[Resolved] Challenge request for GCBCY2V

hello, i have another idea & need again a new checker.

Quality SnowballSystem - Challenge
this means you need Founds 1x 10.000 Favorite Points, 1x 9.000, 1x 8.000, ... , 1x 3.000, 1x 2.000 and 1x 1.000.
If you didn't have one of these you need instead 2 in the next lower row e.g. you have no 7.000, so you need two(!) 6.000. Means a total of 3 now (these 2 and the original 6.000). If you also didn't have any 6.000 you need now 3x2x 5.000. Hope i explained this right.

If you have zero of every level, the final required counts (top → bottom) are:
10 000 → 1
9 000 → 3
8 000 → 7
7 000 → 15
6 000 → 31
5 000 → 63
4 000 → 127
3 000 → 255
2 000 → 511
1 000 → 1 023

so you would need 1023x 1.000 Favorite Caches, when you have none above!

best regards
tobi

I had a similar request before but the reviewer did not accept this criteria.

Please ask your local reviewer if he would publish such a challenge cache.
If you ask by posting a reviewer note on the cache page, remember that you have to submit the cache for review for the reviewer to see your question.

Okay, i will do

Hey,
It took a while because the reviewer was on vacation and I had to explain and calculate a few things first.

He hasn't made a final decision yet, but he's asking for the checker so he can test a few reference accounts.

I hope it's not too much trouble.

Best regards,
Tobi

Here is the link to a checker https://project-gc.com/Challenges/GCBCY2V/106797

Please test and reply

Tag removed



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/07/2025 05:13AM by vogelbird. (view changes)

1.) Thanx
2.) He said i fulfill (check)
3.) But Small window show red cross for 9000 and down (there should be green)
4.) He continuing to carry through the upper ones that have already been counted. e.g. look at GC13Y2Y and write needed in total (i guess that is easier to write. But list will be very long then when he repeat. Can you please remive already counted downwards and digit for needed the real one e.g. 9000 should be look this way:
User has 1 finds (1 needed). Field: favorite_points, min: 9000
gccode cache_name favorite_points
GC11JM6 Geist des Hagen 10712
)

Original Output (only first 3 needed):
User has 2 finds (1 needed). Field: favorite_points, min: 10000
gccode cache_name favorite_points
GC13Y2Y Lego - einer ist zuviel 11735

User has 2 finds (3 needed). Field: favorite_points, min: 9000
gccode cache_name favorite_points
GC13Y2Y Lego - einer ist zuviel 11735
GC11JM6 Geist des Hagen 10712

User has 4 finds (7 needed). Field: favorite_points, min: 8000
gccode cache_name favorite_points
GC13Y2Y Lego - einer ist zuviel 11735
GC2586K Alberich der Zwergenkönig 8889
GC11JM6 Geist des Hagen 10712
GC40 Geocache 8118

I see what you mean but I think that this request needs a special script because what you require does not fit into a tag config

Alright - before you invest mor work, can you please give first version free again. This should work for the reviewer, than he can decide and qhen he agree script would be fine.

I had to make a new checker https://project-gc.com/Challenges/GCBCY2V/106822



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/22/2025 08:01PM by vogelbird. (view changes)

The reviewer agreed, yeah! :)

Hey, this is not [resolved]
Script is necassary please

Here is another checker please test
https://project-gc.com/Challenges/GCBCY2V/106975



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/22/2025 08:01PM by vogelbird. (view changes)

Can you please only include the necessary caches? The parent caches are still appearing twice.
Please display only those necessary for the challenge.

And it turns the checker red if, for example, you have 1×10k, 1x9k (due to a second 10k), 0x8k, but you have 3x7k and the rest. That would be fulfilled.
E.g. fulfilled would be
1×10k, 1×9k, 1×8k, 1x7k, 1×6k, 1x5k, 1x4k, 1x3k, 1x2k, 1x1k
Similarly
0×10k, 0×9k, 1×8k, 0x7k, 2×6k, 11x5k, 21x4k, 41x3k, 81x2k, 161x1k

The script is not able to cancel out a find i.e.
1×10k, 1×9k, 1×8k, 1x7k, 1×6k, 1x5k, 1x4k, 1x3k, 1x2k, 1x1k is in the checker
1×10k, 2×9k, 3×8k, 4x7k, 5×6k, 6x5k, 7x4k, 8x3k, 9x2k, 10x1k

for
3×9k, 1×8k, 1x7k, 1×6k, 1x5k, 1x4k, 1x3k, 1x2k, 1x1k is in the checker
3×9k, 4×8k, 5x7k, 6×6k, 7x5k, 8x4k, 9x3k, 10x2k, 11x1k

etc

The reason is that each step is calculated independent of each other

Last entry overlapped

Okay, I understand. Then in the final version for copying into the log, it's better to just include the number of caches, not the individual names. Otherwise, I think it will be too long in the log.

But the problem is that you can also have missing ones in the middle. So 1x10k, 0x9k, 0x8k, but the rest is then enough to compensate. See the profile of FerrariGirlNr1.

The missing ones in the middle form a problem because the tag of this script only allows a set number of position

@KaiserVonChina - Is it possible to make a custom script for this request

Yes, but that has to wait another week or so.

I'm currently busy programming 2 new Wherigos for our GIFF Block Party.

No problem, i will wait - what other i csn do ;)
The GIFF in Hamburg? I will be there too, so maybe this is also in my interest :D

No, the GIFF near Munich.

A bit to far ;)
Good luck with the wherigos and i will have patience

I think this would all work just fine if "exclude_result_caches" was extended to all logical operations in this script (eg and), as it is in the "same" function. I'll see if I can put together a patch for this tomorrow or the next day.

Please have a look for mine check & output
thavorianer
And also for
Ferrarigirlnr1
As example

Since bmuzzin doesn't seem to find the time to extend his script, here is a checker using a custom script: https://project-gc.com/Challenges/GCBCY2V/107335

Please test and reply.

To get some nice mixed numbers for the different levels and still a "PASSED" in the end, you can run the checker against account "emuc64".

Superb!
It works & looks very good - thanx for your work to you all!
Tobi

I did just finish the extension! Didn't check that this had already been resolved though... and your custom one has better output... had to do mine via "points".

No worries, the changes may be useful for the future.