Print

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

[The Architect]

The multicolored dye idea seems interesting, and I think it should be done by weaving threads of different colors together. You could theoretically do cloth printing, even with images. Dying one thread several colors, however, will not allow you to make pretty patterns. You'll just have one screwed-up-looking article of clothing.

Let's not go into rare examples of single-weave one-directional items like scarves that can utilize multicolored thread. We can skip over that and accept the generality.

[NW_Kohaku]

The multicolored dye idea seems interesting, and I think it should be done by weaving threads of different colors together. You could theoretically do cloth printing, even with images. Dying one thread several colors, however, will not allow you to make pretty patterns. You'll just have one screwed-up-looking article of clothing.

Let's not go into rare examples of single-weave one-directional items like scarves that can utilize multicolored thread. We can skip over that and accept the generality.

... Err, yes, that was exactly what I was suggesting, using multiple threads of different colors to make a cloth pattern with multiple colors (or perhaps just a red upper and blue lower area when it is sewn into a dress or the like), and with a higher overall value.

[The Architect]

Hmm, I totally misread a sentence. Just take the addition of cloth printing (multiple colors applied to a finished cloth, and the possibility of images of varying quality and interest to traders) as my contribution and ignore the last 4 sentences based on a misinterpretation.

[BlazingDav]

I know this sounds strange, but if you ask me in the event of mechanised looming (I'm thinking sort of power looms you get from early industrialisation, though that might have just been making thread so apologies in advance if I got lost) I'd say that it doesn't improve the quality so much, or rather takes the skill of the loomer out of the equation, a mechanical loom essentially being guided by the operator to a destination, but not by much (as mechanisation is about minimising influence from an operator), at least I think so. Though it would definetly be faster, as a dwarf could just take the stuff there and set it up then run off to get more. While possessing better consistency than the dwarves (possibly pending of the mechanics skill who made it), it couldn't possess the same quality (or consistency for that matter maybe) of a legendary dwarf working the loom.

I guess though its more of a question of how the mechanisation helps, whether its a handy tool to assist in the dwarves labour (like a mechanised saw for carpenters to shape wood with or that air pump for superheating fires and helping oxidise impurities and such for smelters), then that dwarves life is made easier, improving quality with help of mechanisation at the cost of more ways to have an accident (que beards caught in mechanised saws!), while you can nearly automate entire workshops and possibly need just haulers to put the stuff there then a dwarf skilled at operating the machinary and gets it to do its thing and get the product, gaining a consistent quality at a moments notice, but at the cost of higher qualities (masterpieces almost being out the picture I guess) and more accidents (que beards caught in the mechanised butchery!)

Also I like the idea of conveyor belts actually interacting with the workshop directly as opposed just moving stuff from one stockpile to another, though maybe if stuff just got moved from one workshop to another, going from one bin in a workshop to the other, it might save the potential lag chaos (not sure, but it might be possible) you could get with stuff going round in a loop indefinetly with possible quantum stacking, also it'd be curious if you could combine a pressure plate with all this and so when a bin in a workshop is full presumably being inactive, it can send a signal to somewhere on the conveyor belt and 'turn' the direction of traffic.

[MUAHAA THE FRENCH]

Hi I'm new here so this has probably been suggested before so I apologize in the probably inevitable event it has.

Seeing as you can already build floodgates, magma forges, etc. all of which are very dwarfy-but-not-quite-steampunk technology, why not allow for the construction of a steam-vent system?

idea : build a device called a Boiler which blocks water flow and also absorbs it slowly. The boiler requires either a magma flow on the z-1 tile or a steady supply of wood or coal (a dwarf with the Wood Burning labor enabled will refill low fuel supplies; coal lasts much longer than wood). these steam systems are then hooked up to a pipe on the z+1 level. the steam can be used to fill chambers with boiling hot steam, perhaps linking to vertical hatches hooked up to a trap system, or for use as artificial power for a network of furnaces, to keep a water stockpile warm during freezing temperatures, or to power a steam engine which works as an alternating lever (ie, an eternally repeating lever pull to regulate some kind of flow system. could also be used for showers (should implement!), steaming clothes for Laundered Pig Tail Sock, etc...

[Starver]

Also I like the idea of conveyor belts actually interacting with the workshop directly as opposed just moving stuff from one stockpile to another, though maybe if stuff just got moved from one workshop to another, going from one bin in a workshop to the other, it might save the potential lag chaos (not sure, but it might be possible) you could get with stuff going round in a loop indefinitely with possible quantum stacking, also it'd be curious if you could combine a pressure plate with all this and so when a bin in a workshop is full presumably being inactive, it can send a signal to somewhere on the conveyor belt and 'turn' the direction of traffic.

I'm more of the "simple conveyor" type of person (ok, so maybe with a 'workstation' and a dedicated worker, you could arrange redirection of an item, but I'd prefer Dwarf technology to be basically A->B), but what you say about bins actually strikes a chord for how a 'realistic' system could be arranged.

Conveyor units, built as per axles in arbitrary-long horizontal and vertical increments (1..10, perhaps requiring a mix of something like logs, leather and mechanisms each in an appropriately scaled proportion) will take anything put onto them (at any point throughout their length) and convey them at a certain speed until they fall off their end.

