(*)fixed problem causing dwarves not to respect ownership in sleeping priorities
It is an odd numbered release....Paranoia! It'll work fine.
.14 in a couple of days? :)
:(
My laptop claims that 'Dwarf Fortress.exe is not a valid Win32 application.'
I'm on Windows 2000.
*Ninjaed by toady*
Yeah, Windows 2000 was EOLed quite a while ago. Microsoft no longer supports it, which makes anyone else supporting it hard.. I'll see what I can dig up, but at this point I don't have high hopes.
Dropping VS 2010 would require rewriting some code, and it would also revert a large part of the performance gain in this version.. why are you still using 2000, if I may ask?
Thanks Toady, doesnt seem to be crashing yet and its running 4-5 fps faster (from 16-20 to 20-26 w/176 dwarves).Lucky you, I still get steady 2 FPS with just 61 dorfs and year 1055 in Linux.
Awesome :)
A simple if does not work in this case i fear.And in any case, I doubt it is worth the effort to add something for Win2000.
Crash fixes
(*)fixed some potential problems with aborting zone placement, though it's not guaranteed to solve the crash there
Major bug fixes
(*)fixed problem causing dwarves to not sleep in any bed
(*)fixed problem causing dwarves not to respect ownership in sleeping priorities
(*)made cursor center on buildings properly when linking them up to a lever etc.
(*)stopped other civilizations from bringing liaisons
(*)stopped building destroyer diplomats/traders from destroying things
(*)made units check the validity of targets more often (counters certain interrupt spam)
Other bug fixes/tweaks
(*)fixed broken vial making jobs
(*)make rock short swords use the proper material for the final product
(*)made horn silver use the stone template
(*)moved all native metals off of metal template
(*)stopped season counter from resetting to spring after travel in adventure mode
I'm getting block characters with a font that I know for a fact supports all of the characters DF has.It's a work in progress. There's probably something wrong with the unicode converter somewhere, I'll have a look.
A simple if does not work in this case i fear.And in any case, I doubt it is worth the effort to add something for Win2000.
Thanks Toady, doesnt seem to be crashing yet and its running 4-5 fps faster (from 16-20 to 20-26 w/176 dwarves).Lucky you, I still get steady 2 FPS with just 61 dorfs and year 1055 in Linux.
Awesome :)
With no temperature or weather, most animals butchered, etc.
Huh. Interesting. I don't see any real changes to the entity raws other than the population increase.Probably, at least for now. Decoupling them can't really come in until all methods work nicely.
Does this mean that all of the new off-site population methods are controlled by the site type?
I would rate it as how much effort it takes,...Well, sure, but so far I'm the only one who has spoken up to use Win2000, so unless many others speak up, it'd be a change just for one guy on the interwebs.
Tried again, no segfault. maybe a fluke?I think it's random. I've generated 10 worlds and got it twice. There's definitely some new error in the worldgen process, but it's expected with all the new additions :D.
Anyways, I'm excited to play, thank toady!
P.S. Are there old towns like before too? I seem to get tons of locations with cottages...I'm pretty sure Toady said he gutted the old towns, and didn't get to replacing them yet.
I WANT SHOPS! :D
*Ninjaed by toady*
Yeah, Windows 2000 was EOLed quite a while ago. Microsoft no longer supports it, which makes anyone else supporting it hard.. I'll see what I can dig up, but at this point I don't have high hopes.
Dropping VS 2010 would require rewriting some code, and it would also revert a large part of the performance gain in this version.. why are you still using 2000, if I may ask?
Why would you need to revert a large ammount of performance gain to just re add windows 2000 support? All you need to do is either add a single if at the start of the program so that if the OS version is windows 2000 you run on a different path, or maybe you could just edit the setting in VS2010 to make it output valid win32 exe for windows 2000. (http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/vcpluslanguage/thread/4924c9de-3d0a-4de6-81aa-d6f985136779) That is assuming that it does not break due to changes in how the exe was made, but it might be worth a quick test before adding the first look up at run time to see if you are running windows 2000, or even more ideally compile time and have a link for a windows 2000 version and a windows xp or better version. Properly abstracted it should not be that hard to do, but I don't know how good the code is with regards to that.
A negative number of soldiers isn't a bug! It's protesters!
(*)stopped building destroyer diplomats/traders from destroying things
I've noticed a river/stream that is one Z level higher than most of the surrounding terrain.
It has a 1 tile wall around it, with no ramps to get on top, which is how I noticed it while bumbling around as an adventurer wondering why there seemed to be no people in the world. I will preserve the save if it matters at all.
Of course the catastrophic crashes and things are the stuff I'm most interested in right after a release, and I'm curious about the DLLs if people are getting errors there, so I can rebundle it.
I've noticed a river/stream that is one Z level higher than most of the surrounding terrain.
It has a 1 tile wall around it, with no ramps to get on top, which is how I noticed it while bumbling around as an adventurer wondering why there seemed to be no people in the world. I will preserve the save if it matters at all.
Replace data/art/font.ttf; I replaced mine with a sans-serif font, because serifs are the root of all evil. Special exception for the capital letter 'I', which is royalty and deserving of serifs, unlike all the other commoner letters of the alphabet.
I've noticed a river/stream that is one Z level higher than most of the surrounding terrain.
It has a 1 tile wall around it, with no ramps to get on top, which is how I noticed it while bumbling around as an adventurer wondering why there seemed to be no people in the world. I will preserve the save if it matters at all.
Replace data/art/font.ttf; I replaced mine with a sans-serif font, because serifs are the root of all evil. Special exception for the capital letter 'I', which is royalty and deserving of serifs, unlike all the other commoner letters of the alphabet.
You quoted the wrong post, but thanks!
*said the Knight to the vanished text*
:( There is almost no where to embark, the map is starting to look more like modern times...
