Print

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

[Zavvnao]

I love this game, but the moment it becomes too realistic, I may have to stop playing.

[Footkerchief]

As far as substantive releases go (adding new features as opposed to bug fixes), clearly some take longer than others.  It seems to be the case that there are shorter release cycles in which you make one or two substantive additions to the game, and others that involve some major structural change which necessitates rewriting numerous aspects of the code and, therefore, results in a longer development time to the release. 

How many major structural changes remain with DF that will require extended development cycles/release periods like the one that we are currently experiencing?  Can you list the remaining major structural changes to DF that you presently envision as necessary to complete DF 1.0?

Obviously, development plans change and some releases take longer than others, so I don't mean for this question to pin you down on any specific development plan or release schedule, but I think it would be encouraging to me and the community to hear that there is some discrete number of major structural changes that will happen leading up to DF 1.0, and each of these long release cycles does, in fact, complete some certain major structural elements, thereby reducing the number of future extended release cycles.

The Core items on this page are basically that list: http://bay12games.com/dwarves/dev_single.html

However, the size of individual features is not what causes year-plus release cycles.  Rather, it's the number of features that get bundled into the release.  Long release cycles happen because all programmers have the impulse to bite off too much at once, even when they've been trained not to, even when they have colleagues or supervisors calling them out on it. 

[Putnam]

Yeah, this one has at least 4 of the things on that list included in here. By my last count, it was 6, but then that list is outdated and the current version numbering scheme may be different enough to make my guess completely off-base.

[LordBaal]

Nice new avatar Putnam.
I think it would be too cumbersome (but necesary, at least for me, being a little compulsive neat freak) to have such list. I also think that Toady's time would be implented better developing the game instead of doing such chore.
Guiding myself by this which is what you actually get when you click on the link instead of the dev_single one. However it's lost to me if that's up to date. I recall Toady saying something about coloring some list and I assume is this one.

[Putnam]

Which avatar is a new one? O_o

[LordBaal]

It keeps changing as I reload the page! What kind of accursed, dark sorcery is this?!?! 

[Mesa]

It keeps changing as I reload the page! What kind of accursed, dark sorcery is this?!?! 

It's called SignAvatar. Would post a link or elaborate but I'm using my phone atm so eeeeeeh...

[The Minister]

As far as substantive releases go (adding new features as opposed to bug fixes), clearly some take longer than others.  It seems to be the case that there are shorter release cycles in which you make one or two substantive additions to the game, and others that involve some major structural change which necessitates rewriting numerous aspects of the code and, therefore, results in a longer development time to the release. 

How many major structural changes remain with DF that will require extended development cycles/release periods like the one that we are currently experiencing?  Can you list the remaining major structural changes to DF that you presently envision as necessary to complete DF 1.0?

Obviously, development plans change and some releases take longer than others, so I don't mean for this question to pin you down on any specific development plan or release schedule, but I think it would be encouraging to me and the community to hear that there is some discrete number of major structural changes that will happen leading up to DF 1.0, and each of these long release cycles does, in fact, complete some certain major structural elements, thereby reducing the number of future extended release cycles.

The Core items on this page are basically that list: http://bay12games.com/dwarves/dev_single.html

However, the size of individual features is not what causes year-plus release cycles.  Rather, it's the number of features that get bundled into the release.  Long release cycles happen because all programmers have the impulse to bite off too much at once, even when they've been trained not to, even when they have colleagues or supervisors calling them out on it.

Thanks for the response Footkerchief.  I think my question was a little bit different, and maybe a little unclear.

I was specifically wondering which particular development items will require "major structural changes" to game code that will require updating many parts of the game, if you can say at present.

