Print

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

[Terratoch]

I was wondering if it has been considered (and if it has, sorry) that the game be designed to run on multiple threads, to increase speed?

[sproingie]

Please search the forum and you'll have your answer.  Mods, let's just lock the thread?

[profit]

I was wondering if it has been considered (and if it has, sorry) that the game be designed to run on multiple threads, to increase speed?

Yes, it has been considered... 

Yes, it could bring about phenomenal increases in speed...

Yes, we have also discussed using CUDA

Yes, we have also discussed FUSION

No, don't look for it to happen because Toady does not know how to do it and in order to learn would have to take time away from the actual project.

[GoldenH]

On the other hand, DF won't really be playable until it happens, and it would only take Toady a day or two to learn in the simple cases DF would require.

So, keep bringing it up, good people.

[KaelGotDwarves]

On the other hand, DF won't really be playable until it happens, and it would only take Toady a day or two to learn in the simple cases DF would require.

1. DF is playable
2. There are programs not multithreaded by corporations with dozens of programmers and massive amounts of money and time to implement in programs not nearly as complex as DF. Toady is a self taught programmer.
3. Someone who thinks they have a BRIGHT NEW IDEA WHICH IS TOTALLY EASY GUYS!!1!!!ELEVENTYONE!1! brings multithreading up every two weeks or so, hence the irritation by regular forum goers.

EDIT: If you wish to see any viable increase in DF speed, may I suggest contributing to http://www.bay12games.com/forum/index.php?topic=43265.0 The pathfinder project, or testing the d# series. These are ongoing projects which may and have actually made a difference in fps. Multithreading has been discussed, debated, considered, rehashed to hell and at this point is not being pursued.

[GoldenH]

DF isn't playable, I try it every so often but I pretty much give up on it because of the lag. Especially if you want non-anthill fortresses, which means you will need large embark sizes which are unplayable. So if you just want to work within microfortresses or whatever, work megaprojects with no animals or invaders, sure you can make it work. But I expect the new version to be even less playable due to underground diversity lag.

I'm also self-tought in programming and I'm saying Toady will easily be able to learn how to make a threaded app in a couple days. He doesn't need to make it perfectly efficient but there are a lot of ways he could use it to improve the speed, just handling weather, temperature, pathfinding and fluids in seperate threads would make a huge improvement.

Regular forum goers ought to just get used to it I guess. And be more polite to people new to the community wouldn't hurt.

[KaelGotDwarves]

DF isn't playable, I try it every so often but I pretty much give up on it because of the lag.

People are obviously playing the game, which isn't to say that it wouldn't be nice if DF ran faster.

I'm also self-tought in programming and I'm saying Toady will easily be able to learn how to make a threaded app in a couple days.

People say this but what little I know in programming I can say that you can't make assumptions about multithreading tens of thousands of lines of code "taking a few days and little effort"

Regular forum goers ought to just get used to it I guess. And be more polite to people new to the community wouldn't hurt.

Don't take my answering your questions as being impolite, I'm just pointing out how people react to an obvious suggestion that if it were such an easy solution, would have been done already. Here's a smiley 

[Jay]

DF isn't playable

Stopping you right there.

It is, in fact, unless you're running on a computer with no processing power to begin with.
My laptop from 2002 runs a decently sized embark with 180-odd dwarves at 50 FPS.

Threading has been suggested so many damn times...
First off, you state that creating a threaded app is "easy."
Yes, if you start it threaded.  Splitting a massive project like DF that is currently not threaded into threads is damn near impossible.
It would require rewriting the entirety of any function to be benefiting from such.

As has been said numerous times in the past...
...
YOU CANNOT TELL US WHAT IS EASY TO CODE INTO DWARFORT UNLESS YOU ARE TOADY!  THE END!

If you think we're being rude, get a clue.  If it were as easy as you suggest it to be, he would have done it already.
He's on a quad-core himself, for crying out loud.  He'd do this immediately if it were possible.
It's just not feasible.  Get over it.

