Print

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

[Spiderking50]

That's what i thought, i'm in no rush. I'm still exploring all the changes from the last release.

[HiEv]

I'm pretty new to the game, and I don't really want to look through 45 pages to find one specific tidbit of information so I'll just ask; Are there any known plans to change the way vampires play? Either by making it so you don't get one with every migrant wave, or adding a vampire hunter noble position or anything, really.

From Toady's last post in this thread:

Also, are current vampire arrival frequencies intended?

Now that the initial novelty has worn off, I've seen more than a couple complaints that dealing with vampires with any kind of regularity is more of a pain in the ass than particularly fun.

Like bogeymen, I imagine it'll be reduced as we add more stuff.

I like your "vampire hunter" idea though.   

[EmeraldWind]

Nice list! I have to add "Codex [PHRASE]" and "Codex [NAME]" now. You'd get stuff like Codex Berevement or Codex Flying Wool.

Maybe also "The [ADJ] book of [NAME]"

Hmmm...

Toady, what do the tags in the text raws actually mean? In particulary I'm wondering about how [NO_ART_NAME] is different from [NAME]. Are there any tags that might work that haven't been tested or used by default?

Here's a great example of a name, rendered in English as the Tragicomedy of Calisto and Melibea and the old prostitute Celestina. I guess that's basically "The [PHRASE] of [NAME] and [NAME] and the [NOUN] of the [NAME]". I'm not sure the parser would like that...

I made a title:
[NAME]: From [ADJ] [NOUN] to [ADJ] [NOUN]
Which give such gems as:
The Dwarf: From Dreamy Cheeses to Charcoal Top (Dreamy Cheeses... sometimes I wonder if the game itself is aware of the community surrounding it.)
The Elf: From Poetic Serpents to Velvety Tightness
Dearthboot: From Short Father to Squeezing Wraths
The Dwarf: From Circumstantial Order to Depressed Chamber (Sounds like someone got atom smashed)

[thvaz]

I'm pretty new to the game, and I don't really want to look through 45 pages to find one specific tidbit of information so I'll just ask; Are there any known plans to change the way vampires play? Either by making it so you don't get one with every migrant wave, or adding a vampire hunter noble position or anything, really.

From Toady's last post in this thread:

Also, are current vampire arrival frequencies intended?

Now that the initial novelty has worn off, I've seen more than a couple complaints that dealing with vampires with any kind of regularity is more of a pain in the ass than particularly fun.

Like bogeymen, I imagine it'll be reduced as we add more stuff.

I like your "vampire hunter" idea though.   

As Toady doesn't like hard limits, vampires should usually avoid a fortress famed for identifying and killing vampires. The game already does this with normal migrants.
Ideally, a single vampire in a fortress shouldn't attract your attention unless you were always looking at the health screen for "pale" dwarves.  Single vampires would almost never kill - they would drain dwarves until they were at pale status and leave. But if you got a second vampire, and if it drained a "pale" dwarf, then that dwarf would be killed and the player would know for sure that there were vampires acting in that fortress.

[Elone]

Hummm.... I feel a bit like an outsider now. Can someone clarify why the green type is used? My extrapolated guess is that these are aimed directly at Toady as opposed at the others, but I'd rather be sure!

[Footkerchief]

Hummm.... I feel a bit like an outsider now. Can someone clarify why the green type is used? My extrapolated guess is that these are aimed directly at Toady as opposed at the others, but I'd rather be sure!

It's in the first post of this thread.

[Elone]

But I've read the first post!

Oh... I checked again... how did I miss that? Thank you for a speedy response!

[TallDwarf77]

Hi,

I've searched this thread for "threaded", "threads", "multi", "core(s)" but to my big surprise couldn't find what I was almost certain must have been asked before:

Are there any plans at all to make the game engine multi-threaded?

For me personally, this seems to be quite a crucial feature to have in the long run, for obvious reasons:

1. the game already slows down a lot on a not so slow CPU like my C2D running at 3.3 GHz when the number of dwarfs reaches about 100 (I'll admit that that was a major reason of frustration for me after having played several long games last year)
2. there are constantly added new features to the game (which is great!) which are likely to further increase the strain on the CPU for a given number of dwarfs
3. given the nature of the game, there have to be lots of possibilities for parallelism (however not having a lot of practical experience with that, I acknowledge that it may be a lot of work to get it implemented)
4. single-threaded CPU performance is bound to increase at much lower rates whereas the number of cores/threads is still growing quite rapidly (of course a modern CPU with turbo boost technology probably makes quite a difference, but I regard that only as a bridging technology, as do the CPU manufacturers afaik)

If I overlooked a discussion at another place in this form, please direct me to it.

[bombzero]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Hi,

I've searched this thread for "threaded", "threads", "multi", "core(s)" but to my big surprise couldn't find what I was almost certain must have been asked before:

Are there any plans at all to make the game engine multi-threaded?

For me personally, this seems to be quite a crucial feature to have in the long run, for obvious reasons:

1. the game already slows down a lot on a not so slow CPU like my C2D running at 3.3 GHz when the number of dwarfs reaches about 100 (I'll admit that that was a major reason of frustration for me after having played several long games last year)
2. there are constantly added new features to the game (which is great!) which are likely to further increase the strain on the CPU for a given number of dwarfs
3. given the nature of the game, there have to be lots of possibilities for parallelism (however not having a lot of practical experience with that, I acknowledge that it may be a lot of work to get it implemented)
4. single-threaded CPU performance is bound to increase at much lower rates whereas the number of cores/threads is still growing quite rapidly (of course a modern CPU with turbo boost technology probably makes quite a difference, but I regard that only as a bridging technology, as do the CPU manufacturers afaik)

If I overlooked a discussion at another place in this form, please direct me to it.