Maybe it is just the world I gen'd but the map is 2/3's full save some fields and glaciers. Still haven't found a mountain that is embarkable.
Huh. Interesting. I don't see any real changes to the entity raws other than the population increase.
Does this mean that all of the new off-site population methods are controlled by the site type?
Seconding this question. The entity_default.txt file seems to have changes (has a new date) though I can't find the actual changes in it.
[ENTITY:MOUNTAIN]
[START_GROUP_NUMBER:10]
[ENTITY:FOREST]
[START_GROUP_NUMBER:10]
[ENTITY:PLAINS]
[START_BIOME:ANY_FOREST]
[BIOME_SUPPORT:ANY_OCEAN:3]
[BIOME_SUPPORT:ANY_RIVER:1]
[START_GROUP_NUMBER:10]
[ENTITY:EVIL]
[START_BIOME:MOUNTAIN]
[BIOME_SUPPORT:ANY_WETLAND:1]
[BIOME_SUPPORT:ANY_DESERT:1]
[BIOME_SUPPORT:ANY_FOREST:2]
[BIOME_SUPPORT:ANY_OCEAN:1]
[BIOME_SUPPORT:ANY_LAKE:1]
[BIOME_SUPPORT:MOUNTAIN:3]
[BIOME_SUPPORT:ANY_GRASSLAND:1]
[BIOME_SUPPORT:ANY_SAVANNA:1]
[BIOME_SUPPORT:ANY_SHRUBLAND:1]
[START_GROUP_NUMBER:10]
[ENTITY:SKULKING]
[START_GROUP_NUMBER:10]
[ENTITY:SUBTERRANEAN_ANIMAL_PEOPLES]
[START_GROUP_NUMBER:10]
(*)made cursor center on buildings properly when linking them up to a lever etc.
(*)made units check the validity of targets more often (counters certain interrupt spam)
(*)make rock short swords use the proper material for the final product
I've noticed a river/stream that is one Z level higher than most of the surrounding terrain.
It has a 1 tile wall around it, with no ramps to get on top, which is how I noticed it while bumbling around as an adventurer wondering why there seemed to be no people in the world. I will preserve the save if it matters at all.
Hmmm, this is weird. The first volcano I found on the first map I genned on this release (haven't changed any files at all). Think theres an aquifer as well. Anybody else had this happen to them before? Or is this normal.
http://imgur.com/1MMIg.png
http://imgur.com/LZKXb.png
http://imgur.com/r98Ji.png
EDIT: had the pics in the wrong order
EDIT 2: It does go back into the mountain after 10 levels tho.
In the farmland houses, are there supposed to be twelve or so humans just standing around (including one always blocking the entrance)? That seems rather cramped.
Just the fix to the lever linkage makes this release the best one ever. Seriously. I'm happier about that than I was about going to 3D :D
I'm getting crashed during the opening movie. If I skip it, the game runs just fine. Love the new font support, can't wait until it's all nailed down.
Seconding this question. The entity_default.txt file seems to have changes (has a new date) though I can't find the actual changes in it.
I did a diff on it for you, here's the changed/added lines:Code: [Select][ENTITY:MOUNTAIN]
[START_GROUP_NUMBER:10]
[ENTITY:FOREST]
[START_GROUP_NUMBER:10]
[ENTITY:PLAINS]
[START_BIOME:ANY_FOREST]
[BIOME_SUPPORT:ANY_OCEAN:3]
[BIOME_SUPPORT:ANY_RIVER:1]
[START_GROUP_NUMBER:10]
[ENTITY:EVIL]
[START_BIOME:MOUNTAIN]
[BIOME_SUPPORT:ANY_WETLAND:1]
[BIOME_SUPPORT:ANY_DESERT:1]
[BIOME_SUPPORT:ANY_FOREST:2]
[BIOME_SUPPORT:ANY_OCEAN:1]
[BIOME_SUPPORT:ANY_LAKE:1]
[BIOME_SUPPORT:MOUNTAIN:3]
[BIOME_SUPPORT:ANY_GRASSLAND:1]
[BIOME_SUPPORT:ANY_SAVANNA:1]
[BIOME_SUPPORT:ANY_SHRUBLAND:1]
[START_GROUP_NUMBER:10]
[ENTITY:SKULKING]
[START_GROUP_NUMBER:10]
[ENTITY:SUBTERRANEAN_ANIMAL_PEOPLES]
[START_GROUP_NUMBER:10]
So is Dungeon Master fixed then :D
Replace data/art/font.ttf; I replaced mine with a sans-serif font, because serifs are the root of all evil. Special exception for the capital letter 'I', which is royalty and deserving of serifs, unlike all the other commoner letters of the alphabet.
Huh weird I don't see the Start Group line in mine, or the zip file.
But I did see the START GROUP bit in a save from a previous version, not sure what version though
All very interesting changes, and in particular I think the farm sprawl stuff is quite cool in concept, but in execution it probably should be toned down a lot - I'm getting truly immense areas of map covered by farm sprawl if I let world gen run the whole 1050. Even stopping it at 400, with a smaller number of starting civs (20 on a medium size region) results in an uncomfortably crowded map.
Put off working on mod for over two weeks.
Toady releases new version of DF.
Much rejoicing.
Realize that this means I have to work on my mod again.
Sigh reluctantly.
Do the new sprawl changes, specifically the farmland, only affect human settlements? Or, are there/will there be similar changes to Dwarven/Elf/Goblin sites as well?
It isn't just human settlements that make farm sprawl, all civs do it (even the elves and goblins). Even stopping world gen at year 50 I still have towns that make farm sprawl tiles that are 7+ tiles away from the town itself, so far that I actually have trouble seeing exactly what town they're coming from. If there's a river anywhere near a town, basically it will be completely covered by farm tiles and cannot be embarked on except for some 3x* holes between them, and tbh who really makes a brave expedition to colonize the mysterious space between somebody's farms?
