Print

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

[Romaq]

While discussing 'embark size' issues and CTDs, I had the thought of DF having a 'test mode' that runs on a pre-packaged setup world/ fortress, and this runs in a 'test' mode.

When you start the test mode, DF unpacks this standardized 'game in progress' that includes a group of dwarves committed to battle against some goblins, a waterfall and dwarves both prepared for jobs and tasked with hauling. The test mode disallows interface interruptions... the user is forced to wait, and mode displays graphics only of the battle near the waterfall (so as to work graphics as intensely as possible). The test runs for a useful number of frames, say 500 or whatever number is 'long but not too long' at max.

After the end of the run, the test mode provides "Useful Info (tm)."

What's the largest size embark I should consider to avoid FPS death of my fortress?
Do I actually have sufficient memory to support the max size recommended?
What's the max dwarves I should consider for a fortress of that size? What if I used a fortress a quarter that size? Can I double the number of dwarves allowed?

I'm not certain of the details, but the goals of such a test would be to help the player better determine their embark size strategy to ensure their fortress dies from HFS, as opposed to FPS or CTD.

Death by HFS is a healthy part of the game. Death by FPS is undesirable. Death by CTD is ... well, CTD should go away.

Oh, and as a side benefit, the 'test mode' could create a scorecard on system performance that could be used by Toady to know what level of hardware the fans are using at any given time. Reporting one's scorecard would be voluntary, and it would also allow for a bit of bragging rights. If the larger portion of people playing DF are using higher end systems, that would indicate Toady has more iron available on the typical machine he could put to use in DF.

[coolio678]

sure, it could be useful, but I found out if my computer could handle the 5x5 embark by simply playing the game.

[knutor]

Romaq,

I like the test app idea a whole lot.  *thumbs up*

Scorecard, no.  Don't like that.  There is no market for RTS's, thanks to Blizzard, MS, and the Civ chain cornering them.  And consoles stealing PC customers.  It also sounded to me like the Quake standard for FPS games.  I don't really want to compare DF with a Blizzard, MS or other game.  Its wholely unique enough, as it is.  But if it were to have a RTS standard, I guess it would serve some purpose, in comparison shopping.  We don't really purchase this, so I can't see the bonus of consumer comparisons. 

Instead of the Scorecard, I could see DF turned into a burn-in application, completely. Remove the locks, and crank up the size, and the heat.  Watch the temperature on the mobo in your system tools.  This game would be a wonderful way to test stability of overclocking and overvolting at various resolutions.  Something to unmystify graphic processing units and their memory is needed in my life, how about yours?

I don't think we need to tally a score system, wouldn't that indirectly assumes Bay12 would have a responsibility of the game performing at a certain low end stat?  When it really shouldn't have that responsibility.  Each box is different, and for a good many PC operators, proprietary, no scorecards need to be generated, outside what the gamer himself mods.  I couldn't see what the benefit of having side-by side comparisons would be, because tech changes every 3mo.

Sincerely,
Knutor

[Romaq]

By 'scorecard' I was simply thinking in terms of "DF test completes in 3 minutes avg. 40 fps graphics 45 fps, available memory (2 GB) maxed out at 1 GB). Recommend max embark size of 12 x 12 with a max settler setting of 80 for recommended performance."

Stats that tell you something useful about how well your machine runs DF on a test database, your max embark size given your memory, and what limit you should set on mobiles for 'recommended performance'.

It's all very well to say, "Well, a 4 x 4 embark is JUST FINE, you shouldn't need or want any more than that."

Toady allows for a 16 x 16 embark, even though it will CTD as it runs out of memory attempting to allocate that much. If I could do a 16 x 16 embark, well why the hell not? If I could have my DF support 200, 500 or 1000 dwarves and still get a framerate of 20, why not? Why can't maxing out DF be my 'megaproject'?

If it's cool and fine and wonderful to build a working (if terribly slow) virtual computer within DF, what'n'hell's wrong with wanting to max out DF itself? Or perhaps a better question... what'n'hell's wrong with having DF itself give me some sort of standardized info (stats/ scorecard) where I can 'max out' but still have a playable game that doesn't CTD?