Print

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

[brewer bob]

I'm also noticing a weird trend of mummies, reanimated corpses and experiments becoming civilized members during worldgen and acting as if they weren't OPPOSED_TO_LIFE

Experiments don't have the [OPPOSED_TO_LIFE] tag I think

It's definitely happening with reanimated corpses and mummies though

Mummies and intelligent undead don't have OPPOSED_TO_LIFE.

[aSpatula66]

Mummies do have opposed to life, intelligent undead do not

[kaijyuu]

I'm a bit late to some of this discussion (partly due to hurricanes knocking out my power for 5 days, partly due to rarely visiting the forums), but:


As someone who predominantly codes in python and hates coding in lua, I find it quite understandable for a game to choose lua over python for an auxiliary scripting system. Python's greatest strength is also its biggest weakness: the script writer can do damn near anything very easily. This means it's impossible to sandbox it, or in other words, it's impossible to detect or stop malicious code. Big games with big modding communities means players will be downloading mods willy nilly and a single dickbag can cause a lot of damage. Lua can of course still be used to make malicious mods, but it's far harder to do so, especially if the game has some simple sandboxing measures.

I'm not sure DF runs too big a risk of that since we already have DFhack and other memory editors being widely used with (to my knowledge) no instances of malicious scripts being published, but still. It's a reasonable decision to use lua over python for security alone, plus whatever preferences the devs may have besides.

[FantasticDorf]

I think that'll probably go into how the mod-LUA is implemented, which from what Putnam's been discussing on the discord, is formatted to only work inside of DF, so should be able to be removed via steam-mods even it it badly breaks 1 particular save.

Calling on so many things to crash the users computer with a runaway process accidentally or deliberate is probably the worst end of it I can think of. Im not naive to think that people could use it for more, but id hope those considerations arent anything. Similar concerns are instilled into the ethos for running non-official DFhack scripts, possibly Toady could require a extra level of legal protection and disclaimers if its perceived as a grave enough problem.

[ab9rf]

6. According to ab9rf, presumably Lua 5.4.

I have no knowledge of which version is being added; my assumption is that they're going to use 5.4 because that's the current version and the previous version (5.3) is years old. DFHack uses 5.3 instead of 5.4 because making 5.4 work with DFHack is nontrivial and we haven't wanted to put out that effort. This logic wouldn't apply to Bay12's situation.

[ab9rf]

Similar concerns are instilled into the ethos for running non-official DFhack scripts

We also disabled certain functionality within the Lua embedded in DFHack, as a protective measure, around the time that we put DFHack on Steam. Bay12 may wish to consider hardening the Lua imbed in DF itself in a similar manner.

[ror6ax]

One more. Since manager functionality is, by definition, scripting, will that also be exposed via Lua bindings?

The interface generally is on the table, but it's a large project.  We'll just see more and more come in over time.  I'd be happy if the interface can be remade entirely.

One more UI overhaul?

[dikbutdagrate]

Mummies do have opposed to life, intelligent undead do not

No they don't.

Code: [Select]

[CE_DISPLAY_NAME:NAME:mummy:mummies:mummified:START:0:ABRUPT]
[CE_PHYS_ATT_CHANGE:STRENGTH:300:1000:TOUGHNESS:300:1000:START:0:ABRUPT]
[CE_ADD_TAG:NO_AGING:NOT_LIVING:STERILE:EXTRAVISION:NOEXERT:NOPAIN:NOBREATHE:NOSTUN:NONAUSEA:NO_DIZZINESS:NO_FEVERS:NOEMOTION:PARALYZEIMMUNE:NOFEAR:NO_EAT:NO_DRINK:NO_SLEEP:NO_PHYS_ATT_GAIN:NO_PHYS_ATT_RUST:NOTHOUGHT:NO_THOUGHT_CENTER_FOR_MOVEMENT:NO_CONNECTIONS_FOR_MOVEMENT:START:0:ABRUPT]

It's definitely happening with reanimated corpses and mummies though

While the mods you are clearly using may be responsible for some interesting quirks, all I'm seeing from those legend entries is perfectly nominal behavior from the game's intended features.

Experiments don't have the [OPPOSED_TO_LIFE] tag I think

Correct. They do however possess a creature token which is unique to them, [NIGHT_CREATURE]. Just plain old [NIGHT_CREATURE], no additional _X whatever, bogey, hunter, nightmare, etc. I only added information to the wiki about this token, maybe within just the past couple of months. And I don't recall adding the token's documentation to wiki's creature token articles for the earlier DF versions, so the 47.05 article might be lacking it. If you haven't read up on the description, its probably worth a read. Its responsible for the behavior which governs undead creature's non-aggression toward intelligent experiment creatures. Hence why undead don't immediately attack you in adv-mode while playing as one. Its also responsible for the ambush notification Night Creature! in adv-mode, as well as some other stuff.


Edit: Added responses to other posts.

[A_Curious_Cat]

Btw, when are we going to get the October report?

[uristmctinkerer]

Would be possible to have the beta branch available in itch.io as well? Sorry, I searched the forum but I couldn't find a definitive answer about that.

Maybe I'm wrong, but to me it seems it wouldn't be too hard to make it available in itch.io. I decided to move away from Steam and buy the itch.io version instead (even though it's twice the price of the Steam version in my country), but I have the feeling that Steam is always favored over the itch.io version. I had the same problem to get access to the Linux version via itch.io in the past.

I appreciate if you can clarify this distinction between Steam and itch.io. Thanks!

[Putnam]

Steam has built-in uploading to the Steam Workshop. Other than that, they are identical. The exact implementation of steam workshop uploads causes the game to gripe mildly on startup if run without steam, but it'll run just fine as long as you don't try to upload anything.

[A_Curious_Cat]

Any possibility of reimplementing Dwarf Fortress in C@?

[LuuBluum]

Any possibility of reimplementing Dwarf Fortress in C@?

That would require... Tarn learning a new programming language, rewriting literally everything in that new programming language (and it's not like C++ code is trivially moved over to C#), trying to deal with all the changes to code that would need to happen when going from unmanaged to managed memory, figuring out alternative graphics libraries (I believe it still uses SDL, which would mean finding a C# equivalent), writing an entire brand new graphics system as a result...

So, no.

[Eschar]

Any possibility of reimplementing Dwarf Fortress in C@?

That would require... Tarn learning a new programming language, rewriting literally everything in that new programming language (and it's not like C++ code is trivially moved over to C#), trying to deal with all the changes to code that would need to happen when going from unmanaged to managed memory, figuring out alternative graphics libraries (I believe it still uses SDL, which would mean finding a C# equivalent), writing an entire brand new graphics system as a result...

So, no.

Your points are valid, except Curious was not talking about C# at all; they were making a joke about a fake language called C@.

[LuuBluum]

Any possibility of reimplementing Dwarf Fortress in C@?

That would require... Tarn learning a new programming language, rewriting literally everything in that new programming language (and it's not like C++ code is trivially moved over to C#), trying to deal with all the changes to code that would need to happen when going from unmanaged to managed memory, figuring out alternative graphics libraries (I believe it still uses SDL, which would mean finding a C# equivalent), writing an entire brand new graphics system as a result...

So, no.

Your points are valid, except Curious was not talking about C# at all; they were making a joke about a fake language called C@.

Admittedly I'm so used to questions like this elsewhere that I assume they just made a typo (@ being next to #, after all). Didn't even see the link.