Anyhow, year 50 seems about where I would want a full 1050 year history to be, and going to 1050 years is way beyond even modern times' utilization of land.
edit: tbh even year 50 is still pretty opressively crowded, just looked over one map and an entire major river, every tile of it, was covered over by farms in those 50 years.
I also saw a battle with negative numbers of soldiers but couldn't reproduce the situation, so there are probably additional issues as well.
The sprawl is just ridiculous. Untouched wilderness ends up being either uninhabited islands, very evil biomes, and extreme temperature biomes.But, this is actually REALISTIC. In the real world it'd be pretty similar to the current sprawl situation.
Since you have climates ranging from glacial to scorching, it seems pretty obvious that it's half a planet
Since you have climates ranging from glacial to scorching, it seems pretty obvious that it's half a planet
Even if this is true, it doesn't mean the planet is necessarily the size of Earth.
./mourn Win2k support :(Why dont you just install some other OS?
And the bugfixes look so nice, too ...
(especially since importing an old for dodges the world gen issues)
Here's to hoping for the return of Windows 2000 support, but I don't really expect it to happen. Guess I get to explore 31.12 in great detail :p
Hmmm... I would love to find some more information on the land use of medieval Europe and other places for farming. From what little I've looked into the matter, it seems that extensive sprawl of farmland would have been the norm.See the Future of the Fortress thread, there was a long discussion on this with various links thrown around.
./mourn Win2k support :(
And the bugfixes look so nice, too ...
(especially since importing an old for dodges the world gen issues)
Here's to hoping for the return of Windows 2000 support, but I don't really expect it to happen. Guess I get to explore 31.12 in great detail :p
Edit: It's gone the limit now, and is crashing. Me thinks it's time for Toady to start releasing 64 bit builds.Someone would think that better first check if something can be done more effectively memory-wise. But nooo, lets just throw more hardware at it.*
Yeah. Its "fantasy world sim", not "realistic farmer sim"! realism makes things more interesting and comparable to real life. when you see some complicated simulations like chopping off limbs or liquids dinamycs or healthcare system(its working in my fortresses for the most of time) or layering organics composture of creatures(skin, muscle, nerves, bones) for the first time you think - "WOW! THATS AWSOME! I WANNA TRY IT!".
Playing adventure mode on Linux, the process got up to 2.9GiB of memory; just a sliver away from exhausting its virtual address space. If this was Windows, it'd have been long dead.I'm guessing you have a large region at year 1050? How about checking the memory use at medium island, 250 years? I think the default year 1050 is ill-advised with DF .31.13.
./mourn Win2k support :(
And the bugfixes look so nice, too ...
(especially since importing an old for dodges the world gen issues)
Here's to hoping for the return of Windows 2000 support, but I don't really expect it to happen. Guess I get to explore 31.12 in great detail :p
Yeah, I miss W2k too. I gave it up about a year ago, although I'd still be using it given the choice. Best OS ever. :(
Since then I've changed to Ubuntu, since it's free and there's no way in hell I'm paying to inflict Vista or Windows 7 on myself. I've seen the hell it's put family members through.
If you decide to give Linux a go, remember you don't even have to install it on your hard drive to try. You can run Ubuntu from the Live-CD as long as you have 1GB of RAM.
If you've got less than that, you could give Xubutu a go, which I think can run on as little as 192MB of RAM.
Yeah. Its "fantasy world sim", not "realistic farmer sim"! realism makes things more interesting and comparable to real life. when you see some complicated simulations like chopping off limbs or liquids dinamycs or healthcare system(its working in my fortresses for the most of time) or layering organics composture of creatures(skin, muscle, nerves, bones) for the first time you think - "WOW! THATS AWSOME! I WANNA TRY IT!".
Genesis mod has a little bit more of everything: males and females have different genitals, chickens and groundhogs have small legs, cows have udders, giraffe milk is expensive, more friendly civs, a total of four hostile civs (demon alliance, werewolves, lizardmen, mind flayers). And more magic, in the form of dwarf castes with abilities. Workshops to train shield, dodging, swordplay...
Come join us!
Maybe dwarves should teach humans how to farm.
... what? What'd I say?
"Strike the furrowed peat!" just doesn't have the same ring to it.
./mourn Win2k support :(
And the bugfixes look so nice, too ...
(especially since importing an old for dodges the world gen issues)
Here's to hoping for the return of Windows 2000 support, but I don't really expect it to happen. Guess I get to explore 31.12 in great detail :p
Yeah, I miss W2k too. I gave it up about a year ago, although I'd still be using it given the choice. Best OS ever. :(
Since then I've changed to Ubuntu, since it's free and there's no way in hell I'm paying to inflict Vista or Windows 7 on myself. I've seen the hell it's put family members through.
If you decide to give Linux a go, remember you don't even have to install it on your hard drive to try. You can run Ubuntu from the Live-CD as long as you have 1GB of RAM.
If you've got less than that, you could give Xubutu a go, which I think can run on as little as 192MB of RAM.
Err... I cant agree with you about Win7 =)
Its pretty fine OS for Microsoft offspring! =) and its fast too. Well, not as much as Linux, but what "the hell it's put family members through" you are talking about??
The only hell it gave me - InstallDVD was glitching and refused to start the installation.
Oh! And majority of modern games is Win7 oriented - its kinda important for me. =)
Maybe i`ll install Linux as second OS with only purpose of running DF, but not as primary OS.
You can't get XP any more
Actually it's already released, and I strongly suggest to use 0.31.12 to generate worlds and play them in 0.31.13.
I totally dislike the current picture. I like the mechanics but the overall sprawl doesn't work at all.
