Print

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

[Zucchini]

So, a couple of years ago I started a project to do some serious research in engineering, scientific and medical sources on the properties of a whole lot of materials, from metals and wood to skin, bones, hooves and hair, with the goal of coming up with more detailed and accurate numbers to plug into all these things, and perhaps hopefully to submit to Toady for use in the raws.

I came up with a rather lengthy document of carefully-sourced discussions on each type of organic tissue/material, as well as most inorganics, coming up with final suggested numbers.

---

In tandem with that, I was also working on coming up with an elegant, if more complex, solution to the skin/leather tanning problem.  I had mixed feelings about mods that flat-out genericized all leather, since I like some forms of leather/fur to be special, but I didn't want to see one-humped camel leather and blue jay leather and so on.

So I also came up with a tentative rework of the skins and tanning system, organizing and rationalizing skins and leathers such that most mundane leathers are genericized as "leather," but more interesting creatures not only retain their specificity in names, but have better stats where appropriate.  The system significantly reduces clutter and the length of the leathers list, eliminates inappropriate leathers like worm and blue jay leather, and shortens arguably-unnecessarily-long name lengths for many mundane leathers.

Anyway, RL stuff happened and it dropped off.  I'm thinking of picking up the project again, so I was hoping you guys could clue me in on what changes in those areas we've seen since 34.xx.  (I do know that Toady has mentioned that he intends to do something about skin quantity, since a cat currently drops as much skin as an elephant.)

And I'd like to hear some honest opinions on how useful and worthwhile this stuff is.  If it is considered so, I'd very much welcome further input and even collaboration on it -- the spreadsheet and research notes are currently open to commenting.

LINK: Materials Spreadsheet (Google spreadsheet -- open to commenting)
LINK: Notes and References on Material Physical Characteristics (Google doc -- open to commenting)

(They're the same links as those in the paragraphs above. Note that the "mountain leather" and "savanna leather" thing is just a brainstorming idea as a possibility for a greater level of genericization, but I am not at all sure I like it any better than other options.)

I do entertain the likely-vain hope that this could be noticed by the Toad on high and incorporated.  I think it's a good and necessary thing.  What you guys think?

[NJW2000]

This sounds goood, but I think I'd miss this Giant Earthworm Leather artifact decorations too much.

[NW_Kohaku]

Make a suggestion thread with the research.  Toady's used well-sourced materials data before, including Uristocrat's materials science, which involved all of the types of stones and trees that didn't have data yet at that point.  (New trees have since been added, however...)

[Zucchini]

Very well, I will do that when I have it more complete.  Thank you NWK.

[Cruxador]

The habitat-based leathers seem like they don't need to be differentiated, as those names are pointlessly weird. Especially since the mechanics are written as identical anyway; it makes far more sense to just stick with animal-specific for these things.

Research seems to indicate that smaller animal bones are actually stronger than larger animal bones, against all expectations,

Makes sense to me. A small animal has very little bone, so that bone needs to be strong. For a larger animal, the strength of the material is less important since there's a lot of it, which is multiplying that strength (relative to the smaller animal) anyway.

|
For example, I've never heard of “dog fur” or “cow fur”.

Dog fur seems logical enough in long-furred breeds though. I think the lack of usage is largely for sentimental reasons, since wolf furs are common and prized and some breeds of dogs have fur very similar to that of wolves. Mind, differentiating this stuff based on breed is a whole nother kettle of fish. The same could also be said of long-furred cattle but I think those breeds are rare enough to safely ignore.

This sounds goood, but I think I'd miss this Giant Earthworm Leather artifact decorations too much.

Giant vermin do seem like they could use special attention. The Earthworm specifically is called out on the MULTIPLY_VALUE page so presumably there's an intent to do something there.

[NJW2000]

...I meant the fun leathers generally, who wants a cow leather artifact crown when they could have polar bear leather?

But yeah, furs rather than leathers for some animals (especially polar bears, come to think of it) would be great.

[Zucchini]

The habitat-based leathers seem like they don't need to be differentiated, as those names are pointlessly weird. Especially since the mechanics are written as identical anyway; it makes far more sense to just stick with animal-specific for these things.

[ . . . ]

Dog fur seems logical enough in long-furred breeds though. I think the lack of usage is largely for sentimental reasons, since wolf furs are common and prized and some breeds of dogs have fur very similar to that of wolves. Mind, differentiating this stuff based on breed is a whole nother kettle of fish. The same could also be said of long-furred cattle but I think those breeds are rare enough to safely ignore.

Hyep.  You're right, it is kind of lame.  Coming back to it a few years later, I looked at it and wondered what made me think well enough of it to seriously consider it and put it in the spreadsheet.  Forget that noise.

So, now, older and wiser (yeah, right), I think I'm tending to think of it this way: mammal skins divided into (a) furred skins and (b) non-furred skins (or barely-furred skins, like regular short-haired cow).  Regular skins follow the rules I've talked about, while furred skins can render into either leather (following the naming rules) or fur (which are kept specifically animal-named).

Research seems to indicate that smaller animal bones are actually stronger than larger animal bones, against all expectations,

Makes sense to me. A small animal has very little bone, so that bone needs to be strong. For a larger animal, the strength of the material is less important since there's a lot of it, which is multiplying that strength (relative to the smaller animal) anyway.

Agreed.  I think my surprise was due to learning in grade school that bird bones were hollow, making them lighter and more well-adapted to flight.  So then, learning that bird bone is actually denser than ours, and of equivalent percentage of body weight, came as a surprise.  Damned feathery lizards.

[NW_Kohaku]

Research seems to indicate that smaller animal bones are actually stronger than larger animal bones, against all expectations,

Makes sense to me. A small animal has very little bone, so that bone needs to be strong. For a larger animal, the strength of the material is less important since there's a lot of it, which is multiplying that strength (relative to the smaller animal) anyway.

Agreed.  I think my surprise was due to learning in grade school that bird bones were hollow, making them lighter and more well-adapted to flight.  So then, learning that bird bone is actually denser than ours, and of equivalent percentage of body weight, came as a surprise.  Damned feathery lizards.

Well, it's actually more that bones marginally cost more for terrestrial creatures as they grow in size thanks to the square-cube law. Those minerals that make up strong bones aren't cheap, nutritionally speaking, and as such, cutting a few corners where you can makes sense.  It's when you get really, really large, like say, dinosaurs, that you need to really invest in stronger bones again, because you can't just make bones fatter without adding to the load further down the bone, as well.  (Every given cross-section of bone has to bear the weight of everything in the body above it, so the bones of the feet have to grow harder and thicker to carry the whole mass of the body...)