I think this should instead be taken as a sign that our search feature must really suck... one moment.


ESV (eternal suggestion voting) item number 14 atm. http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/eternal_voting.php
go ahead and vote for it.

(there saved you some trouble footkerchief.  )

[Footkerchief]

I think this should instead be taken as a sign that our search feature must really suck... one moment.

Only until you know how to use it (at which point it still kinda sucks due to the lack of substring search and logical operators, but hey).  This thread doesn't mention threading because it's a relatively new FotF thread and threading has been discussed to death in other threads.  Searching the Suggestions forum is a much better approach.

[TallDwarf77]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Hi,

I've searched this thread for "threaded", "threads", "multi", "core(s)" but to my big surprise couldn't find what I was almost certain must have been asked before:

Are there any plans at all to make the game engine multi-threaded?

For me personally, this seems to be quite a crucial feature to have in the long run, for obvious reasons:

1. the game already slows down a lot on a not so slow CPU like my C2D running at 3.3 GHz when the number of dwarfs reaches about 100 (I'll admit that that was a major reason of frustration for me after having played several long games last year)
2. there are constantly added new features to the game (which is great!) which are likely to further increase the strain on the CPU for a given number of dwarfs
3. given the nature of the game, there have to be lots of possibilities for parallelism (however not having a lot of practical experience with that, I acknowledge that it may be a lot of work to get it implemented)
4. single-threaded CPU performance is bound to increase at much lower rates whereas the number of cores/threads is still growing quite rapidly (of course a modern CPU with turbo boost technology probably makes quite a difference, but I regard that only as a bridging technology, as do the CPU manufacturers afaik)

If I overlooked a discussion at another place in this form, please direct me to it.

I think this should instead be taken as a sign that our search feature must really suck... one moment.


ESV (eternal suggestion voting) item number 14 atm. http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/eternal_voting.php
go ahead and vote for it.

(there saved you some trouble footkerchief.  )

Thank you, headed straight over there. I should say that I only searched this thread (Future of the Fortress) for those keywords as I thought this is the central place for suggestions, so I wouldn't necessarily blame the search feature.

[Elone]

The clothing attention seems to be a big highlight of this update. That too improves the FPS. We waited many years for it, let it finish please XD

[thvaz]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Hi,

I've searched this thread for "threaded", "threads", "multi", "core(s)" but to my big surprise couldn't find what I was almost certain must have been asked before:

Are there any plans at all to make the game engine multi-threaded?

For me personally, this seems to be quite a crucial feature to have in the long run, for obvious reasons:

1. the game already slows down a lot on a not so slow CPU like my C2D running at 3.3 GHz when the number of dwarfs reaches about 100 (I'll admit that that was a major reason of frustration for me after having played several long games last year)
2. there are constantly added new features to the game (which is great!) which are likely to further increase the strain on the CPU for a given number of dwarfs
3. given the nature of the game, there have to be lots of possibilities for parallelism (however not having a lot of practical experience with that, I acknowledge that it may be a lot of work to get it implemented)
4. single-threaded CPU performance is bound to increase at much lower rates whereas the number of cores/threads is still growing quite rapidly (of course a modern CPU with turbo boost technology probably makes quite a difference, but I regard that only as a bridging technology, as do the CPU manufacturers afaik)

If I overlooked a discussion at another place in this form, please direct me to it.

I think this should instead be taken as a sign that our search feature must really suck... one moment.


ESV (eternal suggestion voting) item number 14 atm. http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/eternal_voting.php
go ahead and vote for it.

(there saved you some trouble footkerchief.  )

Thank you, headed straight over there. I should say that I only searched this thread (Future of the Fortress) for those keywords as I thought this is the central place for suggestions, so I wouldn't necessarily blame the search feature.

The name is a bit misleading, but this thread is to discuss current developments and asking Toady about them.

[Caldfir]

@multithreading

At the risk of contributing to another pages-long angry debate about mutithreading, I would just like to add my two cents on the issue:  (note: the following is just an opinion)

Specifically, unless you are running a small set of completely independent things, multithreading is a lot of work to get right, and in general forcing multithreading into problems that don't lend themselves easily to task division is dangerous, and overall just bad programming practice, because you can actually end up slowing your program down if the tasks aren't large/separable enough. 

In general, wherever possible, a good programmer should try to improve their algorithms, as opposed to relying on hardware growth as a crutch.  If you don't believe me, take a look at the pathing costs in the algorithms compared here.  Typically, for similar amounts of effort, you'll make much greater gains by trying to compute things in a clever way than trying to multithread them.  Only when you're certain that you've made all possible algorithmic improvements, and things are still too slow should you start appealing to multithreading as a last resort. 

@BACK ON TOPIC:

I am super excited about the opportunity to clothe my dwarves.  I typically turn migration off early and run very long forts which have lots of children, all of whom invariably end up running around in the buff claiming every discarded sock on the ground but never doing anything with them, well into their adult years. 

Not to mention any ulterior motives I might have for wanting to see dwarven clothing bugs fixed...

[runiq]

Hi,

I've searched this thread for "threaded", "threads", "multi", "core(s)" but to my big surprise couldn't find what I was almost certain must have been asked before:

…

Thank you, headed straight over there. I should say that I only searched this thread (Future of the Fortress) for those keywords as I thought this is the central place for suggestions, so I wouldn't necessarily blame the search feature.

You can also use google to search certain sites, like this:

Code: [Select]

site:bay12forums.com threaded threads multi core
Sometimes nets you much better results.