A few points:
1) Dark fantasy. There should be big regions of wilderness and unknown land with beasts and monsters. You should be able to explore them, find something interesting and die quite often. I don't want "harvest moon" fortress.
2) Scaling. Adventure/fortress mode scaling problems were not as noticeable before, but now they are. In adv. mode you have to eat more often, and plants grow literal months. In Fortress mode dwarves eat 2 times per month or like that, so 4x4 farm is enough to feed a full fort.
Here comes a problem... We have a fort with 4x4 farms in a world of 100x100 farms. It totally breaks immersion.
My suggestion to solve both problems is to decrease farmland itself (and build more cottages, because 10 people in 1 small house is wrooong) and limit their number. I.e. 1 farm per small city, 2 farms per 1 medium city etc.
I am sure that's temporary, but it was too obvious not to comment on.
Actually it's already released, and I strongly suggest to use 0.31.12 to generate worlds and play them in 0.31.13.
I totally dislike the current picture. I like the mechanics but the overall sprawl doesn't work at all.
A few points:
1) Dark fantasy. There should be big regions of wilderness and unknown land with beasts and monsters. You should be able to explore them, find something interesting and die quite often. I don't want "harvest moon" fortress.
2) Scaling. Adventure/fortress mode scaling problems were not as noticeable before, but now they are. In adv. mode you have to eat more often, and plants grow literal months. In Fortress mode dwarves eat 2 times per month or like that, so 4x4 farm is enough to feed a full fort.
Here comes a problem... We have a fort with 4x4 farms in a world of 100x100 farms. It totally breaks immersion.
My suggestion to solve both problems is to decrease farmland itself (and build more cottages, because 10 people in 1 small house is wrooong) and limit their number. I.e. 1 farm per small city, 2 farms per 1 medium city etc.
I am sure that's temporary, but it was too obvious not to comment on.
1) Dark fantasy. There should be big regions of wilderness and unknown land with beasts and monsters. You should be able to explore them, find something interesting and die quite often. I don't want "harvest moon" fortress.
(and build more cottages, because 10 people in 1 small house is wrooong)
and build more cottages, because 10 people in 1 small house is wrooongActually, most agrarian societies, and anyone living in poverty, generally live in multi-generational households, so that's grandparents, parents, and siblings, sometimes aunts and uncles, etc...
Throughout Europe, 80-90 percent of the population struggled to coax a living, and perhaps a surplus, out of the soil.
In England, the idea farm size for a family was a "yardland" (24-30 acres) in size. Only about a quarter of the English farm families had this much land (or a bit more) before the Bubonic Plague , most had ten or fewer.
(http://www.hyw.com/books/history/agricult.htm)
I think Toady is going to have to make some decisions regardless of realism about what percentage of land in-game should be used for sprawl. Ultimately the sprawl is for effect and that should be remembered. DF is not a simulation of our world, which is why we still love all the weird stuff about it.True, and true, but the game is based in reality. The entire point of the farm sprawl is to add a touch of realism. Now, this is necessarily Earth realism, but believability. Maybe DF doesn't need to line up to European comparisons, but it needs to make sense for DF.
Plus, I still haven't seen the same 'realistic' percentage quoted twice, which makes me think that no one actually knows.
Plus, I still haven't seen the same 'realistic' percentage quoted twice, which makes me think that no one actually knows.
The point is to reach a balance that makes sense in whatever world DF is set on.So, if a 4x4 farm plot can feed 100 dwarves, and each of these farm sprawls have 100x100 farm plots, then each sprawl can feed 6,250 people... so, we're talking what, one to two farm sprawls per city? Sounds about right to me!
you missed one zeroThe point is to reach a balance that makes sense in whatever world DF is set on.So, if a 4x4 farm plot can feed 100 dwarves, and each of these farm sprawls have 100x100 farm plots, then each sprawl can feed 6,250 people... so, we're talking what, one to two farm sprawls per city? Sounds about right to me!
[I jest, I jest.]
i had dwarf fortress close without warning during the finalizing sites bit of world gen on a large world at around 300 it also crashed a bit after embark.yep, it closed several times for me too. and afer that - on seasons change in-game. =(
the finalizing sites issue seemed to be consistent once the world gen got over 250 or so years, so it may be from the number of sites.
also i rather like the new sprawl, if you seem to have it everywhere try to have less civs, a shorter world gen or a bigger map. as 200 years on a large world with 120 civs left me with only pockets of sprawl around cities and towns with the rest of the map as wilderness.
Edit-- the world gen closing during finilizing sites seems to only reproduce with certain world gen conditions mostly involving extremely low elevation variance
hmm...I just got an immigrant...a "war peasant" with no ability to assign jobs or positions...but also doesn't show up on the "animals" list...I guess she's a slave. Never had immigrants bring slaves before. Yep...assign animals listed 1 war beast, I just assigned her as a war pet to one of my soldiers... ... ...Dwarven entity have
Just adding my vote that banging a large region left me withMy expectation was for that sentence to finish with "a nasty rash"...
That's.. probably why there isn't too much sprawl.
A logical way to tweak this would then be to increase the frequencies of wars. I wonder if there's some way we can do that via raws or worldgen parameters?
The point is to reach a balance that makes sense in whatever world DF is set on.So, if a 4x4 farm plot can feed 100 dwarves, and each of these farm sprawls have 100x100 farm plots, then each sprawl can feed 6,250 people... so, we're talking what, one to two farm sprawls per city? Sounds about right to me!
[I jest, I jest.]
The radius they're allowed to spread from a given town ought to be limited pretty sharply too, rather than this 15-tile type stuff that is going on now. Also they shouldn't be allowed to be built ON TOP OF rivers, especially major rivers.
around fresh water sources
dyld: Library not loaded: /usr/local/lib/libstdc++.6.dylib
same thing here. Toady apparently used an independently built gcc rather than the one that is part of the Mac dev tools. It's looking for libstc++ library from its install directory.
