Print

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

[Julien Brightside]

I think it looks nice, Seaturtlehorsesnake.

It reminds me of my old fortress in the midt of a cold desolate wasteland.

[itg]

By the way, I made up the following image, according to precise measurements of relative body part sizes from the RAWs. The number of pixels is exactly right assuming body size is area seen from the front (as would be used for combat striking, for instance).



Note that nothing guarantees that the aspect ratio of any given body part need be as I drew them here. So they could actually have slightly different body types. But you can't deviate by all that much without getting physically unrealistic spindly arms, etc. and while maintaining body mass equality and any sort of realistic sharing of armor. Not nearly as much as you would want to when drawing what you might expect elves vs. dwarves to look like for instance.

It is pretty much locked in here that goblins and elves are merely dwarves without beards and differently colored skin / maybe some pointy ears / maybe 10% different proportions here and there, that's about it.



I guess you could potentially claim that humans have a dramatically different aspect ratio despite nearly equal area, but that is difficult to reconcile with ANY historical conception of these races (elves goblins and dwarves all being one body type and humans being another? No...). And regardless, "large" would not be the appropriate adjective for the armor. Perhaps "broad" or "narrow" or whatever armor, but not "large"

It looks like you were thinking in two dimensions when you designed this. That's fine for a Gumby-shaped humanoid, but keep in mind that the thickness of parts along the unshown Z-axis varies considerably. In particular, taking this into account would make the arms (and legs, to a lesser extent) much less stubby. It also gives you more wiggle room to make dwarves short and burly and to make elves tall and thin, while still keeping the total volume where it's supposed to be relative to humans.

[GavJ]

I chose two dimensions because I believe relsizes are used for combat hit likelihood. Which would mean they ARE two dim. measurements.

[itg]

That may be the case (I'm not sure, but it sounds right), but given that all creature sizes are given in terms of volume, it's just not believable that the relative sizes are given in terms of cross-sectional area. What's more, I'm sure those same likelihoods are used for attacks from the side, prone attacks, etc, where the cross-sectional area model doesn't make sense. Regardless, that combat model is somewhat simplistic. In reality, all parts of the humanoid body are trivially easy to hit if the victim takes no steps to protect himself, and if he is protecting himself, the hardest parts to hit are the ones he's protecting the most. So basically, it doesn't make sense to define the body plan in terms of the combat model.

[GavJ]

What's more, I'm sure those same likelihoods are used for attacks from the side, prone attacks, etc, where the cross-sectional area model doesn't make sense.

There is no such thing as the "side" of a creature in dwarf fortress. You're confusing things by bringing in Earth physics. Creatures in DF have no directionality, they are presumably some sort of multidimensional tessellations that somehow present their frontsides to everybody viewing them at once (sort of like items on the groun in multiplayer minecraft, I suppose).  Everything in game suggests this: observation of ambushers is equal in all directions at all times, there is no "backstabbing," there is no penalty to moving in any direction based on past history, etc.

In any case, though, even if we were to allow that they do have sides and backs, that wouldn't neatly explain anything. If so, then the RELSIZES are just wrongly applied, simple as that. Whether they refer to area or volume, BOTH would be wrong in that case when applied from the side. At least area makes sense in some cases, though (front and back attacks), whereas volume never makes much sense as a contributor to hit likelihood.

[itg]

What's more, I'm sure those same likelihoods are used for attacks from the side, prone attacks, etc, where the cross-sectional area model doesn't make sense.

There is no such thing as the "side" of a creature in dwarf fortress. You're confusing things by bringing in Earth physics. Creatures in DF have no directionality, they are presumably some sort of multidimensional tessellations that somehow present their frontsides to everybody viewing them at once (sort of like items on the groun in multiplayer minecraft, I suppose).  Everything in game suggests this: observation of ambushers is equal in all directions at all times, there is no "backstabbing," there is no penalty to moving in any direction based on past history, etc.

I'm sorry, but you are wrong. In combat, creatures are considered to be facing in a particular direction, and attacks from the side or from behind are not only possible but are given bonuses to hit. That's pretty much the only time facing is considered by the game, to my knowledge.

[Eric Blank]

itg would be correct there. In the next version it will also matter in adventure mode because the vision arc of a creature will be measured in a cone extending in front of them.

[GavJ]

Oh okay, well my mistake on the directionality, then. 

But it is still the case that using any one set of relative sizes is incorrect no matter what -- whether they refer to area or to volume -- when applied to both side and frontal calculations.
Nor does adding some scalar multiplier bonus solve it, because the differences between front and side are quite non-linear, and a linear adjustment would be insufficient.

If you wanted to be as accurate as possible while still keeping memory and processing footprint as close as possible to the current footprint, then you should do something like this:
* Come up with some rough blobby 3d models of each creature. Some may use templates if differences aren't important.
* calculate projections from 5 angles: front, back, side(s), front diagonal(s), back diagonal(s), back, and make a table of cross sectional areas for each.
* Save those tables in RAWs. The 3d models can then be ignored and need not be packaged with the game.
* The game draws from whichever table is relevant for the current combat event as needed.



In the meantime, I would still maintain that interpreting them as cross sectional areas AT LEAST makes sense for one direction. Whereas interpreting them as volumes makes sense for no directions.  Unless the game during combat always takes a cube root and then squares it to determine target size, which I very much doubt / hope it doesn't.

[Midas]

Pond grabber

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

It was planned as cave plant series, but I never had enough patience to finish it or to draw the backgrounds 
Black Cap

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Blood Thorn

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Tunnel Tube

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[Farmerbob]

Nice, Midas!

[Alestance]

I decided to try my hand at drawing a kobold. Some inspiration from the Masterwork mod, but I also decided it strictly reptilian. It's more of a rough sketch than anything. The "ink pen" tool seems to have two modes: barely visible and OH GOD INK IN MY EYES AUGH!

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

 

[Julien Brightside]

That pond grabber looks scary.

[neblime]

that kobold seems much more buff than most i've come up against

[Midas]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Forgotten beast - eyeless serpent with broad horn and toxic vapors (vapors in 3...2...1...).

[Kishmond]

This thread needs a boost. If I had any artistic skills I'd put something here.
But I don't. Have something I'd like to draw if I could.



Close your eyes and imagine the hellcrab.