Print

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

[muxecoid]

I think we need more realistic density of Slade.

[Silverionmox]

I think we need more realistic density of Slade.

Well, the problem is that Slade is a bit on the cusp of hard rock and heavy metal.

[Quatch]

Hey, awesome work.

Is there anything yet to be done that you can't find? I work in a university, so I have access to good scales, books, and research papers.

[Uristocrat]

So, can someone give me the most noticeable effects these new values will have on gameplay? Are training weapons any more deadly? What about catapults? etc.

There will be a lot more variability in certain things, particularly mining speed and hauling speed.  So the less dense stuff will be quicker to mine and easier to haul.  The more dense items will be the opposite.  You will see that most rocks are no longer the same weight any more.  Note that soil all changes, so that affects mining speed too.

Catapults have never been especially powerful, but it should affect damage for them.  I suspect we're more likely to want to use weaponized minecarts, though.  Certain training weapons may vary in damage a little more... if they ever hit hard enough to hurt.  Saguaro wood should be almost as good as feather wood, in terms of being non-dangerous.

Ultimately, there are no huge differences, just a lot more variability and flavor.  You can see the affects of density by observing the item weight, which are no longer mostly the same.

[Uristocrat]

Hey, awesome work.

Is there anything yet to be done that you can't find? I work in a university, so I have access to good scales, books, and research papers.

Well, our info on tanzanite appears to have vanished from the web.  We found that it occurs in metamorphic rocks in one small part of the world, but that page is dead now that I went to check on it and info is relatively hard to come by.

You could also request a Saguaro wood sample if you think you could measure the density of a sample or two and check my findings.  I have *plenty* of it still.

And anyone who can read those pages on wood and translate any of the data into DF units is welcome to try.  I was only able to get density out of them.  Download the V3 raws, then look at my modified plant_standard.txt and scroll more than half way down to the real trees.  Each one has a comment with the plant I based my material data on and a URL like this:

   Based on black mangrove (Avicennia spp.)
   http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/TechSheets/HardwoodNA/htmlDocs/avicenniaeng.html

That's a great site for data... if anyone knows what it means....

EDIT:  Easier way.  I nuked an unimportant post of mine on the first page of this thread and typed in all the wood data/sources that I didn't type up before.  It was always in my raws, but now it's in the thread proper as well.  It's the fourth post on the first page.

[Vattic]

Well, our info on tanzanite appears to have vanished from the web.  We found that it occurs in metamorphic rocks in one small part of the world, but that page is dead now that I went to check on it and info is relatively hard to come by.

Have you tried Wayback Machine?

[truckman1]

Forgive me, but after seeing this thread and reading the OP, i could only think of this:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[Uristocrat]

Well, our info on tanzanite appears to have vanished from the web.  We found that it occurs in metamorphic rocks in one small part of the world, but that page is dead now that I went to check on it and info is relatively hard to come by.

Have you tried Wayback Machine?

I already have the data & the source URL it came from, it's just that my source is gone now.  acta.inpa.gov.br also appears to have gone offline, for that matter.

That one was an odd case, though.  It was someone's personal page about their favorite gem, but it appeared to be well-researched.  Also, nobody else seems to care about that particular gem, so information about it is hard to come by.

And speaking of gems, I included some data for turquoise, but never actually added it to my raws.  I wonder if Toady will ever add that gem to the game?  It's probably the only well-known gem missing.

[Kogut]

Please, please change "19320 (gold) + 10490 (silver) / 2 = 14905" to "(19320 (gold) + 10490 (silver) )/ 2 = 14905" or "19320 (gold)/2 + 10490 (silver) / 2 = 14905."

[Uristocrat]

Please, please change "19320 (gold) + 10490 (silver) / 2 = 14905" to "(19320 (gold) + 10490 (silver) )/ 2 = 14905" or "19320 (gold)/2 + 10490 (silver) / 2 = 14905."

Oops, fixed   Now it should be clear that we follow the proper order of operations.

[furlion]

Just noticed this thread based on the front page news but I had to stop in and say what an amazing job you have done here. I hope stuff like this shows Toady how dedicated his fans are to making his game the best it can be.

[Kogan Loloklam]

Different colored sand will weigh different weights.

Most "Sand" that you consider will either be Silica sand or calcium Carbonate sand.
White sand is usually composed of limestone and other "sea" kinds of sources.
Silica sand is usually made of quarts and other materials of a similar nature. It's the most common kind of sand.
A reddish sand might be Arkose. Black sand might be magnetite, or it might be basalt/obsidian sourced.

Really sand varies a great deal, and can weigh a great deal of difference. I suggest with sand you pick what kind of sand it is and give it the weight of that sand. I believe your calculator assumes Silica sand. 

[Uristocrat]

Different colored sand will weigh different weights.

Most "Sand" that you consider will either be Silica sand or calcium Carbonate sand.
White sand is usually composed of limestone and other "sea" kinds of sources.
Silica sand is usually made of quarts and other materials of a similar nature. It's the most common kind of sand.
A reddish sand might be Arkose. Black sand might be magnetite, or it might be basalt/obsidian sourced.

Really sand varies a great deal, and can weigh a great deal of difference. I suggest with sand you pick what kind of sand it is and give it the weight of that sand. I believe your calculator assumes Silica sand.

You're probably right, but I don't have a good source for different sand densities, or I would've given the different colored sands different density.

Anyhow, the calculator was mostly useful for the other stuff on the soil triangle (silty loam, etc.)  I'm not opposed to reworking the sand densities if we can find good data on the topic.

[Ubiq]

For the record, white-cedar isn't actually cedar, it's a member of the cypress family and isn't the plant most people think of when they think of a cedar tree anyway. White-cedar is often called by its alternative name of arborvitae.

Generally speaking, what we call cedar in the United States are actually members of the juniper family (in particular, the redcedar/red juniper), which is itself a subset of the cypress family, as the New World actually doesn't have any members of the true cedar or cedrus family. In the Old World, it's more than likely that when people mention cedar that they are referring to Lebanon Cedar since that is the wood referred to in the Bible.

Depending on definition, the specific gravity of cedar should either be:

470 - Redcedar (dry vs 440 green)
560 - Lebanon Cedar

[Uristocrat]

Depending on definition, the specific gravity of cedar should either be:

470 - Redcedar (dry vs 440 green)
560 - Lebanon Cedar

Interesting.  I personally prefer the Lebanon Cedar, personally, given that it's the most famous.  But that makes the numbers merely a change from 570 to 560, which is well within the normal variation for materials like this.  Still, that's some fascinating tree information!  Can I ask where you found those numbers?  The only source I found pegged Lebanon cedars at 580.