Print

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

[Starver]

If some dwarves end up sitting backwards on chairs, I'm cool with that.

The image that goes through my mind. (That link chosen for the bonus info.)

A throne in the throne room does make more sense than a royal stool.  Royal stools belong in the sanitation arc.

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Curule_seat

IMO, it's excusable, even though the real reason is more technical and doesn't involve any actual headcanon.

[voliol]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Another steam devlog out, more fun details! I see variations in the unrevealed mountain! Have we seen those before? I don't know but they look great. So does the stone door, really worthy of a mountain hall. Reminds me of an illustration of the First Quin Emperor's mausoleum, constructed to look like a giant mound (which is very dwarfy).

Is the bridge on the same z-level as the wagon? It looks anchored to the top of the wall tiles, like the ramps. I think some shadow is missing there?

The little icons at the bottom are enticing, I'm eager to find out what each of them are. The map, I assume, is for the current "c"-screen.

[ror6ax]

Both versions of the bridge look very 'out of place' and quite cryptic.
I would not have guessed that is a bridge in a million years.

My proposition is to have the closed bridge leave some type of outline where the bridge would open towards. That could be something more in-gamey like a wooden 'fence' going on the edge of the tiles or something more UXey like a striped overlay for the area covered.

As to the opened bridge - it's way too flat-looking. I love how bridges look in Spacefox because of the decoration they have - both very easy to spot and beautiful to look at. If it's a bridge that closes up, it would make sense to see the chains that pull it up. The edge of the bridge that is connected to the land tile should be visibly different to the edge(s) that just end adjacent to the other side of the ditch - missing that is a common gameplay issue (for me at least).

As to the ramps in the sand - I can't tell if those are ramps or just sand. I guess it's the shadow that was indicating that but it's not enough variation IMO.

Workshops look great. I keep fantasising of the time when you'll have bandwidth to make animations of fire in the hearth and some light radiating from it... 

The amount of separate menus on all sides of the screen starts to worry me a little bit. Gluing bottom three into one ,centered, perhaps somehow separated, but one menu would look less cluttered IMO. Notifications and alerts could then appear on the left of that menu and the play/pause widget could be on the right...

[Manveru Taurënér]

Bridge kind of looks to be on the wrong z-level, but not sure if there's a good way around that.

[Starver]

What does a transitioning bridge (both types) look like?  Is it just two-frame (there/raised-or-retracted) or is there a intervening appearance between end-point ticks?


I had a very basic visualisation drawn up on this subject, a few months back, to 'explain' what happens in each case, but don't think I found the right moment to produce it in conversation. If there's interest, I'll dig it back up.

[MoltenIdol]

I have 2 Ideas.
And a Very important edit.

1. STOCKPILE IDEA

The stockpile fence looks Weird on the ramp.
Stockpiling things is gonna look weird on ramps.
Maybe (and I Know this is coding related), have stockpiles Dodge around ramps, when you designate the stockpile.
As always, make it toggleable, but Maybe 'on' by default?

The logic here is, that stockpiling a Boulder on a steep ramp, probably isnt a good Idea Anyway.
And its gonna look really weird with the new "3d" ramps.
It already ruins the illusion of 3d, with the stockpile fence not reacting to the clearly increasing elevation.


2. BRIDGE IDEA

Some clever shading, Where the bridge meets the ramps.
Maybe, make the sides of the ramps (the sides connecting with the bridge), Really stand out as 'this is the end of this ramp, and there is no terrain next to it'. So you can easily tell the sudden drop in elevation. If you catch my drift.

Give the ramp sides a 'rough and shaded edge' that doesnt perfectly connect with the adjecent tile, when there is no adjecent ramp or natural wall.

That way, thered be a small irregular and shaded space between the bridge graphics and the ramps, showing their position relative to eachother more clearly, while the terrain would still look natural, and "taller" than the bride.
Hopefully.


THE VERY IMPORTANT EDIT:

the way that walls cast a soft shadow on the ground in halways? That kind of shadow Should Also be applied at the end of those ramps Where they meet the bridge ,and be cast onto the bridge, to indicate that the bridge is at groundlevel
And Also from the walls north of the bridge. That would complete the illusion.
(In most cases, depending on the material of the bridge)

When the bridge is drawn up, it Should cast the shadow itself, to simulate the bridge acting like a wall, being tall and impassable and all that.