I have no idea what you people are going on about, but when I paste Baughn's code into the terminal, it runs fora while before I get:
It's worth a shot. I've successfully compiled libgraphics with clang on linux before, which should be somewhat representative of Toady's coding style.
Slightly more on topic, does anybody know just how population growth is modeled in worldgen? It occurred to me that if everybody is constantly poppin out babies with only war as a way to slow down growth, then it makes sense that there is so much sprawl. IRL, medieval populations could only get so large before a bout of plague swept through or a famine or drought or something. Now that we have a way to gauge how much food a city has available to it, it seems like a more realistic population growth model would be next in line to limit expansion of civs and would lead directly to more wars as civs compete for fertile river valleys. You know, like in real life.
Of course, all this falls apart if that is already modeled and I just don't know about it, hence my question.
I have no idea what you people are going on about, but when I paste Baughn's code into the terminal, it runs fora while before I get:
Heh. If you don't have the developer's tools (i.e. gcc) installed, you can't compile a newer version of gcc so that df will run.
If you don't know what "gcc" is, probably best to wait for Baughn to release a fix.It's worth a shot. I've successfully compiled libgraphics with clang on linux before, which should be somewhat representative of Toady's coding style.
That would be ... pretty cool. Especially if the performance optimizations I've seen elsewhere also held true with df.
The main reason I bring up Xcode 4 in terms of clang is because I know Apple contributes code to clang/llvm but I have no idea of the status between what's in the llvm/clang codebase and anything Apple may or may not still have in the works. Especially since Apple is touting the clang improvements coming with Xcode 4 which hasn't officially been released yet. I'm sure if they are not already there, they would quickly get into the main clang tree though.
(Tell Toady I'll buy him a copy of Snow Leopard if he lets me download df for free. :) )
Bah, I am not a patient man when it comes to my DF. I went to all the trouble to move my save file from the Windows partition, and now this indignity! Truly, no one suffers more in the universe than I.
Sigh. Point taken. And I never did bother to update to Snow Leopard... it came out about a month or so after I bought my Mac, and it didn't seem worth it.
Sigh. Point taken. And I never did bother to update to Snow Leopard... it came out about a month or so after I bought my Mac, and it didn't seem worth it.
We are Mac users. We are used to indignity and suffering at the hands of the rest of the computing world. :D
dyld: Library not loaded: /usr/local/lib/libstdc++.6.dylib
same thing here. Toady apparently used an independently built gcc rather than the one that is part of the Mac dev tools. It's looking for libstc++ library from its install directory. otool shows it will look for:
/usr/local/lib/libstdc++.6.dylib
/usr/local/lib/libgcc_s.1.dylib
from the gcc build location. Easily solvable by putting the dylibs in with the archive and adjusting the search path but I wonder why Toady used a custom-built gcc in the first place.
dyld: Library not loaded: /usr/local/lib/libstdc++.6.dylib
same thing here. Toady apparently used an independently built gcc rather than the one that is part of the Mac dev tools. It's looking for libstc++ library from its install directory. otool shows it will look for:
/usr/local/lib/libstdc++.6.dylib
/usr/local/lib/libgcc_s.1.dylib
from the gcc build location. Easily solvable by putting the dylibs in with the archive and adjusting the search path but I wonder why Toady used a custom-built gcc in the first place.
New Mac one up. Hopefully that works.
/usr/local/lib/libstdc++.6.dylib
/usr/local/lib/libgcc_s.1.dylib
Do I need both of those or just the top one?
New Mac one up. Hopefully that works.
Could it be that this version doesn't work with Windows XP, SP 1? Because it says "The procedure entry point DecodePointer not found in library DLL KERNEL32.dll". I tried installing the Service Pack 2 or 3, but it doesn't work, so that's bad. :(
The prodcedure entry point DecodePointer could not be located in the dynamic link library KERNEL32.dll.
Anyone else got this error, or is it just me?
Bad sectors on my Hard Drive and a corrupt MFT are preventing me from updating Windows XP to SP1, so my guess is that's probably it...
...Oh well, I'll soldier on, in true Dwarven style!
Could it be that this version doesn't work with Windows XP, SP 1? Because it says "The procedure entry point DecodePointer not found in library DLL KERNEL32.dll". I tried installing the Service Pack 2 or 3, but it doesn't work, so that's bad. :(
If I am a dwarf mode player, should I mess with this patch? From what I have read it sounds like an adventure mode patch mainly, that broke or at least severely impaired dwarf mode.
If I am a dwarf mode player, should I mess with this patch? From what I have read it sounds like an adventure mode patch mainly, that broke or at least severely impaired dwarf mode.
I wouldn't really call DF updates patches (for one thing, they don't overwrite the old version), but in any case nothing good happened to fortress mode (aside from a few bug fixes), it's harder to find a spot to embark on, worldgen takes longer, and it's even harder to find quests in adventure mode now that the human towns got replaced with an experimental update. Personally I'd stick to 3.12 until all the kinks get worked out.
People are kicking up a fuss at using default worldgen params for a radically different worldgen procedure (the addition of sprawl). If you just want a fort with no care for history, why insist on an oversized region with overaged history? Yes, "create new world now!" sucks now - but you were never forced to stick with it.If I am a dwarf mode player, should I mess with this patch? From what I have read it sounds like an adventure mode patch mainly, that broke or at least severely impaired dwarf mode.
I wouldn't really call DF updates patches (for one thing, they don't overwrite the old version), but in any case nothing good happened to fortress mode (aside from a few bug fixes), it's harder to find a spot to embark on, worldgen takes longer, and it's even harder to find quests in adventure mode now that the human towns got replaced with an experimental update. Personally I'd stick to 3.12 until all the kinks get worked out.
