Print

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

[ColdPower]

just a small problem. I'm running on Lucid, but Dwarf fortress won't load, something about a missing library

Code: [Select]

john@euclid:~/df_linux$ sh df
./libs/Dwarf_Fortress: error while loading shared libraries: libSDL_ttf-2.0.so.0: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory
john@euclid:~/df_linux$
Any thing I can do about it?

Yup, install SDL libraries

Code: [Select]

sudo apt-get install libsdl1.2debian


[Sergius]

Something to add to the sprawl "bug":

Most fantasy games abstract towns to a single "tile", that when zoomed in is quite tiny. In the "real world", even a medieval city could be a mile or so in size, with lots of streets and houses.

Dwarf Fortress is trying to be more realistic in making cities take a lot of farmland to maintain, but one reason for the abstraction is that the World isn't actually world-sized... so by making each city take 5x5 tiles or more, we're having a single city the size of frickin' Australia.

Well put, Sergius, and I see your point.  However, if the relative proportion of land-use for agriculture per population is realistic, then this size abstraction shouldn't matter in terms of the proportion of land taken up by civ development.  I mean, a city the size of Australia is unreasonable, but if a city is going to be the DF equivalent size of Australia, it should require the same relative amount of farmland to sustain it as in Australia (taking into account tech) if we are to accomplish the idea I think Toady is trying to accomplish (I COULD BE WRONG).  Some food for thought: roughly speaking for England, France, and the Netherlands at their peak populations before the plague, something around the order of 10% of the total land area of these countries (give or take a few %) was taken up by farmland.  Assuming population levels at 1050 are deemed equivalent to the populations at those times, then the amount of sprawl we see in the current release might be in the ballpark considering there are no plagues and many other things that culled populations IRL.

There IS a problem if all you have is a continent the size of Australia, and ALL of it is taken by the farming villages needed to maintain a single small city, and there is no free space at all for wilderness. So if you're not going to create a world to scale, trying to fit what "realistically" would be needed for urban sprawl when a city with 100 inhabitants takes 1/10th of the size of a continent, it ends up being ridiculous.

[Andeerz]

I totally see what you mean, dood.  Hmmm...

EDIT: Playing around with worldgen by simply reducing civ count (~20) and increasing the world size (Large) consistently gets me worlds with plenty of embark areas, interesting history, and well-developed civs.  Embarking early in world gen (for me, year ~300) increases the amount of available land greatly, as well.

[Knight Otu]

Not sure, haven't started an Adventurer there yet. I'll have to try that.

Update: It sticks you in the caverns underground if you start an adventurer of that civ. Even amphibious adventurers can't travel over water in fast travel mode, so I'm not sure what you'd see if you swam from a coast out to those squares. But you'd have to be in regular mode and do your movement the hard way.

Hm, I wonder if that's related to this bug.

However, if the relative proportion of land-use for agriculture per population is realistic,

It was my understanding that the proportion should be significantly reduced from realistic values - from my understanding, 100 farmers should support about 110 people in total (about 90% farmers), and in 31.13, 100 farmers should support 150 people (66._% farmers). Maybe Toady changed the ratios after the fact, though.

[Sergius]

I totally see what you mean, dood.  Hmmm...

EDIT: Playing around with worldgen by simply reducing civ count (~20) and increasing the world size (Large) consistently gets me worlds with plenty of embark areas, interesting history, and well-developed civs.  Embarking early in world gen (for me, year ~300) increases the amount of available land greatly, as well.

I reduced the civ count to 10 and also an early year, and Dwarves still spread throughout their entire mountain ranges leaving not a single bit of stone to embark on. Yes, there is MORE land, if you don't mind having 99% of it on aquifer with nothing but mudstone and peat.

[Psieye]

I totally see what you mean, dood.  Hmmm...

EDIT: Playing around with worldgen by simply reducing civ count (~20) and increasing the world size (Large) consistently gets me worlds with plenty of embark areas, interesting history, and well-developed civs.  Embarking early in world gen (for me, year ~300) increases the amount of available land greatly, as well.

