Print

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

[Caldfir]

I don't think people are really thinking here about the fact that you can't currently do a 16x16 embark anyway without crashing the game, unless you've intentionally skewed your worldgen parameters with that in mind (no caverns/no bottom layer/no magma layer would probably do it).  I don't know of anyone seriously playing on anything higher than 6x6 right now.  I would certainly be happy for the game to get tuned up to be fast enough on those kinds of embarks (and there is certainly plenty of optimization that could be done to prevent FPS death and memory issues of large and old forts) but until that happens, it doesn't really matter that you can't reclaim hill/mountain dwarf sites. 

I think when Toady mentioned 17x17 being "too large" he was probably referring more to the memory/FPS constraints than to an arbitrary limiting number. 

[dree12]

I don't think people are really thinking here about the fact that you can't currently do a 16x16 embark anyway without crashing the game, unless you've intentionally skewed your worldgen parameters with that in mind (no caverns/no bottom layer/no magma layer would probably do it).  I don't know of anyone seriously playing on anything higher than 6x6 right now.  I would certainly be happy for the game to get tuned up to be fast enough on those kinds of embarks (and there is certainly plenty of optimization that could be done to prevent FPS death and memory issues of large and old forts) but until that happens, it doesn't really matter that you can't reclaim hill/mountain dwarf sites. 

I think when Toady mentioned 17x17 being "too large" he was probably referring more to the memory/FPS constraints than to an arbitrary limiting number.

I have a 10x10 fort that is still achieving ~50 FPS with almost 100 dwarves. 16x16 crashes, but that is because of memory problems. Computers are very fast nowadays.

[nighzmarquls]

I don't post too often but I've been wondering this since the city redesign.

As Cities Grow do they preserve structures from their older 'smaller' versions? How do you manage the interaction of the old proceduraly generated layout and additions?
Is this the same method your thinking to use when overlaping entity sites (one conquering another and then growing)?


I'm very curious about this as I've run into massive difficulties trying to implement much less complicated procedural based progressions/interactions.

[Cobbler89]

If you want to hear more from Toady, you can always put the question in lime green and he will try to answer it.
...
One reason Toady may have done this was to prevent players reclaiming worldgen sites...

I don't think people are really thinking here about the fact that you can't currently do a 16x16 embark anyway without crashing the game...

Actually, I'd already pretty much asked in limegreen a few posts back (not going to repeat it here, but I think it's on the previous page of posts) whether there was a reason for the 17x17 size given that my understanding is that that 17x17 size was itself given at some point* as the reason why we won't be able to play non-fortress sites.

*I think it was the last FotF reply session, to my question as to whether we'd get to play the new Dwarven Deep Sites.

[PanH]

Would be undying glory for quantum menace if his two slits method was to be immortalized through use by hill dwarves...

I think the easiest thing would simply to not care about aquifer. They don't really "dig" like we do in Fortress Mode. The thing will spawn, and most probably with smoothed walls, preventing the flow. But I agree that would be fun to see the double slits.

[CaptainArchmage]

Actually, since aquifers generate water in the tile below them, smoothed walls on the sides won't help much unless the aquifer is sealed off from above too.

[PTTG??]

Aquifers just shouldn't be fire hoses. It should be easy, and safe, to dig down into an aquifer, send workers down to wall up the sides, and maybe even leave the tunnels as they are and use pumps to keep them dry enough to work in, like we do in real life.

[Helgoland]

Would be undying glory for quantum menace if his two slits method was to be immortalized through use by hill dwarves...

I just noticed how funny it is that a guy named "Quantum Menace" invented the "two-slit" (double slit) method

[CaptainArchmage]

Aquifers just shouldn't be fire hoses. It should be easy, and safe, to dig down into an aquifer, send workers down to wall up the sides, and maybe even leave the tunnels as they are and use pumps to keep them dry enough to work in, like we do in real life.

This. However, I don't know if Toady is going to change the code just because of that. I feel that dwarves would want to keep their tunnels dry without good reason or without accident.

Also I think there's a game engine limitation to playing the 17x17 maps, rather than a performance one. Sure the thing might play at 1FPS or so, but that's still "working".

[Putnam]

Aquifers just shouldn't be fire hoses. It should be easy, and safe, to dig down into an aquifer, send workers down to wall up the sides, and maybe even leave the tunnels as they are and use pumps to keep them dry enough to work in, like we do in real life.

This. However, I don't know if Toady is going to change the code just because of that. I feel that dwarves would want to keep their tunnels dry without good reason or without accident.

Also I think there's a game engine limitation to playing the 17x17 maps, rather than a performance one. Sure the thing might play at 1FPS or so, but that's still "working".

The game can't use the amount of memory required to play a 17x17 map.

[iceball3]

Aquifers just shouldn't be fire hoses. It should be easy, and safe, to dig down into an aquifer, send workers down to wall up the sides, and maybe even leave the tunnels as they are and use pumps to keep them dry enough to work in, like we do in real life.

This. However, I don't know if Toady is going to change the code just because of that. I feel that dwarves would want to keep their tunnels dry without good reason or without accident.

Also I think there's a game engine limitation to playing the 17x17 maps, rather than a performance one. Sure the thing might play at 1FPS or so, but that's still "working".

The game can't use the amount of memory required to play a 17x17 map.

Is the game 64 bit yet or still stuck at 32 bit?

[Mel_Vixen]

2x2? 3x3 Being decadent? Man my dorfs must live like kings in theyr 5X5 rooms. heck my nobles get 7x7.

[monk12]

"moral decadence of the 3x3" made me lol pretty good. I tend for 2x3 myself, it's interesting to have an official in-game standard to judge by.

[MrWiggles]

Aquifers just shouldn't be fire hoses. It should be easy, and safe, to dig down into an aquifer, send workers down to wall up the sides, and maybe even leave the tunnels as they are and use pumps to keep them dry enough to work in, like we do in real life.

This. However, I don't know if Toady is going to change the code just because of that. I feel that dwarves would want to keep their tunnels dry without good reason or without accident.

Also I think there's a game engine limitation to playing the 17x17 maps, rather than a performance one. Sure the thing might play at 1FPS or so, but that's still "working".

The game can't use the amount of memory required to play a 17x17 map.

Is the game 64 bit yet or still stuck at 32 bit?

32bit for now, but ToadyOne has stated in a Dwarf Talk that'll have to convert the game into 64bit. As always, no time line.

[DG]

"moral decadence of the 3x3" made me lol pretty good. I tend for 2x3 myself, it's interesting to have an official in-game standard to judge by.

No wonder immigrants are gagging to come to our forts.

Aquifers just shouldn't be fire hoses. It should be easy, and safe, to dig down into an aquifer, send workers down to wall up the sides, and maybe even leave the tunnels as they are and use pumps to keep them dry enough to work in, like we do in real life.

This. However, I don't know if Toady is going to change the code just because of that. I feel that dwarves would want to keep their tunnels dry without good reason or without accident.

Also I think there's a game engine limitation to playing the 17x17 maps, rather than a performance one. Sure the thing might play at 1FPS or so, but that's still "working".

It's one of those ocasions where the warp time speed of Fortmode doesn't gel with the speed that dwarves do things in Fort mode. Like work. And drown.