Print

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

[KittyTac]

What could cause my modded species to be displayed under "Other Populations" instead of "Civilized Populations" in their own civ screens? They have [INTELLIGENT] and [BENIGN] and all.

[PatrikLundell]

It used to be that only the civ building races showed up there, while animal peoples, gorlaks, etc. showed up under other. I haven't tried the later versions (because I haven't played at all), but assume that to remain the case.

Note that "I've modded stuff and now things don't work as I expect" questions are better asked to modders than to tool providers who may have enough trouble keeping up with vanilla, and then you'd presumably have to provide the whole modded part so they have a chance to find the mistake/issue.
Once you and/or your friendly modder support has figured out a probably reason for why it doesn't work and you think that's a tool bug/deficiency, you can come back to the tool provider with an exact description of what doesn't work (and why it ought to, if it isn't obvious to non modders as well).

[Kromtec]

What could cause my modded species to be displayed under "Other Populations" instead of "Civilized Populations" in their own civ screens? They have [INTELLIGENT] and [BENIGN] and all.

It used to be that only the civ building races showed up there, while animal peoples, gorlaks, etc. showed up under other. I haven't tried the later versions (because I haven't played at all), but assume that to remain the case.

Note that "I've modded stuff and now things don't work as I expect" questions are better asked to modders than to tool providers who may have enough trouble keeping up with vanilla, and then you'd presumably have to provide the whole modded part so they have a chance to find the mistake/issue.
Once you and/or your friendly modder support has figured out a probably reason for why it doesn't work and you think that's a tool bug/deficiency, you can come back to the tool provider with an exact description of what doesn't work (and why it ought to, if it isn't obvious to non modders as well).

It is exactly the same problem as stated in my reply to Shonai_Dweller. I have no reliable way to map the Civilized World Population list to the race identifiers in the XML file and I have no information about tags like [INTELLIGENT] or any others in the exported files.
For Example:

Civilized World Population

   9385 Dwarves
   17448 Humans
   11963 Elves
   75109 Goblins
   278 Kobolds

   Total: 114183

From this part of the export is my information about which races are "civilized".
The problem is that these race names are in plural and in the XML a definition of a historicalfigure looks like this:

   <historical_figure>
      <id>93</id>
      <name>etur</name>
      <race>DWARF</race>
      <caste>FEMALE</caste>
        ...

So i have to connect that DWARF is related to Dwarves, which is simple for a human but is not so trivial in code.
And as soon as there are races like CAMEL_1_HUMP_MAN, it is impossible to automatically connect to a human readable string (that is additionally in plural) without hardcoding every relation.
That is why I filed this issue in the bugtracker and hope that Toady puts the races with singular/plural and identifier somewhere in the exported XML.

[Levity]

Thank you very much for your work Kromtec!

[PatrikLundell]

Sounds like the set of races to be considered civilized and potentially civilized (i.e. in the entity_defaults and potential heroes [if I remember correctly], respectively) ought to be candidates for the DFHack plus XML set, which ought to contain both the singular term used in the regular XML and the plural needed for the summary (I believe both are easily available from the creature data structure, with the first being the creature_id and the second being the plural index of the name, and while at it I'd suggest exporting the singular string as well, for potential future use).

[Kromtec]

Sounds like the set of races to be considered civilized and potentially civilized (i.e. in the entity_defaults and potential heroes [if I remember correctly], respectively) ought to be candidates for the DFHack plus XML set, which ought to contain both the singular term used in the regular XML and the plural needed for the summary (I believe both are easily available from the creature data structure, with the first being the creature_id and the second being the plural index of the name, and while at it I'd suggest exporting the singular string as well, for potential future use).

Exactly, a combination of these three properties (identifier, singular and plural string) would be awesome!

[PatrikLundell]

What do you think about this? I simply exported every creature_raw with id, names, and all flags ('cause it's easy to iterate over all of them, and it saves the task of picking the ones needed, and adding missed ones later).
I placed it before sites as the data is sort of world gen ("sort of", as I suspect failed experiments are actually generated during history).

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Code: [Select]

:
    file:write("<rivers>\n")
    for riverK, riverV in progress_ipairs(df.global.world.world_data.rivers, 'river') do
        file:write("\t<river>\n")
        file:write("\t\t<name>"..escape_xml(dfhack.df2utf(dfhack.TranslateName(riverV.name, 1))).."</name>\n")
        file:write("\t\t<path>")
        for pathK, pathV in progress_ipairs(riverV.path.x, 'river section') do
            file:write(pathV..","..riverV.path.y[pathK]..",")
            file:write(riverV.flow[pathK]..",")
            file:write(riverV.exit_tile[pathK]..",")
            file:write(riverV.elevation[pathK].."|")
        end
        file:write("</path>\n")
        file:write("\t\t<end_pos>"..riverV.end_pos.x..","..riverV.end_pos.y.."</end_pos>\n")
        file:write("\t</river>\n")
    end
    file:write("</rivers>\n")

    file:write("<creature_raw>\n")
    for creatureK, creatureV in ipairs (df.global.world.raws.creatures.all) do
        file:write("\t<creature>\n")
        file:write("\t\t<creature_id>"..creatureV.creature_id.."</creature_id>\n")
        file:write("\t\t<name_singular>"..creatureV.name[0].."</name_singular>\n")
        file:write("\t\t<name_plural>"..creatureV.name[1].."</name_plural>\n")
        for flagK, flagV in ipairs (df.creature_raw_flags) do
            file:write("\t\t<"..flagV:lower()..">"..tostring(creatureV.flags[flagV]).."</"..flagV:lower()..">\n")
        end
        file:write("\t</creature>\n")
    end
    file:write("</creature_raw>\n")
:


The complete file is too large to be posted, so I just provide the section before (unchanged) and the proposed new stuff.

