Print

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

[Crossroads Inc.]

Many of us have heard the comments regarding the original 2D version of Dwarf Fortress..
"It looks so PRIMITIVE!! It looks like this game was made in the 80's!!!"

Well…Could it?

Leaving out the more advanced versions of DF…
The OLD old school version.. How far back could you have made it work?
Given the processing needed, space, size, Megabytes and all that…  Could you have made it for a computer from the 80's? 90's? etc?

[Broken]

Nope, it wouldn't work. Aestetics are just that. The game needs a lot of processing power, so much that even in modern computers many
a fort dies to FPS death.(that aplies to the 2D version as well) So, no cigar.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Well the first release was back in 2006.  Given the computers of the time. How much further back could you go before it would become unplayable?

[PigtailLlama]

Visually it could have been made to look like it was on an oscilloscope, but in terms of age I'd say that it wouldn't be possible prior to 2000. The memory requirement for everything that exists in-game would have been too much for the usual computer, although a server might have been able to run a pocket-sized world at that time.

[Untelligent]

Nope, it wouldn't work. Aestetics are just that. The game needs a lot of processing power, so much that even in modern computers many
a fort dies to FPS death.(that aplies to the 2D version as well) So, no cigar.

Hell, there's been so many optimizations over the years that the current version runs far, far faster for me than the 2D ones do (100+ FPS on embark now, 10-20 on embark in Flat Fortress).

[misko27]

Of course, bear in mind that as a single threaded program, some of the older computers that have rather then multi-core systems actually have an easier time with DF (if a harder time in general).

[Putnam]

Of course, bear in mind that as a single threaded program, some of the older computers that have rather then multi-core systems actually have an easier time with DF (if a harder time in general).

Nah. I'd say the exact opposite. Four cores makes it easier to run because all the other stuff your computer is trying to run gets the other 75% of the CPU instead of DF having to share.

[Nasikabatrachus]

Little do we mortals know
just how great the codebase grows.
We frolic in the fields of ASCII,
never knowing our surpassing
by the perils of the deep
who dream our worlds in their sleep.
Little do we mortals know:
the Old Ones already play 1.0.


Also, this is relevant to this somehow, I'm sure.

[Trickman]

Of course, bear in mind that as a single threaded program, some of the older computers that have rather then multi-core systems actually have an easier time with DF (if a harder time in general).

Stop this shit.

Seriously, stop now. You don't know how computer processors work. A single core from a 2 GHz 6-core modern processor SHITS on the face of a 4 GHz single core Pentium IV. Judging how good a computer processor is based on its clock speed is like judging a book for its cover. There are a shitton of other improvements that affect processor performance DRASTICALLY (cache memory size and speed, instruction set and instruction segmentation, among others - google it if you're interested).

Sorry for the harshness but I'm too tired of seeing this on the forums. The best processor to stick on your computer to play DF is the most modern PC processor available in the market.

[Oort]

Well, Trickman, you are right in most cases, but there are some exceptions (mostly to do with different specs from the same time period). My macbook runs DF better than my friend's new gaming rig, because it's a dual core with more clock speed instead of a quad core. Although it's a complicated system with many other factors, it is an interesting anomaly.
(Yeah, I like the durability of macbooks, I don't use it for gaming besides DF.)

[Putnam]

My macbook runs DF better than my friend's new gaming rig

That's fair.

because it's a dual core with more clock speed instead of a quad core.

And that's post hoc ergo propter hoc.

[Trickman]

Well, just like Putnam said, that's that. Your computer is probably better than your friend's in general, Oort (or less loaded with redundant software and viruses; whichever), but we're talking only about processors here. There's much, much more to dictate how fast a computer is than the processor alone. A comparison between two different computers is unfair.

It's kind of like saying "my army of axedwarves is better than your army of axedwarves because mine have candy helmets". There are many other pieces of armor, plus the weapon and the training level, to account for how effective your army is

[Funk]

im not sure what supporting frame work df needs, i think any Microsoft operating systems from the NT family will work.
i did play 40D on a Windows 2000 machine but it was slow and th fps dropped fast.

because it's a dual core with more clock speed instead of a quad core.

Amdahl's law has a low bar for df, none of the core DF can be parallelized, and there is little to gaind form openGL being parallelized.

[Putnam]

The graphics is already parallelized, actually.

[nukularpower]

Well, Trickman, you are right in most cases, but there are some exceptions (mostly to do with different specs from the same time period). My macbook runs DF better than my friend's new gaming rig, because it's a dual core with more clock speed instead of a quad core. Although it's a complicated system with many other factors, it is an interesting anomaly.
(Yeah, I like the durability of macbooks, I don't use it for gaming besides DF.)

My Macbook runs DF like absolute garbage, compared to my gaming PC.. even the loadscreens take a zillion times longer.

Maybe not quite a zillion, but it is definitely noticable.