Print

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

[edgefigaro]

4x4.  I like to get multiple biomes in, but anything larger than 4x4 is FPS death. 

1x1 no pop cap sounds interesting.  1x1 terrifying no pop cap sounds even more interesting...

*scurrys off*

Edit: Looks like 2x2 is the smallest size.

[Aachen]

Mostly, I've played default embarks, so it's varied from version to version. Tried a few non-square sites over the years, but never stuck with 'em too long. Once or twice a 2x2 or 3x3 .... now that I'm running the game on a netbook, I will likely be adjusting to smaller forts. FPS is tanking with heavily restricted population on a 4x4.

[notquitethere]

2x2 almost everytime, and I tend to build above ground, with minimal underground incursions (a few basements and a shallow mine). Thus, the bigger the population gets, the more I sprawl upwards in a shanty-town style tower awash with platforms and bridges. Typically, every dwarven family gets their own house with bedrooms upstairs, and a large inn with kitchens and brewery serves as the communal focus. As space becomes sparser, the houses are piled on top of one another. Invaders are kept at bay by the external walls of the town-complex, often with a moat as well.

[dragginmaster]

4x4 for ages until i learned it could be changed. Tried some bigger, some odd balls 6wide 2 high

Went to 3x3 for fps issues...

Went back to 4x4 when i got a new laptop and was pumpin high fps with a river, two water falls, 80 dwarves+ with lots mined out, lots of crafts shipped...

Found out i had all kinds of room i was forgetting was there, went back to 3x3 and have noooooooooooooooooooooo fps issues. Ever.

[codyorr]

I always go 3x3 but then again I cheat like a bastard.

[krenshala]

I use 5x5 as a compromise between sprawling landscapes and small enough for good frame rates.  Now if only DF could use more of the 16GB of RAM I have in my computer.

[Mitre]

I almost always play 3x2. Anything else just feels like I'm wasting too much space.

[CaptainArchmage]

My sizes are variable. I usually try to use a 4x4, but if I need to get more features (i.e. a volcano and a river) then I can expand this. My dwarven capitol map underwent a large expansion to 6x6 (I think) just to get in a volcano, tall mountains, and, an aquifer. This laptop is somewhat slow at playing maps compared to the FPS I might get on a modern computer though.

I am alright with compressing the map on one dimensions and expanding it on another. A 2x8 map has as many tiles a 4x4, after all, and the number of tiles is one of the contributors.

I use 5x5 as a compromise between sprawling landscapes and small enough for good frame rates. Now if only DF could use more of the 16GB of RAM I have in my computer.

We're really getting to the point in development where 64-bit is necessary.

One other problem is the way RAM latency contributes to the speed. It would be good if there were some optimisations to skip over some checks the game tends to do, say, only check for the existence of objects at specified times unless a creature is actively trying to get one (i.e. to perform a job or steal something or pickup equipment).

[Errant Gamer]

Would running the 4GB patch on the DF.exe offer anything in terms of fps improvements? I'm no techie, but I've been recommended to do it on other programs.

[notquitethere]

Experiment and see, and if it does speed up the game tell the forum about it.

I once had a 2x8 that spanned an entire channel between the main continent and a large island: I wanted my 32 storey obsidian pyramid over a volcano to be assessible in adventure mode without swimming, so I built a huge bridge.