Under rating threshold (hideshow)
I find that for every level, even spaced walkways with an upside down 'v' above every one, then joined across the top works best. I was a little disappointed as it worked for almost every level..
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
This game would have been so much better if the money given for the level wasn't limited, but instead a passing budget was given.
Then I would be able to build elaborate constructions to slowly kill off the workers...
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
Ok, so did you order 10 elephants and 45 boxes? Don't worry, we got this. Let's go to some one dimensional high floating islands ten meters wide and build bridges between them because this is clearly the easiest and cheaper way to do it.
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
"Wow, this elephant is really making the bridge shake! Lets try to push another one over at the exact same time! It'll probably be fine!"
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
When the challenge bridge started increasing a meter at a time I was ready to scream. What kind of stupid badge requires me to make the exact same bridge over and over again?
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
I built a prfectly triangulated structure easily capable of supporting it's own weight and more, click the go button and it crumbles, wtf !
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
The game needs a slow motion to see where the failure was, or even better better yet a display mode similar to the FEA (finite element analysis) of CAD tools. Having data on the stresses and deformation (say right when the bridge fails) in the members would be great. And since I assume the simulation algorithm has this data internally, it should be really easy to display.
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
It's a bit annoying to have to rebuild the exact same bridge again and again for the challenge mode. If we can't set the length of the gap directly, can we at least save constant structural pieces to use later? Idk if this was implemented in later sequels
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
let me put it this way: two pieces of wood has, thus far, proven to be more stable than ANY other bride i've tried out thus far...for the first stretch. for some reason, it doesn't work in the 6.8 m section. O.o
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
I have decided to attempt slingshots to launch boxes and people across the level. It may be ineffective, but if it works, it should be fun.
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
I feel like it has little to do with how supported the bridge actually is, just have to figure out the physics within the game... also, I just failed a level and then without making any changes ran it again and won... a bit inconsistant...
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
These don't actually work in practice for this all the time... Physics games suck like that sometimes.
http://blog.wolfram.com/images/sw/bridges2.gif
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
Wouldn't it be nice instead of having "Connector is too long" display, the game would calculate how many connectors are required to make a piece that long, and divide the connector into that many equal-sized pieces?
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
In the 40 Meter rush, you use the money you didn't spend on the main levels. You only have to get the guy across, so as long as the bridge will hold him, don't worry about tons of support beams.
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
both hard badges done, but i never play this game again. The 24 Levels was pain pure. The Challence was "easy" (if you have "unlimited" ressources because of to much money) but it was way to slow. I mean: it start with 10m and go to 15 and 20, but then 22, 24, 26... and then 30, 31, 32... it was boring and anoing building up every time the SAME Bridge just to get a little bit more to the 40m. In other words: why we cant simple choose 40m to beat on start if we have enough money? I rated the on start wit 5/5 because i love the game concept, but with all that anoing random crap it is forever down to 1/5
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
As others have said, it is a promising game (I like the blueprint mode!) but it needs a lot of refinement, such as more delete options, moving connecting points, and better confirmation that a piece you are trying to connect to a point is actually connecting.
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
The idea is good, but I can't understand how a bridge that works fine for a elephant and several boxes collapses when trying to pass the last box... worse is that there are times when a bridge works fine, you change another one and the one you didn't touched but worked suddenly doesn't work anymore.
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
"Oh hey, you know this wooden bridge crossing an endless gap? lets all three go at once carrying heavy boxes!" proceeds to fall to death...
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
I'm sick of how there's no way to tell if anything's solid. I swear there's randomness in some of this - sometimes one connector breaks but the bridge holds, but other times the exact same design fails entirely. It kills the point.
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
It starts out okay but as many have said there is a serious issue with the way that the physics works (and I'm not sorry about complaining about this since it is clearly bungled), when the issue is flexibility and weight it makes sense to be using wood... even for the elephants and safes!?! Er... yeah... that on top of the issue of small changes taking ages to make (please let us move an end point and have the pieces adjust) and it just becomes a drudge by the time you hit half way... Overall a game that promises much but falls before it finishes... (and I'm starting to think going after badges of the day is less and less worth it - so many fail games).
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
Interesting game idea. Flaws in implementation. Needs a way to adjust pieces without deleting them. Also needs a way to speed up the game. Waiting for the stage to complete with multiple bridges takes too long...especially only to find out the final bridge needs work.