Print

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

[Fieari]

Will the expanded language framework you mentioned in the 12/12 update finally include a mechanism for having words in a language for objects in the gameworld?  Like, having a dwarven word for "Elf" or "Elephant"?

I realize he said that this framework is not technically going into this next release, but it is something he's working on, so I'm interested.

[Shonai_Dweller]

Will the expanded language framework you mentioned in the 12/12 update finally include a mechanism for having words in a language for objects in the gameworld?  Like, having a dwarven word for "Elf" or "Elephant"?

I realize he said that this framework is not technically going into this next release, but it is something he's working on, so I'm interested.

Unless another DFtalk is suddenly scheduled, you're better off posting this in the Future of the Fortress thread for an answer at the end of the month (or as soon as Toady's recovered from his annual bout of food poisoning).

[eerr]

So there have been attempts, in the past, to host Dwarf Fortress on a server.
In other words, one server, and many clients. One of which is the current player.

Would you ever support multiplayer of this kind?

It's one of those things, that would revolutionize the making of Dwarf Fortresses.
But on the other hand it could be considered heavy bloat,be too complex to integrate,
 or force the building of the client around a specific structure, slowing dev time.

Moreover, abstraction of the interface, if thorough enough, would also allow this.

[Shonai_Dweller]

So there have been attempts, in the past, to host Dwarf Fortress on a server.
In other words, one server, and many clients. One of which is the current player.

Would you ever support multiplayer of this kind?

It's one of those things, that would revolutionize the making of Dwarf Fortresses.
But on the other hand it could be considered heavy bloat,be too complex to integrate,
 or force the building of the client around a specific structure, slowing dev time.

Moreover, abstraction of the interface, if thorough enough, would also allow this.

Future of the Fortress Thread is for questions.
This is a long forgotten musty hole. Please don't disturb the bones.

[pamelrabo]

[edit] Wrong thread, sorry

[eerr]

Okay, thank you for informing me.

[zwei]

Will DF Talk be restarted? Now with the steam hype souds like right time to do this.

[Manveru Taurënér]

Will DF Talk be restarted? Now with the steam hype souds like right time to do this.

Was asked on the reddit AMA, if that helps.

Any chances of bringing back DFtalk?

We've tried of number of times, and it has always been our fault that it hasn't happened (not Capn or Rainseeker who have been great). It is a lot of work for the editor and a bit of prep, and the time seems to slip away.

[zwei]

Oh, thanks.

That is shame thou. DF Talks were great.

[Capntastic]

I'm not trying to get anyone's hopes up

[wierd]

So there have been attempts, in the past, to host Dwarf Fortress on a server.
In other words, one server, and many clients. One of which is the current player.

Would you ever support multiplayer of this kind?

It's one of those things, that would revolutionize the making of Dwarf Fortresses.
But on the other hand it could be considered heavy bloat,be too complex to integrate,
 or force the building of the client around a specific structure, slowing dev time.

Moreover, abstraction of the interface, if thorough enough, would also allow this.

Future of the Fortress Thread is for questions.
This is a long forgotten musty hole. Please don't disturb the bones.

Don't be stingy.  It's good to revisit old topics, as the status quo changes over time.  Take for instance, the "mobile devices not strong enough for DF" trope.  Not so much these days, even inside a straight up x86 emulation, it's good enough to run a simple fortress at playable speeds. (Tested personally, Can confirm.)

Asking if there could be a "server" version of the fortress mode simulation, that clients connect to in order to manage the goings-on is perfectly reasonable.  All the guts that are actually running the fortress could live inside the server side, and for the most part it would run just like a normal fortress; Only the data sent to the viewport needs to be sent-- which was kinda the point behind things like DFTerm and pals.  The only problems with that latter were that the whole viewport was being drawn over telnet, which was not an efficient use of bandwidth (especially with a server behind a throttled asymmetrical pipe), and that only a single viewport could be active at once.

Adopting some kind of hybrid between say, RIP terminal graphics, X-windows, and pals, (where the clients download then cache the graphics tiles, then do basically what amounts to markup presentation, using a highly minimal markup descriptive protocol to draw the viewport) should work for this. 

I get it Toady does not want to work on that, but "Does not want to work on it" and "Too difficult to do" are not the same thing.

[Shonai_Dweller]

Then ask somewhere other than the dead Dftalk forum
 Dftalk is over, never likely to return, Toady will never see a question posted here (as opposed to Future of the Fortress).

Sure free speech and all, taking to yourself in here doesn't hurt anyone. But it does annoy people who are suddenly given hope that Dftalk is coming back.

[wierd]

That's reasonable enough I suppose...

[clinodev]

 

So there have been attempts, in the past, to host Dwarf Fortress on a server.
In other words, one server, and many clients. One of which is the current player.

Would you ever support multiplayer of this kind?

It's one of those things, that would revolutionize the making of Dwarf Fortresses.
But on the other hand it could be considered heavy bloat,be too complex to integrate,
 or force the building of the client around a specific structure, slowing dev time.

Moreover, abstraction of the interface, if thorough enough, would also allow this.

Future of the Fortress Thread is for questions.
This is a long forgotten musty hole. Please don't disturb the bones.

Don't be stingy.  It's good to revisit old topics, as the status quo changes over time.  Take for instance, the "mobile devices not strong enough for DF" trope.  Not so much these days, even inside a straight up x86 emulation, it's good enough to run a simple fortress at playable speeds. (Tested personally, Can confirm.)

Asking if there could be a "server" version of the fortress mode simulation, that clients connect to in order to manage the goings-on is perfectly reasonable.  All the guts that are actually running the fortress could live inside the server side, and for the most part it would run just like a normal fortress; Only the data sent to the viewport needs to be sent-- which was kinda the point behind things like DFTerm and pals.  The only problems with that latter were that the whole viewport was being drawn over telnet, which was not an efficient use of bandwidth (especially with a server behind a throttled asymmetrical pipe), and that only a single viewport could be active at once.

Adopting some kind of hybrid between say, RIP terminal graphics, X-windows, and pals, (where the clients download then cache the graphics tiles, then do basically what amounts to markup presentation, using a highly minimal markup descriptive protocol to draw the viewport) should work for this. 

I get it Toady does not want to work on that, but "Does not want to work on it" and "Too difficult to do" are not the same thing.

Thank goodness wierd aired this out for us!

[TheyreAllGullyDorfs]

nevermind