I think people are exaggerating about the unplayability of the new version (again).
Quotearound fresh water sources
Yes but not on top of them!
In general, one of the problems is that there are too many civs in the default setting. If you want all civs to be there, around 20 civs is the number you want, not 40 or whatever the defaults are.
Also, eliminate all the minimum numbers for unusable terrain - you don't need thousands of ocean tiles and they only take away from the usable tiles. If you ask for partial or complete oceans, you get enough ocean automatically. Unless you change the minimum/maximum values, you should get all types of terrain, so unless you really want a certain terrain like deserts, for instance, you should remove the minimums for all unusable terrain.
Also, I don't recommend minimum values for hills and grassland/plains - that's the terrain humans inhabit, and they spread really well because of that. Instead, you should consider increasing the minimum values for forests and mountains (elves and goblins) which should help balance things a little bit.
I have also tried increasing the variance for savagery a little bit (at least in previous versions, civs would not settle in savage areas), however I don't have any verifiable results. But theoretically, that should hamper the spread of settlements.
Other than that, I recommend looking at the world gen data I have provided for further hints.
My 2 cents is that if you have a short world gen (I've run 49 and 99 so far with good results) then the sprawl is fairly well limited to the major rivers. If you really want that primo ancient city site on the mouth of the Nile, then stop world gen at like year 3. If, like me, you embark in the middle of nowhere/terrifying places/glaciers/volcanos/deserts then you'll be fine.These two posts cover most of the worldgen wisdom needed to not have issues with .13's sprawl interference. If you have no interest in getting decorations of random historic events in your fortress, you may as well just end worldgen at year 2 or 3. Make multiple forts in the same world if you want more history than that - then all the history will be of stuff you did not what the RNG gives you. Also consider just picking a smaller region to play in: less memory size, less loading time, faster worldgen. Provided you end worldgen before civs kill each other, you can easily fit all the races into a smaller world. If you don't want to play with aquifers, get rid of them entirely. Go to the raws and delete all the [AQUIFER] tags in the inorganics. While you're at it, you can tweak cavern settings too: e.g. only have 1 cavern layer so you can get to the magma sea faster (you want at least 1 if you want underground farming at all).
Most modern megacities are literally built "on top of" major river mouths and have expanded along riverways. Rivers and especially river deltas provide plenty of food in great variety and transportation to benefit said cities. Also Icelandic cities benefit of volcanic activity in the form of free heating, useful for farming, including tropical fruits and such.
Toady be a hero and tell us what the memory vectors are so we can use dwarf therapist
Most modern megacities are literally built "on top of" major river mouths and have expanded along riverways. Rivers and especially river deltas provide plenty of food in great variety and transportation to benefit said cities. Also Icelandic cities benefit of volcanic activity in the form of free heating, useful for farming, including tropical fruits and such.
That's all cool and stuff, but I know of no pre-industrial culture that built massive platforms that spanned the entire length and breadth of great rivers like the Amazon or the Nile and covered them completely so that the entire run of the river was 100% hidden from the sun. I don't think any post-industrial culture has managed this either. I'm pretty sure even today with rapid bulk transport we don't manage to farm on more than a few percent (less than ten percent I'm certain, probably less than three) of the land area of our own planet. My education may be faulty though.
I can't understand why anyone is particularly pleased with the way this sprawl stuff is working right now, it is horribly HORRIBLY unrealistic and simply blocks a great number of potential embark sites, as well as places mass amounts of blank flat space in adventure mode. There is simply nothing good about what happens to the map with farm sprawl if allowed to run for 1050 years!
Mixing reality and fantasy together and arguing about the end-result's realism being lacking never leads to much anywhere. This is a game, the point is having fun.
If something stops you from having fun, it should be fixed.
just looking from the detailed export the sprawl doesn't cover much more the 10 % or so of a map(even less if you have lots of mountains or glaciers) it just seems that way if you get into a farmland area (on a major river or something) in embark because the box around the sprawl covers additional land.
I also have never seen cities completely cover a river or even build a working bridge, mostly they seem to start on both sides but don't meet up and they are on different z levels, but that might have been fixed.
Toady be a hero and tell us what the memory vectors are so we can use dwarf therapist
Better yet, give him the dorf therapist source code so he can use it in DF.
Deathworks' post nails it down.Well, not just that.
And, this is not unplayable at all. I took a deeper look at the situation and it's just a bit out of tune, no more.
Also other forum post at the Future of the Fortress topic explains the slowdown during worldgen, it doesn't seem to be the sprawl but the increased amount of battles.
The adamantite bug is a minimal raw mistake.
Pf, some guys don't even seem to understand the concept of "tuning". Even with the warning signs all around the place, like OH NOES A RELEASE (after a rather big change) MAKES IT SLIGHTLY HARDER TO FIND A SITE DWARF FORTRESS IS RUINED FOREVER BAWWWW!!!!!111ELEVEN. --What means the good sites have been taken already. Which is perfectly logic, just tweak the worldgen as pointed out by some people-- But they seem to think this is a permanent situation.
People with so little patience is either too young, or doesn't understand game developing at all. (Hint: It's not a linear process, and trial and error is present on it, even with experimented programmers).
Hi!Such a source of radiance, this post.
Actually, I think if we were allowed to embark within the settled areas (as we had been in previous versions at least for a while), many of the critics might suddenly become extremely pro-sprawl (^_^;;
But yes, a little fine-tuning is probably necessary.
Deathworks
just looking from the detailed export the sprawl doesn't cover much more the 10 % or so of a mapI do not care what % is sprawl. I do care on what % on map I cannot embark due to sprawl. I hope you can distinguish these two things.
