Print

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

[Melting Sky]

I started my fort with a low population cap due to fears of FPS problems but I'm curious just how much a dwarf actually effects FPS compared to something like an animal or a waterfall etc. Are dwarfs the heaviest FPS burden in the game by a long shot or are my fears overblown? Right now I have a little over 100 dwarves which is what I set my cap to and there aren't any signs of slow down yet so I've been gradually increasing the cap hoping it doesn't come back to haunt me later.

I've got a laptop with an early i7 processor in it. Does anyone have a suggestion for a good pop cap for my set up? My fortress is on a 2X5 embark site with a river and volcano so there is a bit of natural FPS load. Also what is the minimum population cap you can have and still experience all the population based triggered events in the game? I know sieges and the mega beasts seem to start showing up around 80ish.

[Urist McRas]

I believe it's 80.

I don't know about the fps, I'm having 5-10 fps with 170 dwarfs and like 200 animals. I wonder why.

[Telgin]

Some of the nobles have population requirements over that.  Dukes require 120 I believe.  I'm also pretty sure I've seen counts and dukes with less population than they required, so it may be a matter of meeting only some of the requirements.  Monarchs have complicated requirements but probably also require higher than 80 dwarves.

[smjjames]

I believe it's 80.

I don't know about the fps, I'm having 5-10 fps with 170 dwarfs and like 200 animals. I wonder why.

Are the animals all wandering around? That might be why?

To the OP, everybodys computer handles DF differently, but while 200 dwarves is probably the most that the average system can handle, I've heard of people having 500+ dwarves in their fort (and no, don't ask me about the FPS with those because I have no clue).

There are MANY factors that affect FPS, embark size being one of them, but what eventually slows things down are the sheer number of items and pathfinding also affects FPS.

You're going to have to play around with the pop cap and see where you're comfortable with as far as FPS goes, while my computer can handle upwards of 200, I'm more comfortable with more like 150 dwarves.

[BoredVirulence]

It also depends, somewhat, on the age of the fortress itself. Its not difficult for a brand new fortress hacked with 500 dwarves to start out fast, but slow down as memory usage grows, and pathfinding gets more difficult, especially with wandering animals the layout of your fortress.

It really depends on what you prefer. Some people prefer small fortresses of ~100, with a high FPS, some people prefer highly populated fortresses with lower FPS.
Dwarves probably do cause the biggest hit to FPS, simply because they will have the most complicated pathfinding needs. Animals wander not with a goal of getting across a fortress, but typically with a desire of moving a few tiles, causing many smaller pathfinding requests. Dwarves move everywhere.

Spoiler: Slightly unrelated and partially philosophical ranting (click to show/hide)

Personally, FPS death is the fate of everything, including DF. It's only appropriate that those worlds suffer the same fate of ours. I like to consider it a feature. It would be nice if the scale made a little more sense. And yes my analogy isn't perfect, but it feels appropriate. Don't grow attatched, in a way, we are Armok, and he would not suffer the fate of dwarves. Hopefully though our tools of creation improve to better experience the anguish of our creations.

[PanTheSatyr]

Are dwarfs the heaviest FPS burden in the game by a long shot or are my fears overblown?

On my personal experience, Embark Size seems to have a huge impact on FPS. Especially the older your fortress get.

On my laptop, embarking on 2x2 compared to 3x3 equals about 50 additional dwarves I can afford for the same FPS in the longterm. Limiting the access to the caverns can save some FPS too. This way I can play with about 150+ dwarves with between 20 and 40 fps. (FPS drop noticeably on big Sieges though) for many years.

Fortress Design has a big impact as well. More efficient forts have shorter paths and thus path-finding is faster.

destroying unused items (for example low quality furniture) and using some DFhack commands for example to clean blood helps too.

There are also mods that simplify items and rocks to increase performance. They claim to increase the fps by up to 20+ fps. I personally don't really like the changes they do, though. But for 20 additional fps they may be worth a try.

I've heard of people having 500+ dwarves in their fort (and no, don't ask me about the FPS with those because I have no clue).

Some say that they can run them with stable 50 fps or even more. I guess its possible with the right hardware.

[Hans Lemurson]

My understanding is that stockpiles are also one of the major sources of FPS problems since they are constantly searching for items to be stored inside them.

[itg]

I think the amount of open space you have on your map affects FPS at least as much as population. I have a very old fort (3x3 site) which runs at 30-35 fps on my new laptop, and 15-18 fps on by backup (which I'm unfortunately using for the next week or two). The fort has about 100 dwarves, I think I've done okay at keeping down item clutter, I seal off areas I am not using, and I think my pathing designations are reasonable. The best explanation for the FPS issues I can think of is that exposed tiles drag down your FPS, whether dwarves can path to them or not.

