Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Footkerchief]

He means that from an engine perspective, tree objects are treated the same as construction objects.

Yeah, in some ways.  And in a crapton of other ways they aren't.  Trees can be named by elves, be set on fire, be chopped down, grow and die, make use of their wood material's biome tags, etc.  The engine in all likelihood handles tile types case-by-case, and a statement that trees don't catch fire because they're constructions is not only incorrect -- "construction" has a specific meaning in both the interface and the source code -- but fails to provide any insight into why trees don't catch fire.  Trees are just a case that was forgotten in part of the fire code.  Nothing more, nothing less.

DON'T MENTION HIM!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yu2NqfISm9k

[LegoLord]

I don't think you really know how a program works.  There's nothing stopping Toady from hard-coding a type of construction that occasionally is generated on top of a "x sapling" tile based on wood matgloss of the sapling.  There is also nothing stopping him from issuing a separate designation for removing them.  Also, I've settled on several elf forest retreats and never found a named tree, search though I might.  Really, the only things defining something as a construction are temp immunity and dropping the thing they're made from when they collapse - two things trees have.  There is nothing else that any two constructions have in common, except requiring support (which trees do).

Now, more importantly, why did me saying that they were technically constructions even bother you so much in the first place?

[PTTG??]

EDIT: I've decided not to contribute to this pointless argument.

[Footkerchief]

Now, more importantly, why did me saying that they were technically constructions even bother you so much in the first place?

It didn't the first time you said it.  But then you said it (at least) a second time and I decided to nip this in the bud before the forums and DF wiki fill up with people attempting to explain properties of trees in terms of their construction-ness.  You're welcome to say "construction" means whatever you want, but the innocent lurkers deserve better.

[LegoLord]

I came to the conclusion that trees were based on constructions from the fact that they are totally immune to temperature, creatures can destroy them (designations excepting), and that they would drop a log when collapsed, just as a wooden wall, floor, ramp, etc., would.  The only thing other than trees that had all three of these were constructions.  And regardless of how they are created, after creation the constructions and trees function almost identically. 

If you will notice, dead trees only occur in evil areas, which are generated right at the start of worldgen, and even have their own seperate tile type.

So, maybe they aren't, but they definitely have a lot in common, and maybe construction coding was partially based off of trees.  But don't say I'm just entirely wrong and sweep away everything I've said on the subject.