But, they need bins (or equivalent, i.e. hoppers) at all entry points and exit points.  For manual entry, the bin will accept items as per current bins and will release each item one at a time (de-stacking if necessary, noting that by this time re-stacking of compatible  items will almost certainly have been sorted out) onto the conveyor if currently empty.  Manual insertion points have to be assigned to accept particular good types/qualities/etc, stock-pile-wise.

I'm toying with junctions, though.  I normally have no problem with conveyor dumping onto conveyor, unregulated, but you could end up with a build-up that way, so maybe you also need a bin system buffering every entry-point.  This would apply for both mid-belt insertions and entry at the beginning (after all, you could get three feed-belts trying to dump material onto a trunk one, and you really shouldn't leave that exploit open).

And make sure the bins can 'fill', and if the bin is full the feed (or feeds) to it and any manual tasks to put more goods into it are frozen.  Stop the conveyors, and abort (or make unallocatable) the bin-filling haulage jobs while this state of affairs exists (could mean a lot of start-stop of process, job cancellations, etc, and the repercussions of power-transfer system along a halted length of belt).

And should the exit be equipped by a built bin (with similar fillable quality stopping the feed) as part of the retrieval system?  Otherwise, you'r quantumly storing on the output, even if you stopped the possibility of quantumly storing on the belt itself.


An alternative is to implement like axles and gears, with bins as full-on junctions, but you really need it all to add up to have a conveyor coming from beneath a bin/hopper.


As for capacity, rather than based on a single-item per tile, perhaps go by weight/other measurement of size?  Thus raw stones might actually 'reserve' two or three belt lengths by dint of their weight (and, more bin/hopper space), whereas many wooden earrings could occupy a single belt tile.  Those are fine-tuning details, of course, and this just a speculative idea.

[zwei]

Hi I'm new here so this has probably been suggested before so I apologize in the probably inevitable event it has.

Seeing as you can already build floodgates, magma forges, etc. all of which are very dwarfy-but-not-quite-steampunk technology, why not allow for the construction of a steam-vent system?

idea : build a device called a Boiler which blocks water flow and also absorbs it slowly. The boiler requires either a magma flow on the z-1 tile or a steady supply of wood or coal (a dwarf with the Wood Burning labor enabled will refill low fuel supplies; coal lasts much longer than wood). these steam systems are then hooked up to a pipe on the z+1 level. the steam can be used to fill chambers with boiling hot steam, perhaps linking to vertical hatches hooked up to a trap system, or for use as artificial power for a network of furnaces, to keep a water stockpile warm during freezing temperatures, or to power a steam engine which works as an alternating lever (ie, an eternally repeating lever pull to regulate some kind of flow system. could also be used for showers (should implement!), steaming clothes for Laundered Pig Tail Sock, etc...

I have vision of this hooked to condensation chamber and waterwheel.

[BlazingDav]

If steam were to be reworked into a mechanics system it'd need to have more realistic dispersal behaviour if you ask me.

i.e. gases manage to disperse and disapate despite being in a space where it cannot expand at a given level of concentration, if instead it stayed like this not expanding until there was 'open' space for it to expand into then it could dissapate and disperse. Though if more gas was to be introduced into the enclosed space it should start exerting an outward pressure, potentially being dangerous for a miner to find this pocket of gas or rip apart constructions or machinary that seal it in.

Also if steam had a temperature according to how it was created and did damage as well as making air uncomfortably humid then, then anything producing steam regardless of function would need to disperse it otherwise it would build up and end in a disaster or a really unpleasant fort to live in.

[OcelotTango]

Really I think it would be interesting to have a track that platforms, and mine carts could move along. It would use some stone, metal, etc, and a rope or chain. It's a pretty simple piece of tech that dwarfs would have access to. Mine carts could be dwarf powered, and other platforms could be powered by waterwheel etc.
Sorry if this has already been suggested.

[HollowClown]

Most of the changes I'd like to see made to the traps involve a change in the physics model.  Right now, while the physics system checks flying/falling creatures to see if they've collided with something, it doesn't check to see if creatures have collided with a flying/falling object.  So, if you drop a cow 15 z-levels onto a floor, the cow explodes into meaty chunks.  If you drop a cow 15 z-levels onto a noble, the cow explodes and the noble is not affected.  If you drop a rock 15 z-levels onto a noble, the noble is not affected.  I'd love for this to be changed.  After that:

• Remove stone traps entirely, and replace them with a trigger mechanism connected to a retracting bridge and/or hatch cover.  This would allow for multiple-z-level stone traps, as well as stone traps that dropped rocks in a 10x10 spread when the trigger was hit.
• As a corollary to number 1, allow anything to be used in a falling item trap.  Calculate damage based on how massive the object is, and how far it falls.  Anvils would be cool.  Also elephants.  Personally, I would particularly enjoy killing nobles with objects that the noble mandated to be created.
• Add modifiers to in-game objects describing how much force it takes them to break/shatter/explode;  rocks and anvils would be extremely hard to destroy, barrels of booze would be easy to shatter, ballista bolts would be somewhere in the middle.
• Add a feature to 'designate catapult ammo'.  Allow anything so designated to be fired from a catapult.  This would provide a particularly dwarvenly alternative to the conveyor-belt system, since you could use it to move goods around the fortress.  It would also be entertaining to watch a dwarf wander into the line of fire, just as the catapult crew dispatched a batch of steel battle-axes on their way to the weapons stockpile.
• Separate catapult and ballista loading from firing.  Allow catapult and ballista firing to be triggered by mechanisms.  Once a catapult/ballista was fired, it would need to be re-loaded by hand.
• With the new 'semi-artifact' system Toady's putting together, items that are used for cool stuff will get named and used in history.  I'd like to see this system extended to traps, where possible.  This would let us see trap kills commemorated in engravings and artifacts.

[The Architect]

If you drop a cow 15 z-levels onto a noble, I believe neither are affected.

I'd like to see the inclusion of acceleration (with projectiles and falling objects) over time, momentum, and impact energy. We won't see that until Toady decides the actual dimensions of the z-levels and tiles, and then the actual weight of dwarven weight units. This will all probably come along when multi-tile creatures do, so it's all in the far-distant future.

[MUAHAA THE FRENCH]

wait a minute how are caveins calculated then, or stone dumping? i swear to god i've killed orcs by designating stone to be tossed from the parapets and i thought that the falling objects were what hurt dwarves when a cavein occurred...

[The Architect]

Cave-ins are a special case. I'm not sure if all falling stones do damage, but all cave-ins kill anything they land on except <spoiler>. Falling objects in general don't seem to do damage, and falling creatures definitely don't do damage if they are friendlies.

[Starver]

• Add modifiers to in-game objects describing how much force it takes them to break/shatter/explode;  rocks and anvils would be extremely hard to destroy, barrels of booze would be easy to shatter, ballista bolts would be somewhere in the middle.
• Add a feature to 'designate catapult ammo'.  Allow anything so designated to be fired from a catapult.  This would provide a particularly dwarvenly alternative to the conveyor-belt system, since you could use it to move goods around the fortress.  It would also be entertaining to watch a dwarf wander into the line of fire, just as the catapult crew dispatched a batch of steel battle-axes on their way to the weapons stockpile.

You don't mention, but I suppose you intend from the above two points, that a 'catavayor' system should result in a small attrition of material (proportional to the fragility of whatever is being thrown).  The opportunity to floor/wall an area with cushioned material might also be a useful addition.  Anything that wasn't too masive (rocks) or small (loose rings and the like) or prone to limb injury (i.e. livestock) could perhaps be stopped by a woven net feature, that would act a bit like a plant/spider fibre grating selectively on large enough objects and creatures at least until kinetic energy or strength of creature breaks it.

(Which wouldn't be a bad Physical Model change to apply to grating in general, and fortifications which would be more fragile/shrapnel-producing than walls when fired against by siege ammo.  Usual or improvised.  And right now I have an image of chucking barrels of spirits at a fortification followed by a flaming bolt or two to make things... 'interesting' for the defenders.

[HollowClown]

I'd like to see the inclusion of acceleration (with projectiles and falling objects) over time, momentum, and impact energy. We won't see that until Toady decides the actual dimensions of the z-levels and tiles, and then the actual weight of dwarven weight units. This will all probably come along when multi-tile creatures do, so it's all in the far-distant future.

A truly comprehensive Newtonian physics model isn't going to happen anytime soon, but I don't actually think we need one to implement these suggestions.  The point is that there's already a system in place for creatures falling from heights, or being thrown through the air by a hammer;  I'd just like to see the existing system generalized a bit.  I agree that it's a bit weird to calculate the damage done by a falling rock, but the stone-fall trap is already calculating the damage done by a falling rock.  Things like stone-fall traps, catapult ammo, and hammer-smack victims all have the physics model applied, but this pretty clearly only happens as a special case;  a stone thrown from a catapult is operating differently from a stone thrown by a raising draw-bridge, for instance.  I feel like changing these special cases into specific instances of general rules wouldn't require much extra definition -- we'd just be changing the way that already defined rules are being implemented.

You don't mention, but I suppose you intend from the above two points, that a 'catavayor' system should result in a small attrition of material (proportional to the fragility of whatever is being thrown).

Yeah, that's kind of what I was thinking of as part of item 3 in my original post.  If there's going to be a change in the way items are flung/dropped, it would be really good to have a change in their behavior when they hit something, too. 

Adding cushions would be cool, but I feel like the whole 'soft-landing-zone' thing should either be completely generalized, or completely ignored for now.  Once the softness/hardness of impact zones comes into play, it raises a bunch of questions like 'Is that elven diplomat softer or harder than a bed?', 'Does the human corpse take damage as it absorbs impacts?', and 'Can a unicorn corpse with no legs cushion more falling barrels of booze than a human corpse with legs?'.  It gets awfully complicated awfully fast -- I'd almost be happier ignoring the entire concept, and just accepting a 25% attrition rate on rock crafts when they were fired from a catapult.