[Kromtec]

What do you think about this? I simply exported every creature_raw with id, names, and all flags ('cause it's easy to iterate over all of them, and it saves the task of picking the ones needed, and adding missed ones later).
I placed it before sites as the data is sort of world gen ("sort of", as I suspect failed experiments are actually generated during history).

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Code: [Select]

:
    file:write("<rivers>\n")
    for riverK, riverV in progress_ipairs(df.global.world.world_data.rivers, 'river') do
        file:write("\t<river>\n")
        file:write("\t\t<name>"..escape_xml(dfhack.df2utf(dfhack.TranslateName(riverV.name, 1))).."</name>\n")
        file:write("\t\t<path>")
        for pathK, pathV in progress_ipairs(riverV.path.x, 'river section') do
            file:write(pathV..","..riverV.path.y[pathK]..",")
            file:write(riverV.flow[pathK]..",")
            file:write(riverV.exit_tile[pathK]..",")
            file:write(riverV.elevation[pathK].."|")
        end
        file:write("</path>\n")
        file:write("\t\t<end_pos>"..riverV.end_pos.x..","..riverV.end_pos.y.."</end_pos>\n")
        file:write("\t</river>\n")
    end
    file:write("</rivers>\n")

    file:write("<creature_raw>\n")
    for creatureK, creatureV in ipairs (df.global.world.raws.creatures.all) do
        file:write("\t<creature>\n")
        file:write("\t\t<creature_id>"..creatureV.creature_id.."</creature_id>\n")
        file:write("\t\t<name_singular>"..creatureV.name[0].."</name_singular>\n")
        file:write("\t\t<name_plural>"..creatureV.name[1].."</name_plural>\n")
        for flagK, flagV in ipairs (df.creature_raw_flags) do
            file:write("\t\t<"..flagV:lower()..">"..tostring(creatureV.flags[flagV]).."</"..flagV:lower()..">\n")
        end
        file:write("\t</creature>\n")
    end
    file:write("</creature_raw>\n")
:


The complete file is too large to be posted, so I just provide the section before (unchanged) and the proposed new stuff.

Wow, really cool! Is there already a version of the script that works with dfhack alpha0 and does not crash?

[PatrikLundell]

Not yet... The script relies on a field that happened to get lost during mapping (and it has moved anyway), but has been recovered as the result of a bug report. The bug fix for that was accepted an hour ago or so, but with that fixed the script ran on my system, both with and without my addition. Thus, it should work with the next DFHack build.
I haven't made a pull request for the script change, as I wanted to hear your "review" comments first, and the script hasn't been modified for new things in 0.47.X. I'll make a pull request for a script change shortly, but adding new things is a bit beyond me, as I don't know what needs to be added and where the standard XML export is sufficient.

[Kromtec]

Not yet... The script relies on a field that happened to get lost during mapping (and it has moved anyway), but has been recovered as the result of a bug report. The bug fix for that was accepted an hour ago or so, but with that fixed the script ran on my system, both with and without my addition. Thus, it should work with the next DFHack build.
I haven't made a pull request for the script change, as I wanted to hear your "review" comments first, and the script hasn't been modified for new things in 0.47.X. I'll make a pull request for a script change shortly, but adding new things is a bit beyond me, as I don't know what needs to be added and where the standard XML export is sufficient.

I am very exited to get my hands on your addition. Looks like this has everything in it I hoped for, and would solve a lot of issues.
I still hope Toady puts something similar into the vanilla export, because it will be a little tricky to simultaneously support a mechanism (that works at least as good as currently) for people that do not use DFHack.
But I already have an idea how to do it without maintaining a lot of redundant code. 

[PatrikLundell]

As you saw that addition was fairly trivial to make, so you shouldn't hesitate to suggest additions on github. The worst that can happen is a rejection, after all.

[Urist McNecro]

Hey I wanted to ask what the percentages after certain entries mean. For example stuff like Related Entities: The Holy Coal of  The Boat of Sweltering (Member 1%) or Worshipped Deities: the dwarf deity The Lavender Mother, Deity (99%). I assume it has something to do with the closeness of the relationship, but where is the percentage coming from exactly?
 

[Kromtec]

Hey I wanted to ask what the percentages after certain entries mean. For example stuff like Related Entities: The Holy Coal of  The Boat of Sweltering (Member 1%) or Worshipped Deities: the dwarf deity The Lavender Mother, Deity (99%). I assume it has something to do with the closeness of the relationship, but where is the percentage coming from exactly?

It is the strength of the relation, a value between 0-100.
Because of the range between 0 and 100, I chose to write the percentage symbol. Maybe not the best choice?
For worshipping deities, legends mode translates the value to a human readable string like "an ardent worshipper of The Lavender Mother", but I have not had the time to look into which subrange belongs to which string.
For membership in an entity, legends mode does not display the value at all.

What it exactly means and what the implications in the game are, you have to ask Toady.

[Urist McNecro]

The choice to display it as a percentage is fine. I pretty much assumed something like that after all. Just had hoped you maybe had more informations about its implications but I can ask a question in the FotF thread then.

Next question as I am exploring the new version with the Legends Viewer right now What does the Visual-Historical Distinction mean for relationships between two hfs? Are there other types than Visual and Historical? Is it another variable from the export you don't know the exact meaning of?

Also in case you maybe have made a FAQ or Manual somewhere about questions like this you can of course just send me there so that I won't keep bothering you with these questions :p

[Kromtec]

Is it another variable from the export you don't know the exact meaning of?

Exactly! 

For now I only encountered these two distinctions with five new types (love, respect, trust, loyalty and fear) and the range of the strength for the new types is -100 to +100.
Older types like "friendly" or "information source" only have positiv values, if I remember correctly.