[BoogieMan]

I think the amount of open space you have on your map affects FPS at least as much as population. I have a very old fort (3x3 site) which runs at 30-35 fps on my new laptop, and 15-18 fps on by backup (which I'm unfortunately using for the next week or two). The fort has about 100 dwarves, I think I've done okay at keeping down item clutter, I seal off areas I am not using, and I think my pathing designations are reasonable. The best explanation for the FPS issues I can think of is that exposed tiles drag down your FPS, whether dwarves can path to them or not.

I've come to the same conclusion. Fortress after fortress I often notice the bigger long term FPS losses start showing up after I start heavily mining deep underground, regardless if it's done at much earlier or later times in the Fortress' life. Even after they are fully cleaned and empty, then sealed off, it still seems slower than it was previously.

[Beast Tamer]

Another thing to keep in mind is items and junk. Yesterday I realized I had over one-thousand goblets of copper and gold- enough for me to buy out everything I want from the dwarf caravan for a few years. Another drain on FPS is clothes, to that end craft armor for all your dwarves (boots, leggings/greaves, breastplate/mail shirt, and any other stuff you want) so your map doesn't get cluttered with used clothing. It also gives your dwarves a form of protection in the worst case scenario, so remember to train up their armor use somehow.

[mobucks]

I've noticed, at least on my setup, that designing a fort on a single z-level is a LOT better for FPS. I ran a 2x2 embark multi-z fort to 150 dwarves and it slowed to 30-40fps under regular conditions (ie. mostly idle dwarves) in ~3 years. Then I got fed up and came here and looked to try something I hadn't, (basically tried everything before that) and found people saying single z forts run better since pathing is slower across z-levels. My current fort is a 3x6 embark, 150 dwarves, 50 animals, and runs 70 fps under regular load, and only dips to 40s when every single dwarf is hauling items to depot or refuse piles after a siege.

But obviously you end up making a lot of sacrifices to the overall gameplay by restricting a fort to a single z.

[XXSockXX]

To the OP, everybodys computer handles DF differently, but while 200 dwarves is probably the most that the average system can handle, I've heard of people having 500+ dwarves in their fort (and no, don't ask me about the FPS with those because I have no clue).

I have a fort with 560 dwarfs. FPS is not good obviously, between 10-15 with temperature and weather off, but it drops below 5 in sieges.
That is only slightly worse than it was with 300 (roughly 15-20, but didn't drop as often and as deep), so I guess population is not the most important factor with FPS.

[TruePikachu]

I think the amount of open space you have on your map affects FPS at least as much as population. I have a very old fort (3x3 site) which runs at 30-35 fps on my new laptop, and 15-18 fps on by backup (which I'm unfortunately using for the next week or two). The fort has about 100 dwarves, I think I've done okay at keeping down item clutter, I seal off areas I am not using, and I think my pathing designations are reasonable. The best explanation for the FPS issues I can think of is that exposed tiles drag down your FPS, whether dwarves can path to them or not.

I've come to the same conclusion. Fortress after fortress I often notice the bigger long term FPS losses start showing up after I start heavily mining deep underground, regardless if it's done at much earlier or later times in the Fortress' life. Even after they are fully cleaned and empty, then sealed off, it still seems slower than it was previously.

If the area is sealed off (as in unable to be pathed into; Restricted isn't good enough), then dwarves shouldn't even be _attempting_ to path in. Toady had stated (and the data structures confirm) that it is known if a location can be pathed to from another without even running the pathfinder. This check is done in all cases before pathing, so the lag can not be attributed to dwarf pathfinding (and, by extension, can't be dependant on population).

It is possible that lag could still result from the item chain (I haven't studied the relevant structure or code, so no idea) or temperature calculations (I don't know if this is even considered in the code, but there is surface area in mined-out areas, which affects temperature change IRL).

Sidenote: If it is known if someplace can be pathed to or not, why do clowns like eating FPS when resealed? Do they somehow bypass the check when trying to get to the surface?

[PanTheSatyr]

I've noticed, at least on my setup, that designing a fort on a single z-level is a LOT better for FPS.

First time i hear that. I'm intrigued since I always wanted to build a somewhat realistic overground village but was afraid of the fps penalty.

Though I can't imagine how this can be more efficient, path-finding across half of a bigger, open map seems to be costlier than pathing a few z-levels down in a dungeon...

[Fluoman]

Except when you factor in the fact that most fortresses have a very bad Z-layout, meaning it is very cost-intensive to calculate the path. There was a very good thread about A* and pathing 6 months ago detailing that.

Edit: Here goes