Print

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

[forsaken1111]

Mmmm, interesting. Cities built around the inside diameter of a toroidal disc which gently rotates to simulate gravity is one idea thrown around for how man will one day live in space. It's strange that we are standing on the outside of a sphere which rotates very fast and yet we only feel inward attraction due to atmospheric pressure and the earth's gravity. Without a huge gravity source like that, space stations must simulate gravity via centripetal acceleration until artificial gravity is devised.

This sounds like you copied and pasted it from an article. Is this how you talk?

[goffrie]

Mmmm, interesting. Cities built around the inside diameter of a toroidal disc which gently rotates to simulate gravity is one idea thrown around for how man will one day live in space. It's strange that we are standing on the outside of a sphere which rotates very fast and yet we only feel inward attraction due to atmospheric pressure and the earth's gravity. Without a huge gravity source like that, space stations must simulate gravity via centripetal acceleration until artificial gravity is devised.

This sounds like you copied and pasted it from an article. Is this how you talk?

So some people speak differently. What of it?

[Noble Digger]

Mmmm, interesting. Cities built around the inside diameter of a toroidal disc which gently rotates to simulate gravity is one idea thrown around for how man will one day live in space. It's strange that we are standing on the outside of a sphere which rotates very fast and yet we only feel inward attraction due to atmospheric pressure and the earth's gravity. Without a huge gravity source like that, space stations must simulate gravity via centripetal acceleration until artificial gravity is devised.

This sounds like you copied and pasted it from an article. Is this how you talk?

Heh heh, your comment says more about you than about me. I was speaking from memory :> i.e. I didn't pull up any web-page when making that post.

[forsaken1111]

I was just curious... and a bit impressed if that was from memory.

[zchris13]

Eh even I do that sometimes. Nothing unnatural.

[forsaken1111]

While I understand what he said, I can't hack something like that out in one go from memory. I usually end up referencing several webpages and then editing the post a few times.

[Solace]

This sounds like you copied and pasted it from an article. Is this how you talk?

Presumably, the people who make articles talk like that.

[Tuxman]

I wonder what a 1 tile wide world would be like.

Migrants come from on-map. Along with sieges, and caravans.

After all, it is a small world.

[forsaken1111]

This sounds like you copied and pasted it from an article. Is this how you talk?

Presumably, the people who make articles talk like that.

I would assume most of them have an editing process and don't just type it up and throw it on the site.

Then again, I have seen some low quality articles.

[Arkose]

Setting the size to 33 by 257 generates some nifty setups, but they all get rejected.

Speaking of which: I wonder if the world gen code can tolerate world sizes with widths and heights smaller than 33 / larger than 257. If I remember correctly the midpoint displacement algorithms require that the widths / heights have values of (power of two plus one). For smaller values, that would mean 3, 5, 9, and 17 might be valid. Possibly 1 might also work depending on the exact nature of the midpoint displacement code. Larger values like 513 may or may not work depending on whether the code stores the width/height variables in single bytes or not.

(Unfortunately I'm currently stuck with just OSX, which doesn't seem to have much in the way of memory editors, or I'd test it out myself.)

[Mishy]

In theory, this would be awesome. There could be a impassable mountain range in the middle, blocking one side of the world off from the rest. The dorfs take it upon themselves to delve into the deep and forge a pathway to connect the two lands together. There would have to be a river, spanning the entire length of the world too. IT would start at the top of the mountain range and flow down each side.

[Urist Imiknorris]

For smaller values, that would mean 3, 5, 9, and 17 might be valid.

17 is valid. See pocket worlds.

[Quantum Toast]

So if you dug too deep you'd hit outer space?

[Starver]

Long prior seeing this thread, I'd wondered about a wrap-around option to the world (relevent to Adventure mode, mostly, although in Worldgen it would mean tiling of the world-map without discontinuity.  But of course an 'Asteroids'-style wrapping, that'd produce a topologically toroid world.  (But without non-Eucilidean distortions to the plain, no real indication as to which are the major and minor radii.)  I'd also wondering, though, about worldgen being given the option of, as well as wrapping in the above sense, also in a spherical one.

For a spherical implementation, however, the 'true' surface of the world would become heavily distorted towards the poles (might be considered more detailed, on the planar world-view, for any given width[1], rather than making it unity) and the pole itself either 'just beyond' the top/bottom edges or represented by the smallest largest relevent circumpolar line's terrain detail within the respective pole's 'row'.

It would need the smoothing, pathing, area handling routines of worldgen altering to make non-grid (more vectorised, in practice) decisions as to topological smoothing/roughening (or fudge by considering extremely polar areas to be glacial/pack-ice with very little variation anyway), but when it came to embarkation, the projection of a square fortress area projection would come out increasingly trapezoidal (to the "world grid) as you reached the extremities, if not completely askew, when actually encompassing either of the poles.  On the whole, of course, and assuming that the 'fortress' (or viewable by Adventurer) area is not a significant proportion of the sphere as well.  (But then you have to consider viewable horizons, and how far the 'offing' (Meaning 1, extended to land as well) is, anyway.)


But, to be honest, I've already taken this sort of thing away into the realms of a browser-based game of my own (only on local machine, so far, because I no longer maintain the hosted service I would normally have used for this, for all the necessary back-end scripting needed to represent the view as the <TABLE>-based rendering (as a precursor to dynamically creating true images) that show both map and viewpoint detail).  And this isn't DF-based (though I suppose I have thought about adding 'mining for resources' to the equation) and has recursively PRNG-sourced vector-data at the core of its terrains to allow minimal storage for an arbitrary LOD (though I might need a 'diffs' storage if I ever make the landscape dynamic/alterable).  So it's not so much something I'm suggesting for DF, but am explaining as a consideration I've been making on that idea of my own.  Hopefully it's sufficiently distinct.


[1] The choice of spherical projection would indicate the whether the height gained or lost resolution/detail at the same time.

[Master]

No, you just hit the material the ring world was built out of. In this case Slade.