Print

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

[Man In Zero G]

Secondly, All of this stuff wood be awesome! I'm not all that much of a tree nerd, but having all of that info and individualism for the trees wood make me feel bad for cutting down a multi-square tree that happened to be where I was trying to start my fortress.

That sounds a little Elfy.

Plus, maybe it would provoke a more realistic corrolation between the size of "a wood log" and what jobs could be done with what bits. (E.g., slice a few branches off Leaftower the Willow of Flowing to make a few wooden mugs instead of chopping down the whole tree or whatever.)

This is a good idea - it would definitely explain the difference between Elf-kosher wood and a regular pile of logs, and why Elf towns are still full of trees even after years of exporting wood to my Dwarves.

[Armok]

Spoiler: better readability? (click to show/hide)

*When trees get tissues?
 - How realistic will they be?
*What will it names be like;
 - "bark" "wood" and "hollow" etc.
 - Or will you do it more correctly with xylem and phloem?
*Will it use the same vascular tag as creatures, or perhaps even circulatory?
*Will the root system be of realistic size?
*Will different kinds of scar tissue and fungus attacks that cause large parts of trees personalities be modelled?
*Will trees be able to grow in odd ways, such as:
 - merging whit a tree growing to close?
 - growing into an enveloping an object?
 - falling in a storm but continue growing in a new direction?
 - have the main trunk die but a branch continues to grow and becomes the new trunk?
*How will hollow trees be modelled?
*Have I provided enough question for an entire tree-themed podcast yet?
*How different will different kinds of trees be?
*Will elves try to protect trees from stuff like draught or fungi or insects, or only from sapients?
*Will hollow trees contain decomposed wood and other common things?
*Will tree roots affect erosion rate?
*Do you often take walks in any woods, and do you tend to look at especially interesting trees and wonder how you can model that in DF?
*Will there be any candy for tree nerds?
*How much will you do with different kinds of smaller plants and undergrowth?
*Will you ever model grass species and such?
*What about different kinds of flowers in meadows and gardens and such?
*Will you model vegetation height and/or how it's affected by being cut for hay, grazed by animals, etc?
*Will at some point a farm use a unified system with the grass that grows on normal ground, so that it being abandoned and such have proper effects?

[Mephansteras]

Much better, Armok

[Areyar]

The spoiler is especially nice.

I'd love to find animals eating herbs and grass. I think I'd hate to see inanimate objects such as trees endowed with as much detail as an interacting creature such as a pet cat.

edit:
though I love trees and plant biology/physiology, I personally think in DF (a game about creating a community in a simulated world)
it is a waste of time and computing resources.

[Osmosis Jones]

Secondly, All of this stuff wood be awesome! I'm not all that much of a tree nerd, but having all of that info and individualism for the trees wood make me feel bad for cutting down a multi-square tree that happened to be where I was trying to start my fortress.

I see what you did there 

[G-Flex]

The thing with trees is that human culture, history and perception sort of demands that they be treated at least somewhat individualistically, especially if you end up with ones that are, say, magical.

There's also the fact that getting plants and animals working under the same system means you can quite easily have things like animated trees that function as both creature and tree.

[Warlord255]

The thing with trees is that human culture, history and perception sort of demands that they be treated at least somewhat individualistically, especially if you end up with ones that are, say, magical.

There's also the fact that getting plants and animals working under the same system means you can quite easily have things like animated trees that function as both creature and tree.

I'd be inclined to say that expanding on trees is just better for the game mechanics; it helps improve farming and crafting (plants with different functions and conditions for harvesting), and adds lots of potential for Fun™ stuff such as treants and other deadly plants.

[Christes]

Imagine the modding possibilities on plants...

How about actually designing a plant that produces an explosive extract - and have that be because ofo the actual chemistry.

[KillerClowns]

At minimum, trees should be detailed/merged with creatures enough to be mutated in sphere-related areas in the same way creatures are planned to be.  I want a perpetually burning forest full of perpetually burning animals!  And I want to build a fortress under it!  Ooh, or maybe the minerals sphere could make a petrified forest.  (But not entirely petrified, since wood is important, unless above-ground petrified trees are treated as wood.)

