For the first one, all the online ones worked for me. For the second code, out of 2 I found one worked and the other didn't (line breaks not done properly and spaces converted to when pasting; though I guess you could just type the code manually).

If anyone is having trouble, I could PM you the interpreters that worked for me (don't want to do it here, since it would give away too much).

That said, you could quickly write your own interpreter ;)
Or for the second code you could do it manually. I told bler NOT to do it for the main code since that's way too complicated, but while the second one is a bit obfuscated too, it doesn't need that much effort.

I'm not saying you should do it manually, just that it is an option.
I assume you got the code? (the game is still not claimed). I'll add you to the "hall of fame" in the first post then. ;)

I thought people might get stuck here (another user did too), but there actually is a hint on this.

Yup, but i was just in for the challenge. I hope your game doesn't feel rejected :D

Do I have to alter the second code?

Not really.

Thanks a lot! The main reason for the problem that got me stuck was my attention to details - I should've seen the riddle as the whole. : / Probably, I wouldn't even need to distract ZFR in that case.

Yes, to be fair to the authors of the first round interpreters, they worked nicely. I was speaking of the second round (and perhaps beyond) but was avoiding specifics. I've messed with three:

One allows you to enter code, but then creates a copy of your code in a layer over the controls. So I can't access the controls to start the interpreter.

The next looks as if effort has gone into the editing interface, but it doesn't feature a cursor. So I can't insert or modify code within the interface (which is ridiculous). I can edit elsewhere, and then cut and paste, but as you mention, all the line breaks disappear. (And they are significant!)

The third worked after a fashion. To get around textarea display issues (like being able to highlight the presently interpreted character) the author allows you to edit code in a standard textarea, but then allows you to create a copy outside the textarea which he can selectively highlight as the interpreter is running. But there are no instructions, so I'm required to guess that this is necessary. Plus, there is no feedback or error messages from the interpreter (unless the code itself generates output) apart from a subtle pink highlight *if* you've figured out the need to duplicate the code. So I messed with this a few times, assuming the code block wasn't valid. (And don't get me started on the author using an "end of program" character as what looks like a prompt.) It wasn't until I read about the language and wandered through the code myself that I decided it was valid, and retried until successful.

Anyway, just to be clear, I'm only bitching about the interpreters. The puzzle itself is good fun.

I am tempted to write my own interpreter. I really like the spatial control flow! It's like playing Spacechem. Or Jahooma's Logic Box.

I'm leaving on holidays today. I will be on the forums from time to time, but anyone feel free to bump this or ask for help from the guys who already solved it (just don't post any direct answers in this thread please).

If the game is still not claimed when I'm back next weekend I'll think of something.

Does Polish have to do something with the solution or are these hints just misleading?
Are there three different eso-languages involved, or just two?
Could the LotR-hint lead to a too simple approach of this challenge?

1. If you translate the Polish words into English (Google Translate does this easily), that should tell you whether or not they are significant. Certainly if you google the English translation. I can say for certain though, that you don't need to know Polish to solve the puzzle. It would be rather unfair if that was the case.

2. No comment, as that would be too specific a revelation.

3. I don't think so.

I only spent about 30 minutes on it last night - found a compiler that seems to have worked and got to the "hint" right away - compiler let me run through the code 1 step at a time or on a 500 ms step-delay, so I ran through it both ways wondering if there were a clue buried along the path. But seemingly not.

Went back to the output and the LOTR hint came together pretty fast.

Probably won't have time/opportunity at work, but will hopefully have some time tonight to look for the 'gas cap' as the above metaphor goes.

It looks like you are repeating my mistakes. You don't need to disassemble cars - on the contrary.

Oh, I wasn't planning to so perhaps I'm using the metaphor a bit differently. It's more a question of where to apply the statement when one follows the hint to read it literally.

Yes, you have the gasoline. Big mistake is to take car by parts, opposite is the way out.

Why do so many discussions among gamers devolve into car analogies? :-D

Still, if we're using that analogy, before looking for the gas cap on the car, you might want to research what the gas cap actually looks like on the model of car you're dealing with. That should make your search somewhat easier.

Really, now the analogy seems more difficult to me that the challenge.