Currently, the raised bridge looks like an empty flowerbed.


All in all, progress is looking super tight tho!

[MoltenIdol]

My phone keeps double posting. Ignore this. Still havent found out how to delete my replies.

[Shonai_Dweller]

My phone keeps double posting. Ignore this. Still havent found out how to delete my replies.

You can't, unfortunately.

[Cruxador]

As past calligrapher[1], I'd say it's not an overblown font, like ror6ax suggests, but it could easily be a bit simpler. At least an option of switchable serif/non-serif typeface. It doesn't need to be Transport, Johnston or Gill in nature. (I suppose Tarn and his geographically close circle would be more familiar with Highway Gothic.) And, to continue the theme, perhaps something like Rotis Serif (or R. Semi Sans), as apparently used in Singapore, for the non-Sans choice.

It's not really an issue of complexity but of whether or not the typeface is optimized for digital. Your examples are only incidentally better.

Digital optimisation isn't really part of it.  You can digitally anti-alias or not anti-alias any font rendering upon direct rendering. If you're doing it with pre-prepared rasters of every size you are going to use, you can tweak as necessary from a base vector descriptor - if you go for definite raster then rescale by non-integer values then you're no better and possibly worse through double-rounding errors for each edge-pixel, etc, whether 'aliased' or not.

l give examples of fonts made to be readable, just for that 'being readable'. I'm not saying to use those exactly.

Although none of this is wrong, some fonts take better or worse to it, and this can be pretty significant at small sizes. That's what I was referring to. In particular, a greater emphasis on straight lines with proportionately somewhat longer length and smaller, sharper curves tends to work; your freeway examples use quite rounded letterforms and although they're suitable to being read at a distance, that's by being simple and having heavy line weight, which aren't applicable to the same degree in this case. I was getting a bit more into the weeds of typeface design, basically.

Both versions of the bridge look very 'out of place' and quite cryptic.
I would not have guessed that is a bridge in a million years.

My proposition is to have the closed bridge leave some type of outline where the bridge would open towards. That could be something more in-gamey like a wooden 'fence' going on the edge of the tiles or something more UXey like a striped overlay for the area covered.

I would much prefer not to have something that unreal.

[JesterHell696]

Both versions of the bridge look very 'out of place' and quite cryptic.
I would not have guessed that is a bridge in a million years.

My proposition is to have the closed bridge leave some type of outline where the bridge would open towards. That could be something more in-gamey like a wooden 'fence' going on the edge of the tiles or something more UXey like a striped overlay for the area covered.

I would much prefer not to have something that unreal.

Same, I love that DF is a simulation, if gamey stuff is added I hope its optional.

[Rekov]

As to the ramps in the sand - I can't tell if those are ramps or just sand. I guess it's the shadow that was indicating that but it's not enough variation IMO.

I think what he meant is that he removed the ramps to get at accessible sand beneath them.


I second the stockpile looking really awkward where it intersects and covers those ramps. I don't see any obvious visual improvement to be done. I think I will personally just not put stockpiles on ramps for aesthetic reasons, regardless of the mechanics.

[Starver]

I've been thinking of custom "stockpile fencing" that'd look right 'on slopes'. Wouldn't need quite as much variation as the variation of slopes, but would still be a bit awkward.

(I would prefer that stockpiles on ramps look not quite right than either 'invisible' stockpile squares - at the extreme, a 1x1 stockpile on a slope just not being marked - or changing game mechanics to disallow stockpiles just to make the graphics work better. But that's merely my view.)

[Uthimienure]

How about if stockpiles just can't be put on slopes?
That would be reasonable in my opinion.

[Shonai_Dweller]

How about if stockpiles just can't be put on slopes?
That would be reasonable in my opinion.

Can stockpiles actually be placed on slopes in the game right now?

[Schmaven]

How about if stockpiles just can't be put on slopes?
That would be reasonable in my opinion.

Can stockpiles actually be placed on slopes in the game right now?

I know they can be on stairs which makes sense.  Who doesn't have a box of whatever on their stairway?  Ramps IRL are more of a challenge being sloped and all.

Limiting stockpiles to non-ramp tiles would be fine by me.  Miners can always remove the ramps if need be.