WOOT 2020 is out. Happy ZXMAS.

[cmal]

[Edit: Also, for those of you finding this far too easy - give POKE 30039,201 a try...]

And there's the Dinamic Software re-release

Yikes! That's like catching a fly mid-air with chopsticks.

[R-Tape]

Please go ahead, @R-Tape . A trainer version would be useful. I would need one because my best time is a shameful 19 seconds

Cheers. Here's a trainer snapshot, with the cage appearing in the same place as clebin's 6 second effort.

The position of the cage can be changed by poking a different value into 30037. It's currently 118. Subtract 1 to move it left, add 1 to move it right, add 32 to move it down a row, subtract 32 to move it up a row.

I'm only saying this in the hope that it might not be so, but 6 seconds really does seem to be the limit...

[hikoki]

I'm luxy!! A 69 ¿? on my first go

[clebin]

I'm only saying this in the hope that it might not be so, but 6 seconds really does seem to be the limit...

This is as neat as it can be from this location and it's still 6 seconds. I'll see if there's a location on the right which would bring it down a fraction.

[clebin]

I tried your POKE tip [mention]R-Tape[/mention]. If you set it to 254 you can get 5 seconds consistently from this spot, but this surely has to be the absolute minimum...

[R-Tape]

I don't know how you do it! Incredible.

That's as far down as that poke will let you go (it's an 8bit poke, can give a 16bit one if desired), but I agree - I'll be more than flabbergasted if 5 seconds can be beat. Maybe we should apply for funding for a PhD project into this.

Also we should build a time machine and go back to tell the twenty years younger cmal to make some changes...

Hello cmal, I'm from the future. In twenty years, middle-aged blokes will play and hack your game to death. Oh and it will be during a global pandemic. Can you reduce the cage check time by a second or two?

[cmal]

Also we should build a time machine and go back to tell the twenty years younger cmal to make some changes...

Hello cmal, I'm from the future. In twenty years, middle-aged blokes will play and hack your game to death. Oh and it will be during a global pandemic. Can you reduce the cage check time by a second or two?

Hello R-Tape from the future: this is younger cmal. You gotta be kidding! There are thousands of Speccy games even here in early 2000's. Why the heck would anyone want to play a crappy mousetrap game, especially a bunch of old fellas?? Anyway, it's much easier to credit 2 seconds to the player's final score. I think that aught to do it.
Ah, while you're there..real quick, what's the stock price of Amazon?

[clebin]

Word of advice, younger Clebin: If a stranger approaches you and offers you a game called Mousetrap, just politely say no and walk away. Oh, and in about 2009 you'll want to be getting a graphics card and mining Bitcoins.

[clebin]

Seriously though, [mention]cmal[/mention], it's a fun little game. Ever thought about taking the idea further with different screen layouts/objectives/hazards? I think there could be a lot of mileage in it.

[cmal]

Seriously though, @cmal, it's a fun little game. Ever thought about taking the idea further with different screen layouts/objectives/hazards? I think there could be a lot of mileage in it.

Good idea. I've considered it but now that you make mention of it, I might just do it. I have a few ideas on what might work. As long as I can use you for play-testing

[clebin]

Seriously though, @cmal, it's a fun little game. Ever thought about taking the idea further with different screen layouts/objectives/hazards? I think there could be a lot of mileage in it.

Good idea. I've considered it but now that you make mention of it, I might just do it. I have a few ideas on what might work. As long as I can use you for play-testing

Of course, I'd be glad to!

[R-Tape]

As long as I can use you for play-testing

Aim for: hard for [mention]PeterJ[/mention], incredibly easy for [mention]clebin[/mention]

[cmal]

As long as I can use you for play-testing

Aim for: hard for @PeterJ, incredibly easy for @clebin

I may need to get another play-tester to even things out. I think [mention]clebin[/mention] will constantly throw it back at me complaining that it's too easy.

[R-Tape]

Can I ask what people thought of the 64 column font used in the main magazine?

Was it readable? Did you miss the previous, much neater, proportional font?

[cmal]

Can I ask what people thought of the 64 column font used in the main magazine?

Was it readable? Did you miss the previous, much neater, proportional font?

I thought the font looked nice and tidy and most of the time I had no problem reading it. Now and then I had to re-look at a word to decipher a letter e.g. B could look like an E. But then again, my eyesight isn't what it used to be.
I used an emulator to read it, but I wonder how it would come out on a fuzzy CRT screen where it wouldn't be as crisp.

I didn't notice that the font had changed from the prior year's Woot magazines(which I looked at a few weeks ago), so I went back and compared both. I do find the previous font a bit easier to read.

[R-Tape]

I didn't notice that the font had changed from the prior year's Woot magazines(which I looked at a few weeks ago), so I went back and compared both. I do find the previous font a bit easier to read.

Cheers. I think a more readable proportional font that is nearly 64 chars per line is the way to go.

I dropped FZX for the magazine this time because I was having a nightmare with formatting the proportional font for Desert Island Tapes, and I didn't have time for headaches with the rest of the mag. Hopefully I won't leave things so late this time...

[Morkin]

Like cmal I probably preferred the last one but it was OK.

One thing is that I find it easier to read when it's mixed case rather than all upper case.