Print

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

[Girlinhat]

That's because it's not a cube.  It's a set of construction blocks that fit together more easily than raw stone.  And it's not just sitting there.  You build it into a pillar or a wall, so you end up with a column of carved stone.  That's pretty dwarfy.

[Uristocrat]

I would be happy if ANY object could be engraved.  Engravings could be made into a type of improvement that could be applied to anything with a decent hardness.  Softer things could not be engraved (no engraved sheep wool socks).

And then, when choosing a material for constructions to be made from, the list would show basic types.  On that list you would have your stones and minerals and... what's this? *engraved gneiss block*.  Hit 'v' and you can see the engraving.  It might be "x2" if there are two gneiss blocks with the self-same engraving, too.

That's not a bad idea, actually.  After all, why shouldn't I be able to engrave my tables, chairs, etc.?  Heck, I might even engrave a quern.  Should probably exempt artifacts, but other than that, it's definitely a fun idea.

But I do worry if it's reasonably doable, given that Toady hasn't done it yet.  Every programming change looks easy when you're not the one who has to code it, doubly so if you've never seen the codebase.  And just because I tried to imagine making it out of things that already exist in game doesn't mean that there aren't reasons why combining those things wouldn't work without making other things go crazy.

[Starver]

As I was first writing this, I realised that I was unsure as to whether (in my own mind) exactly how many distinct item types there were (it could be anything from four to eight, by the most widely-varying interpretations I ran through).  That's "Items" as opposed to other 'thing types'[1].  So I started this post again.  Hopefully I've made it more readable without so many striekthroughs.


However, concentrating on the main are of contention, I suspect that the very first of the object types is what might be termed "Construction Materials".  This includes raw stone, stone blocks, raw logs, wood blocks, metal bars and a couple of other materials.  There's a reaction to get stone to stone blocks, wood to wood blocks, ore-type stones to metal bars, all internal to this category.  There are also reactions to get stones, wood, etc into one of the other categories of Item (e.g. Trinkets and Wearables: that being one of the "may be one, may be two categories" questions I couldn't definitely answer but not relevant to this discussion).

The way I see it, Stone Block -> Carved Stone Block needs to be internally set up to be a Constructable -> Constructable reaction, much as Raw Stone -> Stone Block is.  But the code defining this transition might be a bit obtuse to easily convert, especially as it was a very early implementation (way before I was playing DF) and possibly a little too embedded in archaic side-code.

Alternatively, it's not just one "Constructable" category, but a "Raw Constructable" and a "Processed Constructable", stones and logs in the first category and the various blocks and bars in the second.  And there's no means to convert PC -> PC.  This might be supported by the windmills needing logs, can't use wood blocks, and pumps need blocks, can't use raw-types.  Although that could as easily be encoded in without any basic RC/PC division, much as you can't build windmills with stone vanes (or indeed any stone at all, even what might be considered the 'supporting' piece).


My take, probably is wrong in various key ways, certainly isn't something that Toady doesn't know (even if correct), but might be a handle on why it's not a trivial change.



[1] e.g. "Agents" (beings, creatures and vermin instances), "Natural Landblocks", "Fauna" (pre-harvesting), "Free liquids" (liquids in containers are Items after their own 'harvesting'), etc.

[Solace]

That's because it's not a cube.  It's a set of construction blocks that fit together more easily than raw stone.  And it's not just sitting there.  You build it into a pillar or a wall, so you end up with a column of carved stone.  That's pretty dwarfy.

I meant what I described could be a part of dwarf culture (like a verity of statue), which doesn't have a human analog. Dwarves like stone, right? Why /not/ a big block of decorated stone, as an artform?

[Uristocrat]

That's because it's not a cube.  It's a set of construction blocks that fit together more easily than raw stone.  And it's not just sitting there.  You build it into a pillar or a wall, so you end up with a column of carved stone.  That's pretty dwarfy.

I meant what I described could be a part of dwarf culture (like a verity of statue), which doesn't have a human analog. Dwarves like stone, right? Why /not/ a big block of decorated stone, as an artform?

The way I see it, that would become a constructed, engraved wall, but who knows?  I could see dwarves doing stuff like that.

[Buttery_Mess]

I'd like to say that I think engraving blocks is a great idea.

It'd be nice if you could engrave a handful of specific things, like civilisation or group symbols. Why? Because I want to engrave my fort's symbol onto bars of soap, that's why!