Actually, I think if we were allowed to embark within the settled areas (as we had been in previous versions at least for a while), many of the critics might suddenly become extremely pro-sprawl (^_^;;No. In this case, no one would complaint. Atm most, someone would say this sprawl is a little excessive and farmfiels are just boring. But it would not be specially pressing issue to fix (especially there is zilion other things to fix, that Toady seems to do NOT care at all).
I have given the world gen data for the world I am currently using here (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=66142.msg1573327#msg1573327).
Also, eliminate all the minimum numbers for unusable terrain - you don't need thousands of ocean tiles and they only take away from the usable tiles. If you ask for partial or complete oceans, you get enough ocean automatically. Unless you change the minimum/maximum values, you should get all types of terrain, so unless you really want a certain terrain like deserts, for instance, you should remove the minimums for all unusable terrain.
Also, I don't recommend minimum values for hills and grassland/plains - that's the terrain humans inhabit, and they spread really well because of that. Instead, you should consider increasing the minimum values for forests and mountains (elves and goblins) which should help balance things a little bit.
I have also tried increasing the variance for savagery a little bit (at least in previous versions, civs would not settle in savage areas), however I don't have any verifiable results. But theoretically, that should hamper the spread of settlements.
I personally wait for 0.31.14. Or even 0.31.15. Anyway I cannot play without DwarfTheRapist and I except finding needed offsets will take some time (new complier = starting hacking from scrath).
Update on my extremely deep fort -- my magma forges are at level -11, 152 levels below the entrance. No signs of bad memory references, so apparently the code can handle negative numbers in the z axis. Not sure such a deep fortress is sustainable due to FPS effects and the long trip between the mines and ore stockpiles, but I'm sticking with it at least until it reaches the point a baron should get appointed, to see how that group of bugs is doing.So put the stocks down at the bottom, then move the living quarters down too. Make the traders and gobbos come to YOU. 8)
MaDeR Levap i hope you can tell the difference between yourself and others who were making realism claims of a max of 10% of land, to which i meant that there actually wasn't as much farm land as there appeared to be at embark.Thia was exactly what I was talking about. So what if sprawl take only 10%, when with bounding box taken in account you get 30% or whatever? Add to this mountaint, oceans and other unembarkable area (big lakes?)... and this starts to get annoying.
but yeah the bounding box should probably be smaller around the sprawl, as this would make the sprawl seem more unobtrusive and maybe the default "create world now" gen should encourage a bit less sprawl.
Update on my extremely deep fort -- my magma forges are at level -11, 152 levels below the entrance. No signs of bad memory references, so apparently the code can handle negative numbers in the z axis.I think this is offset from real internal z-level index. Your -11 is just shown value. Real value is different.
Therapist is out for a while already.Wow, faster than I excepted. So not that big difference in generated code after all, huh.
I wouldn't really call DF updates patches (for one thing, they don't overwrite the old version), but in any case nothing good happened to fortress mode (aside from a few bug fixes), it's harder to find a spot to embark on, worldgen takes longer, and it's even harder to find quests in adventure mode now that the human towns got replaced with an experimental update. Personally I'd stick to 3.12 until all the kinks get worked out.
I don't understand how to find minimums. Here is every entry I could see with "min" in the name, other than those related to caves:
I hope this kind of helps you a little bit in your attempts to mess around with world gen.
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$The notion that it's possible to embark anywhere in the world was flawed in the first place. It's hard getting used to losing it, but it was inevitable. By default, you should be able to build a fortress only in your kingdom or on the borders to extend the kingdom's influence. Anything else is weird, breaks the suspension of disbelief, and wouldn't work with the upcoming changes that will slowly put more and more emphasis on kingdoms, politics, etc. So yeah, it had to come sooner and later.
I got a migrant labeled as a "Master Thief". He had a modest assortment of military and civilian skills, but I couldn't give him any labors. He had novice record keeper skill, so I made him my bookkeeper. He performed that without complaint, since it doesn't require the labor preferences screen.Wait, you made a master thief your records keeper? :)
I like the sprawl. For me it adds to the believability and richness of the world. I don't understand why is it a problem that the sprawl blocks embark squares - but I never understood the urge to seek "perfect locations" in the first place. I think the way DF is heading it will slowly be less and less possible to find the exact location you want. Instead you'll have to accommodate and, for example, play without flux. I call it challenge.
The notion that it's possible to embark anywhere in the world was flawed in the first place. It's hard getting used to losing it, but it was inevitable. By default, you should be able to build a fortress only in your kingdom or on the borders to extend the kingdom's influence. Anything else is weird, breaks the suspension of disbelief, and wouldn't work with the upcoming changes that will slowly put more and more emphasis on kingdoms, politics, etc. So yeah, it had to come sooner and later.
Also, I don't think it's user unfriendly in any way. Each new player will understand why it's possible to only embark in your sphere of influence. It makes sense. Or it would make sense but DF still doesn't work this way - you can embark a thousand miles away as long as the place isn't claimed yet.
The actual user unfriendly part is the absence of a clever site finder system that would seek and recommend fun locations by itself (with some good default criteria for fun location), and would be able to find more than one. Without a good site finder, any change that limits your embark options will be hated.
The way I see it, you SHOULD be able to embark anywhere, but if you embark somewhere naughty (in elven lands or something), you should have to deal with the consequences.
The notion that it's possible to embark anywhere in the world was flawed in the first place. It's hard getting used to losing it, but it was inevitable. By default, you should be able to build a fortress only in your kingdom or on the borders to extend the kingdom's influence. Anything else is weird, breaks the suspension of disbelief, and wouldn't work with the upcoming changes that will slowly put more and more emphasis on kingdoms, politics, etc. So yeah, it had to come sooner and later.