[ThreeToe]

Please be nice to each other.  Let things take their course.

[Foa]

Please be nice to each other.  Let things take their course.

Three Toe, Three Toe, Three Toe, even though it's nice to quote you without necroing, you need to understand, this is a community of computer techies, and there is a never ceasing flow of morons thinking that idea  a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l,m,n,o,p,q,r,s,t,u,v,w,x,y,z, is a good idea, but it has been posted billions of times, and impulsively posting it without out ever putting in actual effort to see if has a mirror.

[Idiom]

A total ground-up rewrite this many years in is completely unacceptable for one programmer. DF will likely always be limited to one core.

On a happy tangent, materials other than silicone are being considered for the future of microchips which would allow us to break the current Ghz barrier and allow for faster single-core processing.

[ThreeToe]

"New posters will not always follow the guidelines above, but if you aren't making an honest effort to be helpful, do not post.  The best option is to ignore redundant threads entirely, especially if somebody helpful has already replied."

That is straight from the guidelines.  I don't know how to make it more clear.  If you don't like it, leave it alone.

[assimilateur]

People are obviously playing the game, which isn't to say that it wouldn't be nice if DF ran faster.

I think he didn't mean literally unplayable, but if a game runs at 20-30 fps on most modern or semi-modern rigs, then it's a disaster. Now, I don't mean no offense by this, because performance problems are to be expected in the case of a one-man project like this, but I don't think we should sugarcoat this by saying "it would be nice if DF ran faster", because that's putting it ridiculously mildly. Neither do I think can we blame people for suggesting things they think would help, no matter how unrealistic their advice turns out to be.

It is, in fact, unless you're running on a computer with no processing power to begin with.
My laptop from 2002 runs a decently sized embark with 180-odd dwarves at 50 FPS.

Right, and my desktop from 2005 doesn't. DF does, in short, bring most computers to their knees. If it runs well for you, then this doesn't mean that most of us have weaker rigs, it just means that you're either lucky, compatibility-wise, or that you know how to configure your game better than most. If the latter is the case, then I'm going to have to ask you for some tips and to share your init file, because finally getting this marvelous game to run properly would mean the world to me.

[profit]

I can get 150 dwarfs who are doing absolutely nothing to hit 50 FPS.

I can  have 1 dwarf with a massive water intensive area getting 2FPS.

I can have 109 dwarves during a relentless assault siege get ZERO FPS (technically that then becomes frames per minute for me.)

The argument is wrong but only because he worded it wrong, the game can AND MOST CERTAINLY WILL BECOME unplayable if you do anything but mill about on the surface.  The game IS NOT unplayable at the start...

But he is also correct in veiled observation that either the game find some ways to speed up the code or soon it will be unable to have anything else added to it, and from the moment of embark it will feel as though you are playing in molasses.

1 FPS or less.... It is frustrating... it makes you angry... and it certainly kills the urge to donate...  Which if enough people feel that way will kill Dwarf Fortress, no matter how much potential it has.

[profit]

Right, and my desktop from 2005 doesn't. DF does, in short, bring most computers to their knees. If it runs well for you, then this doesn't mean that most of us have weaker rigs, it just means that you're either lucky, compatibility-wise, or that you know how to configure your game better than most. If the latter is the case, then I'm going to have to ask you for some tips and to share your init file, because finally getting this marvelous game to run properly would mean the world to me.

It's not init files it is play styles which make the largest difference.

There are only 2 init file changes that seem to make any differences at all.

Removing Heat tracking.

And technically population cap... but it is an indirect change.

However;

If you embark on an area with no brook, no magma, no HFS, no wildlife, and it is flat, you do not tunnel more than one Z level, and you only dig in soil layers which do not make stone, you farm only for the most basic and minimal amounts of food, you make only the barest amount of booze, you bring no pets and slaughter any that arrive, you create no industries, cap your population at 50, and you keep your dwarves idle in a large meeting area spread far from each other... 

You too can keep your FPS up. even on your 2005 computer.

Yeah... Everyone's definition of unplayable is different.