[Taal]

I'd love to find animals eating herbs and grass. I think I'd hate to see inanimate objects such as trees endowed with as much detail as an interacting creature such as a pet cat.

I disagree. Firstly trees are not nearly as inanimate as one would think and are in every way just as living as you or me, although notably more lazy. After all you do share 35% of our DNA with daffodils (The 35% I share with them is what makes girls want us so badly).

The easiest way, and the way it sounds like Toady is interested in taking, is to utilise the very same system that animals are under, with tissues and circulatory systems and what not, to model trees. This would allow certain parts of the tree being removed without the tree dying, and the dropping of wood upon death.

With it already being possible to create creatures made of wood in the next version. Perhaps the modelling of tree's is not as far off as one would think.

[Neonivek]

I disagree. Firstly trees are not nearly as inanimate as one would think and are in every way just as living as you or me, although notably more lazy. After all you do share 35% of our DNA with daffodils (The 35% I share with them is what makes girls want us so badly).

Alright well...

A) Few plants are capable of taking action on a visable scale. So they are Inanimate as far as we should be concerned.
B) Sharing 35% of our DNA with Daffodils is a true but meaningless statement due to how DNA functions.

Other then that you havn't really said anything I object to.

The only issue in my mind with modeling trees is simply how the game should handle it, which means that the creature definitions will need to be expanded (speaking on a technical basis) or else you can get weird things. So the real issue isn't that Trees need to be turned into creatures, it is that creatures need to include trees.

I have no faith in my ability to convey my thoughts anymore at this point.

[Taal]

A) Few plants are capable of taking action on a visable scale. So they are Inanimate as far as we should be concerned.
B) Sharing 35% of our DNA with Daffodils is a true but meaningless statement due to how DNA functions.

Changing the definition of a word to suit your argument is ludicrous. Plants are in no way inanimate, and even in the game trees grow, trees and plants disappear in the winter, new trees sprout. Inanimate hardly.
Pointing out the shared percentage of our DNA was to emphasise that they are infact living in every sense of the word.

Precisely, a few tags such as [neutral], [stationary] to control there interactions with the world and the creature system would emcompass both fuana and flora, effectively becoming a Model of Life in general. Which, I believe, is the direction toady is leaning towards for when he comes to the issue.

[Neonivek]

Pointing out the shared percentage of our DNA was to emphasise that they are infact living in every sense of the word

I don't think anyone contested that they are living. But still it is true but meaningless statement in every sense of the word.

A Common Explosive is 2/3rds like Water is a good example of a "True but meaningless" statement.

Changing the definition of a word to suit your argument is ludicrous. Plants are in no way inanimate, and even in the game trees grow, trees and plants disappear in the winter, new trees sprout. Inanimate hardly

I guess I just have a wider definition of "Inanimate" since several objects degrade and grow in real life, Like Houses. I was refering to their ability to react in visable time.

So treating them a lot like inanimate objects wouldn't be so bad.

although notably more lazy

Lazy? Lazy to me is a lot like Bravery. Lazyness isn't the absense of action but rather acting to avoid action. In the same sense that Bravery isn't the absense of fear but the ability to rise above it.

So Plants arn't lazy, in fact they can't be lazy, they just arn't capable of taking action in that sense.

Though if that doesn't suffice. There is a condition known as a "Blooming fool" that plants can have which causes them to blossom constantly. This condition can quite easily kill the plant.

[Taal]

Why are we arguing? We both agreed on the point at hand, that plants are more then likely going to be expanded by encompassing them into the creature system and that this is a good thing.

Now your picking on individual points used to support a larger issue that we agreed upon, points I made in past posts and contention in subjects that shouldn't be argued over ie. the meaning of words.

If you want to argue for the sake of arguing I'm all for it, just send me a PM, but continuing this any further in here is going off topic.

[Neonivek]

Why are we arguing?

I don't even consider it an arguement yet.

But sure I guess it really doesn't need to go any further as it isn't really contributing anything. (Though I did like to put that Plant condition out there)