By "major structural changes" I am referring to fundamental changes to part of the code that necessitate rewriting code in several areas of the game because they would actually break other parts of the game if they were not simultaneously updated.  For example, adding the Z-coordinate, DF 2010's material abstraction rewrite, and the combat speed/move speed split required rewriting code underlying a number of different aspects of the game because the updated code so significantly varied from the placeholder that preceded it that the change would simply have broken various aspects of the game if a wide ranging rewrites were not simultaneously introduced.  Those particular release cycles were also relatively long, at least partly because of the breadth of those rewrites.  In contrast, when night creatures were added, that release took some time, but not nearly as long because, although they were a pretty significant substantive new feature, they did not have such wide ranging effects that required rewriting tons of code underlying different parts of the game.  At least, it seems that not all the items on the development arcs list describe the kind of "major structural changes" about which I was trying to inquire. 

I'm not a programmer by profession, so if this question is unclear or misapprehends the development process anyone can please feel free to let me know and I will try to rephrase.

EDIT:  I guess, to be clear, I'm less interested in knowing how many long release cycles there will be as I am interested in knowing how many major structural changes remain before the fundamental framework of DF is in place.

[Inarius]

EDIT:  I guess, to be clear, I'm less interested in knowing how many long release cycles there will be as I am interested in knowing how many major structural changes remain before the fundamental framework of DF is in place.

Well, even if this is not very precise, I think that the biggest fundemental change to come will be the economy, and the different "planes" (I think I remember reading Toady saying that the latter was the change he "feared" most to implement).

[Cobbler89]

And in early June, 2014, the Fortress gained the ability to alter its own object data templates mid-process. Skynet's next attack was promptly foiled, and humanity continued the production of cheese and socks the Fortress so desires.

[Scotsmen]

And in early June, 2014, the Fortress gained the ability to alter its own object data templates mid-process. Skynet's next attack was promptly foiled, and dwarvenkind continued the production of cheese and socks the Fortress so desires.

FTFY

[Eric Blank]

And why can't humans enjoy cheese and socks?

Will this ability to generate new object types mid-game allow us to potentially add new modded objects mid-game as well?

[sal880612m]

This may have been answered already but in the next version with the addition of history continuing to be generated post world gen and the possibility to retire fortresses will the embark options change based on what we do in our own forts if we retire them? ie if we tame elephants long/well enough or embark in an evil biome and get a hold of some silver barbs will those then become available from the embark screen in future forts?
If no, is this a planned for the future?

[Parisbre56]

Is the reverse possible? Deleting all objects of some type?

The dark god of elves bans the existence of axes and anvils. It is up to our young dwarf hero, champion of Armok to restore unbalance to the universe...

[Knight Otu]

And why can't humans enjoy cheese and socks?

Will this ability to generate new object types mid-game allow us to potentially add new modded objects mid-game as well?

It might be a start, but I doubt it. There is probably more that needs to be done for that to work, such as doing a diff on the save raws and the data structures of the save.

This may have been answered already but in the next version with the addition of history continuing to be generated post world gen and the possibility to retire fortresses will the embark options change based on what we do in our own forts if we retire them? ie if we tame elephants long/well enough or embark in an evil biome and get a hold of some silver barbs will those then become available from the embark screen in future forts?
If no, is this a planned for the future?

There was a bit of this further upthread with regards to domestication. Either way, what your fortress is doing is supposed to impact the world. In some future update, if you manage to domesticate elephants (it's currently not possible to reach domestic status for undomesticated animals), then you should eventually be able to get elephants through caravans, assuming your civ can get access to enough elephants to domesticate and trade away. Similarly for sliver barbs - if you put enough of them into circulation, you might get some sliver barb products into the world, which may then reach your future forts. If you send out seeds, that might end up granting the civs around the world the ability to plant sliver barbs.

Is the reverse possible? Deleting all objects of some type?

The dark god of elves bans the existence of axes and anvils. It is up to our young dwarf hero, champion of Armok to restore unbalance to the universe...

That seems really doubtful. Deleting object types holds pitfalls that adding them doesn't. And in your example, you certainly don't want to delete anvils or axes - you want to destroy the existing ones, then edit the civilizations to remove the ability to make axes and anvils from them, and then set up some events that restore that ability to those civs. Deleting the item types in question would be counterproductive in this case. I suppose it could make some sense, for example, for curing all vampirism, but even then, I'd keep the vampire curse objects around for reference at least.