Print

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

[Mesa]

That's fairly self-explanatory suggestion, and probably not TOO hard to code in, either.
The only problem would be the amount of time/resources it would take, but hey - it's totally optional, isn't it?

(if someone wanted to make their own Middle-Earth and whatnot...)
I may be wrong, but was that done with mods, possibly?

(all I want to be able to do is to generate worlds that are 312 679kms˛ so that I can have Poland in there)

[Avo]

Don't quote me on this but I believe you can customize the world size when generating new world from advanced parameters. Try looking there and if it's not there or doesn't work you could always try to build a scale model of Poland.

[Mesa]

Don't quote me on this but I believe you can customize the world size when generating new world from advanced parameters. Try looking there and if it's not there or doesn't work you could always try to build a scale model of Poland.

Do you expect me to build the damn Malbork Castle or Old City of Zamość?
No, thanks.

(the geography alone would suffice, with some DF-standard sites thrown in)

[tyrannus007]

No, you can't make anything bigger than 257x257. I tried adding a new world entry in world_gen.txt that had a dimension of 513x513. It showed up in advanced parameters, but the dimensions were set to 257x257.

[Baccar Wozat]

This was probably done before but...

Assume for sake of argument that tiles are 10 feet wide.
There are 48 tiles to the square in a local map, which is 16 squares wide.
A world map is up to 257 local maps wide.

257x16x48x10=1973760 feet, ÷5280 = 373.818 miles wide.

In a game I'm coding myself, I plan on going much larger than that, but it comes at the expense of either a) doing away with most terrain information and data, or b) having to store many gigabytes of data on the HD, plus take forever to gen the world.

I imagine Toady has the same predicament.

[HavingPhun]

The only problem would be the amount of time/resources it would take, but hey - it's totally optional, isn't it?

I agree that if it doesnt take too much work to implement that it should be in the game as an option. Also in the future pcs might be able to run worlds of gigantic sizes at fair speeds.

[sackhead]

This was probably done before but...

Assume for sake of argument that tiles are 10 feet wide.
There are 48 tiles to the square in a local map, which is 16 squares wide.
A world map is up to 257 local maps wide.

257x16x48x10=1973760 feet, ÷5280 = 373.818 miles wide.

i beleive for minecart math the tiles are 3 M wide, so about 10 feat

so(257x16x48x4=592.128km*592.128km or roughly 350,000 km²  whil poland is 312,700 km˛ you can already do it my freind

[tyrannus007]

According to this guy's math, a 257x257 map is 34,945 square miles, or around 56,000 square kilometers. That's about the size of Maine, which is a lot smaller than Poland. I'm not sure how accurate his math is, but one thing to keep in mind is that space and distance is very abstract in Dwarf Fortress. A bronze colossus takes up the same amount of space as a cat.

[TheSharkable]

I think worlds are big enough for all intents and purposes. Anyway when computers can make these worlds bigger, they will- but there's no point arguing over something not that useful for the majority of people that would take up precious development time.

[King Mir]

It shouldn't really take much development to allow larger worlds. This might even be possible with a simple binary patch.

[GreatWyrmGold]

This was probably done before but...

Assume for sake of argument that tiles are 10 feet wide.

Fair assumption.

There are 48 tiles to the square in a local map, which is 16 squares wide.
A world map is up to 257 local maps wide.
257x16x48x10=1973760 feet, ÷5280 = 373.818 miles wide.
In a game I'm coding myself, I plan on going much larger than that, but it comes at the expense of either a) doing away with most terrain information and data, or b) having to store many gigabytes of data on the HD, plus take forever to gen the world.
I imagine Toady has the same predicament.

Indeed. While I'm sure Toady would like to make worlds bigger than Maine, but it's not practical at the moment.

It shouldn't really take much development to allow larger worlds. This might even be possible with a simple binary patch.

Probably...but the largest worlds as-is already take up a ton of time to generate. Imagine a world 1,025 world tiles to a side...*shudder*

[Hyndis]

Also in the future pcs might be able to run worlds of gigantic sizes at fair speeds.

Sadly, this will not happen unless multi-threading support is added.

The maximum speed of a single core is around 3.5ghz. While you can overclock a single core to higher speeds, heat begins to become an issue. Higher than 4ghz is very hard to do, and 4.5ghz is pretty much the maximum speed.

Even if you have 12 cores in your processor, you're only ever going to use 1 core. These days all processor advancement is in more cores and more threads, as the speed of a single core has more or less reached its maximum speed.

If DF could take advantage of more cores/threads, then you could get a 1200% speed improvement on a fancy 12 core processor. That would likely be sufficient to run a 16x16 embark with 1000 dwarves, and still probably be at 100+ FPS.

Sadly, this will never happen unless Toady adds in support to take advantage of multiple cores/threads, or pathfinding and temperature calculations are made vastly more efficient.

[10ebbor10]

Just a note, It won't be a 1200% speed improvement.  The speed will still be limited by the slowest thread, as each thread can only be assigned to a single processor. Most likely, this'll be pathfinding.

So while multithreading will be a rather large improvement, I don't think it's going to matter that much. Especially not in worldgen, because there's little opportunity to splice up threads there.

[Hyndis]

Just a note, It won't be a 1200% speed improvement.  The speed will still be limited by the slowest thread, as each thread can only be assigned to a single processor. Most likely, this'll be pathfinding.

So while multithreading will be a rather large improvement, I don't think it's going to matter that much. Especially not in worldgen, because there's little opportunity to splice up threads there.

Yes, very likely pathfinding, temperature, weather, and moving liquid can be split off into their own threads, but I don't think the game can be divided up any more than that. But if somehow, magically, DF were to take full advantage of an entire processor, the improvements would be amazing.

I'd love to be able to build a full kingdom. Fortress? Pfft. Too small. Kingdoms are where its at. Full 16x16 embark, thousands of dwarves, mighty castles and walls, with multiple settlements scattered around the area. Now that would be all kinds of fun.

Of course that would be impossible due to DF using only a small fraction of a current processor. When I play DF my processor is about 84% idle. So many cycles being wasted.

[Neonivek]

By Travel speed the largest world is about the size of europe.

Mind you I agree with the idea of larger worlds with LESS population between the spaces.

In fact I think it is what the game really needs. Geography was never a big deal in the game, it is all the historical figures.

but that isn't what this thread is about. So I'll make that suggestion later.