As for why he might be running windows 2000. If you have a computer that runs windows 2000 just fine, why spend the money to upgrade to windows xp and make it slower. I personally have a machine that is running windows 2000 server right now, it works and there little reason I can find to upgrade it to the latest version, only to have it run slower and need more hardware.(Late reply here, probably ninjaed in turn., definitely gone OT)
Isn't the whole point of embarking supposed to be to live in *unclaimed* territory, where no dwarf has gone before?
The frontier is usually though of as over the next hill or beyond the next river... Not on the far side of the planet. You can see the desirability of a 'far colony', but 'far' is relative. For the Vikings (a rather mobile people) that was Iceland, Greenland, and Newfoundland not Indonesia. It strikes me as reasonable that an embark should be within some semi-reasonable distance of the parent civ. I'd err on the side of more rather than less, but it should be a finite distance, IMHO.
DF planets are smaller but still have roughly the same gravity as Earth, due to the amount of heavy metals in them.
It is believed that the crashes during world gen are due to the process running out of addressable memory (which is not the same as your computer not having enough memory -- it's something to do with OS internals).
Anyone else find that .13 isn't respecting the population cap in d_init.txt? i.e., I have POPULATION_CAP at 100 and migrants arrive whilst there are 117 (or more) dwarves in the fortress.
I've got the same thing happening. I like to set my population cap to 20 for the first couple of years, but I'm now 7 years in without changing my POPULATION_CAP from its initial 20 (set before I even genned the world) and I'm now up to 107 dwarves.
Personally, I feel that the 1050 year worldgens that take place now are an often overlooked bug; Worldgen should stop after a certain number of megabeasts are dead, but with the materials rewrite and megabeast buff none of them die in worldgen. In the past, the cutoff would be at around 200-250 years, perfect for braving the new wilds, exploring new territories and prying the riches from the savage lands and their green skinned inhabitants. Now, worldgen runs to the arbitrary maximum of 1050, where everything new has been seen, the good sites taken, and the worlds population trying and failing to kill each other over and over. I'll be happier once Toady brings that back to normal- normal being my experiences in 40d.
Ouch, I just genned a new world in 31.13 and watching the screen flicker to new locations I came to a realization and I soiled myself.
This world, which only has param edits to layers and caverns so there's more to dig into and more space to build in, embark points so I can be somewhat less picky about some locations by bringing along extra wood to a scarce area or something, and , pretty much what I always do, 30 min volcanoes, has at least a dozen easily found flat volcanoes in various areas almost always right next to river tiles. I was super excited to take a look at all the pretty potential embark points, and when I went to the embark screen and started looking at them what did I find?
All but three of the flat volcanoes are covered over by civs, I can't even see them in the local view. Out of the three that aren't I've found one squeezed between two hostile civs with four damn layers of soil that I have to do a 5x5 to embark on if I want the river and the other two are in a "scorching" area with no trees at all.
If anything I'm mostly upset that I don't even get to see the potential of the other sites because they're covered, though.
So what should have been a plethora of great embark locations for me to examine and pick from turned into basically nothing. Fairly annoyed by that.
I had it run until year 250, considering taking these saved parameters again and either drastically cutting down on the civ count or stopping it even earlier and hoping for the best.
Ouch, I just genned a new world in 31.13 and watching the screen flicker to new locations I came to a realization and I soiled myself.Take the random seed of that world, re-do the world regen but end it at year 2. You will now get the exact same world but with much less sprawl.
This world, which only has param edits to layers and caverns so there's more to dig into and more space to build in, embark points so I can be somewhat less picky about some locations by bringing along extra wood to a scarce area or something, and , pretty much what I always do, 30 min volcanoes, has at least a dozen easily found flat volcanoes in various areas almost always right next to river tiles. I was super excited to take a look at all the pretty potential embark points, and when I went to the embark screen and started looking at them what did I find?
All but three of the flat volcanoes are covered over by civs, I can't even see them in the local view. Out of the three that aren't I've found one squeezed between two hostile civs with four damn layers of soil that I have to do a 5x5 to embark on if I want the river and the other two are in a "scorching" area with no trees at all.
If anything I'm mostly upset that I don't even get to see the potential of the other sites because they're covered, though.
So what should have been a plethora of great embark locations for me to examine and pick from turned into basically nothing. Fairly annoyed by that.
I had it run until year 250, considering taking these saved parameters again and either drastically cutting down on the civ count or stopping it even earlier and hoping for the best.
indeed. it would just mean they would get pissed off, and attack you fairly quickly. Before embarking on a area where you would get attacked and become automatically in war with the race, you should get an embark warning.
I have waked into the village and murdered EVERYONE i could find in the cottages. They were just standing there, not attacking or hitting me, just staring at me blankly while i chopped them to pieces, one by one.
After that I left, leaved the area and then returned. They villagers have all respawned with different professions.[...]
...asking around for the self-same brand of rations you couldn't find last time you were here.
Made an Interesting discovery while modding. Amphibious races will colonize and 'farm' ocean squares. I have a race of turtlemen that have spread out into the oceans of the world and turned much of the coastal waters into little green '=' areas.How does that work out in adventure mode, especially with the cottages? Prior to this release, ocean towns had the potential to be... somewhat unhealthy for the inhabitants.
I don't think this counts as a bug, since it is both logical and only possible with modding anyway. But I thought it was a fascinating aspect of the new system.
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.
just a small problem. I'm running on Lucid, but Dwarf fortress won't load, something about a missing libraryCode: [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?
sudo apt-get install libsdl1.2debian
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.
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.
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.
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.
If you don't like having aquifers, you always have the option of removing them entirely in the raws.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 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.
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 librariesCode: [Select]sudo apt-get install libsdl1.2debian
sudo apt-get install libsdl-ttf2.0-0a 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?