Print

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

[Lordraymond]

So, I'm tryin' to figure out my FPS so I know what my improvement is between my usual 5x5 (I like having lots of space) and a 2x2.

On both, the normal number out of the parenthesis will fluctuate wildly, sometimes hanging around 130 and sometimes spiking up to insane numbers in the tens of thousands, with no major impact on game speed. The other number, in parenthesis, will vary between 15 and 50, and seems to more directly effect game speed. It looks like this, in case you didn't know, where x is outside and y is inside:

x (y)

But yeah, I'm assuming it's the one inside parenthesis, but at the same time I've had forts in which my dwarves zip around at warp speed with that number at, say, 50, but they slow to nearly a crawl at around only 35-40 on many occasions.

Clarifying this would be greatly appreciated.

[NecroRebel]

The number outside the parentheses is your "actual" FPS; it's how quickly the game could be displayed if the display rate wasn't capped, and thus determines how fast the game actually runs. The second is the graphical FPS, which is how many times per second the display is changed. An actual FPS of 50 will result in things taking twice as much real time to get done as an actual FPS of 100, and it's the one that matters. The graphical FPS is capped at 50 by default, but it will fall with the actual FPS if that falls lower than the graphical FPS cap.

Your FPS probably jumps extremely occasionally because you pause the game. When the game is paused, nothing is being calculated, so very few computer cycles are taken up, meaning your FPS can get to extreme levels (because without all the calculations it has to do, a reasonably-good computer can run DF effortlessly). When the game is unpaused, though, it isn't so easy. Basically, your FPS can only be truly measured with the game unpaused.

[Meph]

I love 2x2 maps, because I can see almost everything without scrolling (no left right scrolling) AND because of the FPS. I only play on a laptop, so I try to get as much FPS help as possible.

The only problem is that you might only have 1 candy cotton spire and if you play in an evil biome your civilians get scared very easily. Everything that spawns on the mapedge is in range ^^ but after a wall has gone up everything is ok.

[rephikul]

So, I'm tryin' to figure out my FPS so I know what my improvement is between my usual 5x5 (I like having lots of space) and a 2x2.

On both, the normal number out of the parenthesis will fluctuate wildly, sometimes hanging around 130 and sometimes spiking up to insane numbers in the tens of thousands, with no major impact on game speed. The other number, in parenthesis, will vary between 15 and 50, and seems to more directly effect game speed. It looks like this, in case you didn't know, where x is outside and y is inside:

x (y)

But yeah, I'm assuming it's the one inside parenthesis, but at the same time I've had forts in which my dwarves zip around at warp speed with that number at, say, 50, but they slow to nearly a crawl at around only 35-40 on many occasions.

Clarifying this would be greatly appreciated.

Try my mod and see if the numbers get any higher ;p

[Drawde]

I usually use a 2x2 embark.  I rarely need all the space from a larger embark.

About the only thing a small embark effects is trees.  going from a 3x3 to a 2x2 embark gets rid of more than half the area (9 embark squares versus 4).  So if you use lots of logs you'll run out more often.  Having many soil levels helps a bit, but not as much as you'd think.

[anzelm]

I'd say that embark size doesn't affect fps as much - The overall fort size is probably what matters most (how much empty space you've dug out for your dwarves to path through). I have two forts running, both are relatively old (25yrs+), both are quite expansive in the vertical dimension, and both are cluttered beyond hope with goblinite processing waste (corpses, body parts, clothing, fired ammo, blood and vomit). The first fort (pop. 260-ish) is a 4x4 embark in a standard medium size world, with a brook, 3 cavern layers, etc. The second one (pop. 22) is 2x2, one cavern layer, no flowing water. Both run at 25 +/- 5 fps on my 1,5 Ghz celeron when nothing extraordinary is happening (ambushes, sieges, water/magma pumping).

If anyone is interested in gathering statistics to do some !!science!! I can provide more detailed data.

