Print

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

[MrWiggles]

Alright I got (basically) 2 questions to all you genius coders out there
1. Is it possible, just POSSIBLE to run Dwarf Fortress (In far far future) as a REAL and actual multiplayer game?
2. Wouldn`t that increase FPS drastically as path finding could be reduced? (If players are doing it themselves the game doesnt need to check for stuff lying arround and so on and so on)

Possible. Sure. I think the better question to ask, is it practical? DF maybe to single player centric to make it multiplayer capable.

Proper fix I: make serious profiling and improve inefficient algorithms (pathfinder? iterating over n objects without good reason?)

Being done.

Proper fix Ib: do sth with bugreport 3267 - identified source of FPS loss (and probably there are other reports). http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/mantisbt/view.php?id=3267

Probably being done. Though due to the presumed nature of the beast, probably isn't just one reason.

But is done after adding 12 types of grass. BTW I know about 4 real types of grass.

I don't get the comment about the grass. There are new features, improvements and bug fixes in either of these combinations is in every release. There is also going to be functional eggs, and new animals with accommodating antics. Let alone the various moderate-large changes done for the Caravan arc.

It also doesn't matter how many grasses you know about. DF being a fantasy game, can add in fantasy flora. On an unrelated note, the grasses that I can name off the top of my head are; barely, wheat, bamboo (normal size, and giant variety), and everyday lawn grass. Casual glance at wikipedia shows there are about five thousand species of bamboo alone. I know that in a marsh swamp lands there are dozens of different grasses along with other flora that make up their respective biomes.

From the Dev notes, we do know that at least one kind of above ground fantasy grass has been added, and there will probably be underground grasses as well. (Which like most of the underground flora, are all fantasy flora.) There are various specialized grasses that maybe implemented for creatures. Bamboo in the Grass thread, was the one brought up as a natural additional. "If I have Pandas, I'm gonna need Bamboo."

If, by chance the grass comment was meant to illustrate that the Devs should be concentrating on less frivolous activities, then I heartily disagree with you. The definition of frivolous isn't up to you, its up to the Devs. They felt it was worth their time and effort. On a personal note, I am looking forward to evil grass, whatever it may be.

Heh. There are exactly 1780 report, unassigned bugs. And 1193 resolved - so there is enough work for many years.

Thats poor measure of the bugs being quashed. As the 1780 count, includes the none bugs and various repeats, and there is a similar issue with the resolved count.

What makes it really worse. There is Dwarfu, (s)he closes duplicated bugs, obvious not-a-bug etc. So we can assume that open bugreports are about real bugs and cannot that closed=fixed. In fact in last 25 closed bugreports there are
2x fixed
12x duplicate
4x no change required
7x unable to reproduce
So only about 10% of closed bugs are really fixed (it may be heavily biased, maybe Toady marks bugs as fixed in waves).

No we can't assume that the open bug are true bugs. Some of them may still be none bugs. I know I have a bug pending that maybe a none bug, and its been open for a while. Also, Toady seems to mark bugs as fix when hes updating the change log. Which with a moderate look (that I did for another thread), Toady fixes most bugs within two months they have been reported with a bias toward crash and typo bugs.

I must say: Openttd is able to move around 1000 vehicles on 512x512 map. DF is lagging with 7 (seven) dwarves and one murky pool flood.
Something is wrong. Really wrong.

OpenTTD is a far simpler game that it an out and out clone of a feature complete game. It does have various improvements that I've come to enjoy and relish, but comparing their two dev cycles and paces is out of scope.

I am not sure is it simpler, but being clone really helped. And in fact DFs feature level may be presented as finished game. But comparing development may be not the best idea: DF is not open source, openttd devs can say "all developers, whether core developers or not, do that for their own joy in their own free time. Thus they pick up what they think is the most rewarding and promising thing to spend their time with.". Etc.

I mentioned openttd because I know quite a lot about how it was developed and there is huge difference in devs thinking "This patch doesn't meet OpenTTD quality requirements." vs "18 types of grasses have been added for your bovine animals to graze on with more to come" with multiple waiting gamebreaking bugs on bugtracker.

Now, OpenTTD is not a complex game, and but the gameplay can be deep, though only with one aspect of its gameplay, being with trains. The comparative road network junctions and stations configurations don't reach the same depth as train design. The real depth, I think comes in with using the different networks together in supporting feeder networks.


However, Dwarf Fortress is both complex and deep, and in general complex and deep with most of its gameplay mechanics. If the mechanics presented in the OpenTTD wiki are accurate then DF mechanics are much more so.

Though the mechanics and math for DF are not open to the public, the community has grown to understand  some of them. Materiel and body components interaction for combat, seems to be pretty well understood as are the wonderful fluid dynamics.  They are kinda of hairy, but work well. So, I can speak on limited understanding on the complexity of DF.

But even without knowing how it works internally, we can gleam complexity of the game from it presentation.