I reduced the civ count to 10 and also an early year, and Dwarves still spread throughout their entire mountain ranges leaving not a single bit of stone to embark on. Yes, there is MORE land, if you don't mind having 99% of it on aquifer with nothing but mudstone and peat.

If you don't like having aquifers, you always have the option of removing them entirely in the raws.

[Sergius]

I totally see what you mean, dood.  Hmmm...

EDIT: Playing around with worldgen by simply reducing civ count (~20) and increasing the world size (Large) consistently gets me worlds with plenty of embark areas, interesting history, and well-developed civs.  Embarking early in world gen (for me, year ~300) increases the amount of available land greatly, as well.

I reduced the civ count to 10 and also an early year, and Dwarves still spread throughout their entire mountain ranges leaving not a single bit of stone to embark on. Yes, there is MORE land, if you don't mind having 99% of it on aquifer with nothing but mudstone and peat.

If you don't like having aquifers, you always have the option of removing them entirely in the raws.

I don't mind aquifers. I'm still going to point out the problem tho.

[cameron]

thats weird, all the mountain ranges? if it is what size world is it cause i have never seen dwarves get more then a few small corners of a mountain range.

[hvlkn]

Code: [Select]

john@euclid:~/df_linux$ sh df
./libs/Dwarf_Fortress: error while loading shared libraries: libSDL_ttf-2.0.so.0: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory
john@euclid:~/df_linux$

Yup, install SDL libraries

Code: [Select]

sudo apt-get install libsdl1.2debian


Tried it, nothing changed I've got the newest version apparantly

[Ruxias]

I had this same problem when I tried to run the newer versions. (The ones with TTF support.) It's an easy fix, so don't worry.

The package that you need is "libsdl-ttf2.0-0". To install, simply run this in a terminal:

Code: [Select]

sudo apt-get install libsdl-ttf2.0-0
I hope this helps you out. I'm running Lucid as well, so there shouldn't be any problems with these instructions.

The reason the command "ColdPower" told you didn't fix the problem is because that is the base SDL package for Debian systems, which does not include TTF support. You have to install that component separately.

Have fun playing your now-working installation of Dwarf Fortress!

[hvlkn]

Worked a treat, thanks!

[wereboar]

a question for the techies out there.
the PCs at my work run XP SP1 and we're not allowed to upgrade, patch or otherwise mess with them. any chance i could make the latest DF release run on such a machine?

[Starver]

a question for the techies out there.
the PCs at my work run XP SP1 and we're not allowed to upgrade, patch or otherwise mess with them. any chance i could make the latest DF release run on such a machine?

From someone who is techy but otherwise not technically conversant with the internals of DF, I suspect that the apparently self-contained nature of the DF directory should work Ok as long as there isn't some sort of dependency in the redistributable that has had its compatibility with SP1 broken.  (Or was never working, having been introduced since post-SP1 setups were being broadly assumed.)

Really, this is just a placeholder reply, as someone else will probably know for certain.  Alternately, try it yourself.  If it works, it works.  Put it on a memory stick and see if it runs from that.  Might be a bit slower than on the HDD, but if you've got the sort of lockdown on systems that (while allowing sticks) has a fit when any new executables are being copied to them this could still work.  (A peculiarly mixed set of paranoia levels, I agree, but I've worked with (and at creating) locked-down systems made to stranger specifications, from either inexpert committees or BOFHs with an off-the-wall sense of humour, so as long as you've got some access to run the thing I think I've covered the worst-case scenario. )


But I would suggest that you look to the newest version (v0.31.17, as I type) and post on that thread, anyway.  Unless you know for certain that there's a ServicePack requirement that changed in recent updates.  (Not something I've noted being mentioned, but who knows...)

[wereboar]

i'll probably refrain from reposting it in another thread, lest i risk to be mistaken for a spammer.
thanks for your post, Starver. i already tried to run DF at work. the older versions run okay. the new versions pop an error "The Procedure entry Point DecodePointer could not be located in the dynamic link library KERNEL32.dll".