[Wannazzaki]

Im far too lazy and sporadic in what i want in a fort to build with any sense of symetry or aesthetics. But i do love 2x2 embarks. Delicious FPS

[rephikul]

I'd say that embark size doesn't affect fps as much - The overall fort size is probably what matters most (how much empty space you've dug out for your dwarves to path through). I have two forts running, both are relatively old (25yrs+), both are quite expansive in the vertical dimension, and both are cluttered beyond hope with goblinite processing waste (corpses, body parts, clothing, fired ammo, blood and vomit). The first fort (pop. 260-ish) is a 4x4 embark in a standard medium size world, with a brook, 3 cavern layers, etc. The second one (pop. 22) is 2x2, one cavern layer, no flowing water. Both run at 25 +/- 5 fps on my 1,5 Ghz celeron when nothing extraordinary is happening (ambushes, sieges, water/magma pumping).

If anyone is interested in gathering statistics to do some !!science!! I can provide more detailed data.

Yes, please upload them. I want to butcher your fort and see how much FPS I'd get after said improvement.

[anzelm]

If anyone is interested in gathering statistics to do some !!science!! I can provide more detailed data.
Yes, please upload them. I want to butcher your fort and see how much FPS I'd get after said improvement.

Let me just find some hosting space, and in the mean time consider that I'm using the native linux version. In case you play on windows this might be a problem - last time I tried to play a windows savegame on the native linux version I got some sort of raw screw-up resulting in a curious ability to produce lead bars out of plants and coal in the smelter (or something equally nonsensical).

[rephikul]

Let me just find some hosting space

Dwarf fortress file depot -> saved games

[Cydonian Monk]

I only play miniforts (2x2) these days.  And really, they're mostly nanoforts (1x1), as I usually don't build out of more than a single embark tile.  I use the rest for mining.  I also keep the population under 40 and don't accept a barony so that I can avoid mandates.  And I leave invasions off.  And I edit out all notifications that pause the game.  Why?  Because I let the fort run all day and all night.  No diplomats, no mandates, no interferences.  Just a massive food and booze stockpile and an endless party.

My most recent fort, SmithTemple, is just over 100 years old and is now on its third generation.  It still gets about 70 FPS, but a save from fort-year 97 is still over 100 FPS.  The difference?  I turned on invaders.  One elf ambush and I lost 30 FPS.  (This is a dead-dwarf civ that's at **WAR** with the elves.  [Edit: It's also in a thousand year old very small world with one (or is it two?) dragons.  Big, fully grown adult dragons.  World-eater types.])  I've been debating for the last couple weeks whether to scrap the last three years and save thd FPS, or let my 160 year old General/Commander keep his only on-map kills (he dies exactly at the fort's 100th anniversary).  Decisions... decisions.

For what it's worth, 9,000 units of booze will sustain ~35 dwarfs for only 7 years.

[Particleman]

I only play on 2x2 embarks, but that's primarily because my computer is a piece of crap. I got it for about 150$ something like seven years ago.

Even if my computer WASN'T a gimp, I probably wouldn't play on maps larger than 3x3 anyway. With a smaller map I know where everything is and I can get to it right away. On a bigger one I have trouble keeping track of everything. Wait, why is my brewer wandering off to the remotest part of the fort that I dug out for a project I decided not to go through with? What the hell, there's a still out there? I don't remember building one out there! There's not even a plant stockpile nearby! What the hell was I thinking?

I know for a lot of people that's part of the Fun of DF, but I have enough Fun with goblins and caverns.

[orius]

I've tried a few 2x2s out, but they feel pretty cramped to me, especially if there's any mountains on the map.  A 3x3 map might make a good compromise between 2x2 and 4x4 but it doesn't mesh as well with the 16x16 local area.

[Broseph Stalin]

I use 2x2's for above ground forts, especially towers since they use Z levels that are usually wasted. When was the last time you started building/digging on a z-level right up against the wall and hit the other side of the map? If you stack your fort -even if you have to work around the caverns- you still have essentially unlimited room.

[KtosoX]

Anzelm, wonderful fort.

I wish at least one of my forts looked like that...

On topic, I use only 2x2 or 3x3 embarks. It seemed natural after noticing that I never use more than 20% of any given layer on a 4x4 map.