Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
If you mix x, you will get a random read from one of the inputs.
If you mix p, you will get the max of the two inputs.
In extreme edge cases this may actually be good enough but I wouldn't focus on it.
What might work out slightly more frequently (and I hope I'm remembering this correctly) is that you can connect two chips and an input or output (so 3 things total) with the same
wire and use it for both communication and I/O purposes.
And don't be discouraged by having to use multiple chips - having to do that is part of the game's fun!
Back in Early Access times some parts would be locked and unavailable untill you progressed a way into the game. Now parts that used to be locked are just marked as "not recommended". So they are not stricktly required to solve the first puzzles, but they can offer ways to optimize (or be a distraction, depending).
in this case there is no way to avoid having 2 chips on the board, however...
nothing says they both have to be controlers
So I take it to mean that it indicates you're supposed to find an "easier" but less optimal solution in some cases, like it just doesn't want you to think its necessary to use those components.