3a! Bridges that break links
4. One-way bridges
5. Slanted deck
6. Floating anchor points
7. Trains ending up on their sides
8. Trains that pass through bridge material
9. Bridge material that passes through other bridge material
10. Trains that collide with anything
11. Bridges that only work with specific timing
12. Bridges that don't work with a lighter load
13. Bridges that compress cable
14. Trains that go up a steep incline
15. (as a result of 8 and 14) Bridges with anything other than a level deck

Wow! That's an awful lot of bridges we're gonna have to rule out!

Ok, I'm not seriously suggesting we adopt this list to decide which trains are clean or not. But you see my point...

I'm quite happy to go along with the majority on what should and shouldn't be allowed (it's not like I have a choice anyway). However, I would like to see some justification for WHY features should be ruled out. Merely branding something as 'unrealistic' just doesn't hack it in my book...it IS a game, not a simulation after all.

[edit] Ok, ok, so I can't count up to 4! lol [/edit]

(Edited by Chillum at 12:14 am on Nov. 6, 2001)