DF is 3d space with 2d planes with top down view. OpenTTD is 2d, isometric.

The 3d space is more complex then the 2d single plane of OpenTTD. I hope I don't need to go in length why its more complex. I will give OpenTTD and TTD do one of the best jobs for faking 3d space with its mountains and tunnels and bridges.
 
Actually do have more, but dinner time is close. If pressed, I'll add more to this section.

Of course the dev are primarily focused on bug fixes, optimization and improvements, there isn't much else to do with the game. Its feature complete. What features it has, are far simpler then the current feature set of DF.

There are at least 2 big attempts to include new things - Cargodist ( http://www.tt-forums.net/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=41992 ) and More height levels ( http://www.tt-forums.net/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=40844&start=0 ). And n+ patches.

I am not sure that it has less features - a lot of effort was connected with NTP, NPF, YAPF - pathfinders made to improve efficiency and graphics (it is not full 3d but still more complicated than DF).

Yea, Dwarf Fortress does have more features. DF does share fair bit OpenTDD features, and mechanics though it goes beyond them. Along with setting up supply chains, and delivering them in efficient matters (which OpenTTD has more depth, with the current release.) but it also has morale system, a more sophisticated maintenance system, the military (with its squads, schedule, training demonstrating) fluid dynamics, and health care ect.

The graphics are more complex in OpenTTD, in fact I would wager a bet in saying that is the most complex portion of the game, with its on the fly changing graphic tiles. It executive wonderfully. Possibly its multiplayer networking do-hickeys are more complex, but I dont do much with networking. Its hard for me to speak about it.

Pathfinding, eh, with it being 2d plan with predefined routes finite routes, it has less to pathfind through the open changing 3d environment that DF.  So OpenTTD pathfinding systems maybe and probably are much more super keen then DF, but what it has to pathfind is simpler.

Effort doesn't really matter for a feature set. The features that OpenTTD has are well executive, and if a game that been polished for almost 15 years doesn't execute its features well, then it should be shoot.

In fact, you can work on something really hard, and it can still be crap. FATAL, a NSFW infamous table top rpg has a lot of effort in it, there is a lot of well worked bell curved averages and legit research done for FATAL. But, despite all that effort, it still a bulky crappy system.

Toady however is trying to a much more complicated game. Yes, it could be ran on various simpler systems, but thats not the end aim for the Devs of Dwarf Fortress. The Dev of DF do not just add new features to the game. It goes through various cycles of new features, improvements on older systems, and out right replacing them and there is /constant/ bug fixes.

But in may end in game not runnable above 20 FPS and unplayable due to bugs.

FPS will probably always be an issue, thats due to the embarkment size, number of revealed tiles, number of creatures, and items ect ect. Not every game can be ran on every system. DF is no different.

My personal play through, have never been above 20 FPS, that with just 7 starting dorfs, and floats around 5 with a 100 dorfs. So, for me thats a fine playing rate. Don't get me wrong, higher FPS would be nifty, what is and isn't playable is subjective.

Same thing with bugs, what bugs you consider dire aren't what everyone else considers dire. Bugs are constantly getting fix. There hasn't been a release without some bugs being fixed. It averages to 18.4 bugs per release since the .31 release.

Whether the game is unplayable is up the individual player. In my play through, it still be been playable. Though I havent been able to play for a bit, since the new releases aren't compatible for my box.

In the end, you're going to have to come with your own compromise with embark size, number of dorfs, and items and digging.

I agree that DF may never be done, but that doesn't seem to be a concern to the Devs. However, I disagree that it'll always be Alpha. The game is not feature compete but, the feature set that Toady and Threetoes want is finite, and to my understanding not growing.

Yes, in afterlife donations are not required. IMHO it will be eternal alpha/beta. This amount of bugs is unfixable for 2 people. Maybe going open source may change sth, but I am not sure (and it will not happen in unforeseeable future).

No program is bug free, not even OpenTTD even though its been tweaked and improved upon a lot during its 15 years. OpenTTD has several bugs that the current batch of Devs has declared impossible/impractical to fix.

There more to developing a game then fixing bugs. Bug fixes should become the primary concern when the majority of features are in, but should happen through out the development cycle.

[hulbral]

God this thread annoys me. The amount of misinformation and utter confusion is beyond even internet standards.

The answer to the question "Will we ever get to a point where forts don't die FPS deaths?" is a definitive NO.

The only way DF will ever be playable at decent FPS is:

• It is re-implemented using a multi-core base (extremely difficult and time consuming.)
• There is a revolutionary breakthrough in single core computation power. (Say quantum computers one more time and I swear I will quit the internet.)
• The game undergoes hardcore optimization and refactoring, requiring far more work than a single person can put in. And it still may not be possible; even if DF could be made to run TEN times faster, we still wouldn't be able to run tons of water, 100 dwarves, large battles and lots of temperature at the same time.

The future holds only two options for the current DF: It cannot keep adding features and/or we will keep playing small embarks, low population limits, features turned off and still low FPS.

