Print

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

[PeridexisErrant]

If you try to play with a large embark area, you quickly run into an issue which seems minor with a smaller embark:  the local map is paginated.  This makes large sections of the map inaccessible, and often prevents embarking on desired features. 

For example, no embark can cross the red lines: 

... which would prevent you from playing on a map with all the waterfalls, for example. 

This is admittedly more of a problem for the rarer large embarks, but seems like it would be relatively easy to fix, and would add to the realism of the world. 

[sweitx]

... how fast is your computer that you can play a gigantic embark area without dying an FPS death?

[PeridexisErrant]

I usually play two by two or three by three on my laptop.

It got annoying though when I wanted to try out visualisers - Isoworld would have been awesome, and Overseer amazing if my laptop could render the map.

[Vattic]

I know Toady Has mentioned this before. I can't think what to search for to find his comments. From what I understand the current limitation is largely artificial, but there are things tied to it that would require a fair bit of work to change.

[Trif]

It was mentioned in DF Talk.

Toady:   [...] So your fortress is a portion of that, say it's a six by six in a sixteen by sixteen area, but since the map is all seamless now in most respects, like you can't slide your sight rectangle between two map squares, but you can keep it within one map square - now that's an artificial distinction we're going to get rid of at some time - but in general the entire map is seamless, so you could take those sixteen by sixteen maps, stitch them together and get a pretty large battlefield that's sort of a zoomed in world map [...]

[PeridexisErrant]

Cool, thanks for the source. 

Aaand, that was 2009.  Even if its not a new idea, it could probably do with a bump - and it would fit nicely with the 'living world' theme of the next update, with armies and unclear claims and so on.  It's probably silly, but having those artificial uncrossable lines breaks immersion a little for me.  OTOH, still the deepest game ever. 

[GreatWyrmGold]

It's one of those little rough edges which Toady's not likely to remove until he's getting the final polish on DF, because it's only sometimes a pain.

Not disagreeing, just saying.

[assasin]

It's one of those little rough edges which Toady's not likely to remove until he's getting the final polish on DF, because it's only sometimes a pain.

It seems to me that the beta is going to be almost as long as the alpha considering he'd have to rewrite the whole game.

[rhesusmacabre]

It wasn't directly addressed, but something related did come up in FotF more recently:

Is there a reason NPC sites go up to 17x17, and not a (theoretically) playable 16x16?

There are so many issues even with a 16x16 that it wasn't really a consideration.  The 16x16 is just an artificial embark screen restriction in any case, with a few coordinate problems which are fixable.  If we can figures out playing a 16x16, 17x17 isn't much larger.  Doing things like playing human etc. villages is a post 1.0 goal, and so not worth thinking about in any serious way now, given how long this is taking.