@LPChip
When making this map (first time):
Me: Okay, fizzlers, add one, conections done. Okay, I will do that twice. Done.

About 1 or 2 months later:
Me: Yay! Finally time to publish this map! :D I'll playtest it first.
*playtests map
Okay, I need to add more fizzlers.
*Pulls at top of fizzler to extend it and not add unnecesary antlines.
There we go, so much easier than the other way. : ) Plus it makes it look more profesional, without all of those lines! :D

Now:
*reads comment.
I think: Haha, NO, I did nto do that at all! :P
You konw how that story ends ;)
hahaha :)

@LPChip
Thanks! I do too! ;)
And, actually, I did EXACTLY that, haha, thanks though! :)
Oh, wait a second. Oh, I only did that for like 1/2 of it :/ (Dang it! I did not want that to happen! :-( Oh well, hahaha :) )
So, I actually made this mnap a little while ago, so yeah, I probably did not see that, but then I extended it even higher than before so you can see that the top one(s) do not have more antlines, when I tweaked it for publishing. :/ Oh well, thanks for pointing it out though! :)

Nice puzzle map. I love it. One thing you can improve: You used several fizzlers on top of eachother. You can just use one, and stretch it up. This will allow you to reduce the amount of antlines and make your puzzle more clear to understand.

@mausilibaer
Haha, yeah, I try to make my levels as white as I can, that way tghe player has a TON of more options, and does not feel like they are doing exactly what the designer expected--also, it makes them feel alot more like they came up with the solution themself. :)

The reason why I said it is now solvable, was because when I first released it, I tweeked it, hahaha :) And as you may guess, it was literally impossible to beat without cheats, so, just say'n that so people will know I fixed it :)

Solvable? That was too easy - one cube too much and found the companion cube immediately - kindergarten :)
Perhaps it could be that it was so easy for me because I was cheating. Is it necessary to have the whole floor white?

Now solvable ;)