Print

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

[Organum]

I'm indifferent towards the whole situation, but I do like to play the devil's advocate.

[IT 000]

I'm tired of spending 2 days to make a 10,000 year world, and then playing it until I get 60 dwarfs that ultimately kill my fps.

For the record, having a short world gen time (1-200 years) on a pocket or small world gives you significantly higher FPS. I recommend that you try this instead of a ludicrous world over 9000 years old.

If you know what your doing. You could also mod out clothes.

Reducing your G_FPS_CAP in your data -> init -> d_init file to 25 or 20 can have a significant impact.

Additionally, there's also a few dozen ingame things you can do, avoid freezing maps, avoid running water, gen a world with a low openness factor, and use traffic designations to restrict the open areas of the caverns or areas that your dwarves rarely use. Having a low POP_CAP and BABY_CAP doesn't hurt either. Muting it is also believed to help, but I'm a tad doubtful.

I do all these, and I can usually run a 60 size fort between 95-100 FPS for over 10+ years on a single core laptop. (My laptop isn't that powerful to begin with either, so you should have a much faster success)

[beefsupreme]

My specs are this:

i7 950 3.06 GHz
Corsair 6GB 1600MHz RAM
Radeon 5870 GPU
Gigabyte X58A UD3R Mobo

And I've had lag free fortresses on 5x5 embarks with 200+ dwarfs. That cost me about $1200 to build back in November, the parts are probably cheaper now.

[Girlinhat]

Curiously, world size and civ number have also shown to have an effect on FPS.  A pocket world with fewer civs will run much smoother in fort mode than a heavily populated one.  I don't recall if history length plays a roll, but I suspect it does.

[Proxiee]

Curiously, world size and civ number have also shown to have an effect on FPS.  A pocket world with fewer civs will run much smoother in fort mode than a heavily populated one.  I don't recall if history length plays a roll, but I suspect it does.

that actually makes sense. It has to get the information for engraving somewhere

I like micro forts of around 50 on 2x2 embarks. I have my fps capped at 300 and at 50 dwarfs its about 250fps. But I never have weather/temp on, and I want to be able to have magma fun Having them on drops my fps to 100 with 7 dwarfs. With 50 its like, ughhh

[Krelian]

This game is still alpha (according to toady) and to add multicore support would be just stupid until the very end for various reasons.

I think it is the opposite, the more advanced in the development the game is, the harder it will be to change directions (as far as I know).

Urist McGirlinhat has made a mandate!

you made a mandate? I usually send people who makes mandates to the magma sauna.



No problem, Im new to this topic, so I just wanted to give my 2 cents :p

[Girlinhat]

Having them on drops my fps to 100 with 7 dwarfs. With 50 its like, ughhh

I think this is your real problem.  100 FPS is a luxury, 300 is sheer greek-lord-on-a-couch-being-fed-grapes levels of greed.

[Weylyn]

Having them on drops my fps to 100 with 7 dwarfs. With 50 its like, ughhh

I think this is your real problem.  100 FPS is a luxury, 300 is sheer greek-lord-on-a-couch-being-fed-grapes levels of greed.

And 50 is still a faster refresh than your eyes can detect, so it won't look choppy in any way.

If my forts never drop below 50, I'll be happy as a clam...

[blue sam3]

An Intel i7 works much better than competing AMD brands. Quad-core or 6-core shouldn't matter, a quad should be enough (3 cores for DF, 1 for everything else). The 2.66GHz can be overclocked, but I would personally advise not because of cooling issues. RAM can be light, 8GB should be enough to run the OS (Df is limited to 2), but needs to be FAST (DF does most of its work reading and writing). Personally, I find DF to run faster on Windows (maybe its more optimized?) but the general consensus seems to deviate from that.

That would work if DF was multi-threaded.

And 50 is still a faster refresh than your eyes can detect, so it won't look choppy in any way.

If my forts never drop below 50, I'll be happy as a clam...

You are talking about G_FPS. FPS, in the sense of DF, is how fast the game runs, not how it looks.



As it is, I suggest one very strong core to run DF and only DF on, overclocked to all buggery and with some hideously large and expensive cooling system to keep it running, with a smaller, non-overclocked core to run everything else (and recover the save file if the other one blows up).

[Starver]

I had fun making the following, just now...

Spoiler: Image (click to show/hide)

(I only 'tricked up' the text in the top half.  The word "Victim" was part of the original!)

[Putnam]

Having them on drops my fps to 100 with 7 dwarfs. With 50 its like, ughhh

I think this is your real problem.  100 FPS is a luxury, 300 is sheer greek-lord-on-a-couch-being-fed-grapes levels of greed.

And 50 is still a faster refresh than your eyes can detect, so it won't look choppy in any way.

I could make multiple rants on how wrong this is. Your eyes can detect the difference between 30 and 60 FPS, hell, they can detect the difference between 30 and 220, and that's just what we know, theoretically it's probably over 300.

[dree12]

An Intel i7 works much better than competing AMD brands. Quad-core or 6-core shouldn't matter, a quad should be enough (3 cores for DF, 1 for everything else). The 2.66GHz can be overclocked, but I would personally advise not because of cooling issues. RAM can be light, 8GB should be enough to run the OS (Df is limited to 2), but needs to be FAST (DF does most of its work reading and writing). Personally, I find DF to run faster on Windows (maybe its more optimized?) but the general consensus seems to deviate from that.

That would work if DF was multi-threaded.

And 50 is still a faster refresh than your eyes can detect, so it won't look choppy in any way.

DF uses three cores. Period. I forget what they are for, but I think one's for the graphics. Also, 50 is not faster than eyes can detect, not sure where you got that from.