Print

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

[Rufflikerex]

Wait, since this doesn't seem to have been focused on enough:
OP does not want something simple. It is an actual mathematical fact that it is impossible to make a flat projection of a sphere without distortion. It takes highly complicated math or strange abstractions to make a proper spherical world built out of flat tiles.

I think if you reach the edge of the map, walking off the edge should take you to the opposite side of the map to simulate the fact that Earth is round.

Yeah, op SURE does want something complicated. It's literally just a request for an adventurer to be warped to an opposite side of the map when he reaches an edge to SIMULATE a round world, we're talking a very simple mechanic, not actual map projection.

[Starver]

It would simulate a cylinder (wraps on one pair of edges, doesn't on the perpendicular ones), or a sort of torus. It would never simulate the "Earth that is round" without some major caveats. The simplest interpretation of the request is just not possible, so we need to look beyond that.

[KittyTac]

Why can't we ignore the distortion? DF is tile-based.

[Shonai_Dweller]

It would simulate a cylinder (wraps on one pair of edges, doesn't on the perpendicular ones), or a sort of torus. It would never simulate the "Earth that is round" without some major caveats. The simplest interpretation of the request is just not possible, so we need to look beyond that.

The request was for wraparound. The mistaken reasoning from the op was 'because earth is round'  but that's completely beside the point (as has been pointed out many times). The simplest interpretation of wraparound is wraparound. You know, like every other fake 2D wraparound world game in existence.

[Starver]

It may be me, but "you're wrong, because you were right" is my interpretation of that.

I know that can't be it, but I'm not sure how best to respond other than revealing my confusion and hoping you don't think me even more of an incomprehending/incomprehendable arse than you doubtless already do.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

They weren't asking for a round world, they were asking for wraparound with the faulty justification of a round world.

[Egan_BW]

In all seriousness, simulating a planet atom-to-atom might be possible if we get Dyson spheres. But I highly doubt that someone would dedicate theirs to Dwarf Fortress.

Why not? There's a lot of stars in just this galaxy. If we ever get around to becoming a type-3 civilization we may as well devote a solar system to playing the best possible version of DF.

[KittyTac]

In all seriousness, simulating a planet atom-to-atom might be possible if we get Dyson spheres. But I highly doubt that someone would dedicate theirs to Dwarf Fortress.

Why not? There's a lot of stars in just this galaxy. If we ever get around to becoming a type-3 civilization we may as well devote a solar system to playing the best possible version of DF.

Seems like an awful lot of work just to play a game. It's better to devote all spheres to either actual life simulations or other stuff.

[UristMcVampire]

In all seriousness, simulating a planet atom-to-atom might be possible if we get Dyson spheres. But I highly doubt that someone would dedicate theirs to Dwarf Fortress.

Why not? There's a lot of stars in just this galaxy. If we ever get around to becoming a type-3 civilization we may as well devote a solar system to playing the best possible version of DF.

Seems like an awful lot of work just to play a game. It's better to devote all spheres to either actual life simulations or other stuff.

By then, DF will probably BE a life simulation, just more !!FUN!!

[KittyTac]

In all seriousness, simulating a planet atom-to-atom might be possible if we get Dyson spheres. But I highly doubt that someone would dedicate theirs to Dwarf Fortress.

Why not? There's a lot of stars in just this galaxy. If we ever get around to becoming a type-3 civilization we may as well devote a solar system to playing the best possible version of DF.

Seems like an awful lot of work just to play a game. It's better to devote all spheres to either actual life simulations or other stuff.

By then, DF will probably BE a life simulation, just more !!FUN!!

Specialized ones will be a better thing to run either way. And I'm sure the plan is NOT to simulate everything.

[GoblinCookie]

KittyTac really shines on this thread.

To a large extent the mathematics of a spherical world don't really matter, since what the player needs to be able to do is walk off the edge of one side of the map and end up on the other side.  I guess this accounts for the popularity of donut-shaped worlds, in most cases the poles are far too cold for people to traverse. 

One thing to consider though, is that we have an option of North poles worlds, South pole worlds and both pole worlds.  In effect certain worlds bottom is not the poles but the equator.  This points towards the worlds we currently have being merely sides of half-sides of a bigger world that is unexplored; providing of course opportunities for a future explorer role. 

Could we not therefore take care of the roundness problems by adjusting the size of the off-map regions.  We could also, for those who want to play artic explorer create two appropriately sized artic maps for the 'top' and #bottom' of the world, if you somehow get to the other side without freezing to death you would be placed on one side of the map on the other side of the world.

If we had for instance 8 regions for those with both poles and 16 regions, not including the artic maps *then* we could make a spherical-feeling world out of flat maps.  That is because the more flat regions we add in, the less apparent the 'edges' are going to be.

[Starver]

If we had for instance 8 regions for those with both poles and 16 regions, not including the artic maps *then* we could make a spherical-feeling world out of flat maps.  That is because the more flat regions we add in, the less apparent the 'edges' are going to be.

I take it you don't mean an octahedral or something like a gyroelongated square bipyramid or pyramid-faced-octahedron layout, there?

For square grids, you really need to have six whole planar regions, and there's no other way. Or I continue to misunderstand.

(And I take it you meant cylindrical, not donut, at the start. To which you could simply cap with polar circles if you don't mind the change in field geometry.)

[scourge728]

Also: IRL poles aren't a necessarily part of the top and bottom of worlds...

[UristMcVampire]

Okay, this was a disaster, I'm closing this thread.