At some point, someone is going to popularize a scalable engine that embodies the same basic game ideas and concept DF does, and that will be that. The world will move on, and everyone will realize the obvious: That one person alone cannot implement the most complex game in the history of gaming, and that it sure as hell won't run on a single core.

[nbonaparte]

• There is a revolutionary breakthrough in single core computation power. (Say quantum computers one more time and I swear I will quit the internet.)

Better?

[Max White]

• There is a revolutionary breakthrough in single core computation power. (Say quantum computers one more time and I swear I will quit the internet.)

I was under the impession that all computers these days were quantum, on the basis that there is a definitive smallest unit of data, a bit. You can never have less then 1 bit of computing power, and all capacity greater then that is of multiples of that single unit, so therefor a bit is the smallest quanta computers handle, and computers are quantised.

I don't know if this differs from the phrase 'digital', but I mean digital seems to stem from digit, and computers most certainly don't do base 10 well, so no idea where they got that word from.
EDIT: Sorry, I have been drinking. Deci is 10, degit is fingers, but computers don't have fingers either...

Also quantem != subatomic.

Also, does that mean you quit the internet now?

[hulbral]

• There is a revolutionary breakthrough in single core computation power. (Say quantum computers one more time and I swear I will quit the internet.)

Better?

While I certainly would welcome a revolution in single-core performance, there is a general realization that I am fairly certain goes for standard knowledge by anyone intimately in the know when it comes to computing performance. It is the simple fact that multiple cores will always outperform single cores. Even the processor you link to, if realized sometime in the future, would still be thoroughly beaten by our current multi-core cpus in raw computing power.

[hulbral]

• There is a revolutionary breakthrough in single core computation power. (Say quantum computers one more time and I swear I will quit the internet.)

I was under the impession that all computers these days were quantum, on the basis that there is a definitive smallest unit of data, a bit.

[snip]

Also, does that mean you quit the internet now?

A 'quantum computer' is a computer that uses qubits and their related quantum dynamic properties in order to perform calculations that aren't possible using normal bits. It is able to greatly reduce the time it takes to do certain very specific calculations. What a quantum computer absolutely will not do is make any current programs run faster. Writing a complex single core program is difficult. Writing a complex multi core program a whole new world of difficult. And quantum computing... it makes multi core look like toys for children with learning disabilities.

A guideline: Whenever you see anyone talking about quantum computers, assume with 100% certainty that the person has no clue. Except for people telling you that you won't be running your First-person shooter at 10000000 frames per second on a quantum computer. Those people are pretty smart

[zwei]

Well, tried Nano fort. It took longer than 2x2, but I am back at single digit FPS again...

[Max White]

A 'quantum computer' is a computer that uses qubits and their related quantum dynamic properties in order to perform calculations that aren't possible using normal bits. It is able to greatly reduce the time it takes to do certain very specific calculations. What a quantum computer absolutely will not do is make any current programs run faster. Writing a complex single core program is difficult. Writing a complex multi core program a whole new world of difficult. And quantum computing... it makes multi core look like toys for children with learning disabilities.

A guideline: Whenever you see anyone talking about quantum computers, assume with 100% certainty that the person has no clue. Except for people telling you that you won't be running your First-person shooter at 10000000 frames per second on a quantum computer. Those people are pretty smart

*Clicky clicky
Interesting. Apartnetly these 'quentem' processors are dependent on the interaction of two or more qubits. So the smallest unit of data that that can handle is 2, but the can handle data that is not of multiples of 2, so 2 isn't a quantum package for them.

They arn't quantem at all! They just use sub-atomic physics.

[nbonaparte]

the term 'quantum' as it applies to a piece of information is nearly useless by now. 'quantum' is so entangled (pun intended) with quantum physics. In the computer world, 'digital' means what you're using quantum for. And no, it doesn't refer to hands or fingers, or base 10. It doesn't have to. It means what it means, regardless of its origin.

[Max White]

'quantum' should refer to the fact that something used a smallest base unit of information, a quanta. Thats the definition the scientists are wrong!

[NSQuote]

For a game 31% of the way done, Dwarf Fortress runs remarkably well.

My target FPS is around 30-40 FPS, which is what it runs at for me. Sure, it could work better, but I'd prefer more work goes into adding more features, and optimize things further along in the project.

[Max White]

Well most moniters refresh at a rate of 60fps.
The only problem is that in DF, things move a certain number of urists per frame, rather then act independently of the frame rate.

[Fayrik]

This is where graphical and unit frames have to be differenciated.
This is also why there are two numbers on the FPS counter.

I tend to try running with 100 Unit Frames and 20-30 Graphical Frames. I find that when you have a lower graphical frame limit, it helps it keep the unit frames higher for longer.

[iceball3]

I just keep my unit frames  restricted at like 30 because that is how much I'm used to. 100 fps is too fast.

[nbonaparte]

I'm used to 100 fps and speed 0...