Post by: Grand Sage on May 03, 2017, 05:41:17 am
Post by: Starver on May 03, 2017, 06:13:21 am
Apparently, going 64bit is useful, but I don't know how much of that is just better L1..3 caches and more RAM support in the newer architectures (newer anything is likely to be more responsive in all these ways and more) and how much is magic 64bitty performance boosts, given that development seemingly isn't being optimised specifically to 64bit, merely a version made available for it. I have no problems on a lowly 32bit machine, but maybe I just don't stress it in the right/wrong way to reveal the faults.
Although the amount of time I spend with the game paused for management of things, I don't think much of the speed of a newer computer would leak through into my experience for a better game. I remember way-back-when there were coding improvements to something (pathing?) and suddenly I found my little dwarves all suddenly rushing around much faster (but same distance per game tick!) on the same hardware, and I actually found it bewilderingly fast compared to the slow and steady speed of before. DF is not a real-time game, although if you're a "sit and leave it running" type person then having less time staring at the screen may be something advantageous to your daily schedule... or it might just mean you spend exactly the same amount of time not doing other things you need to do, or even more, whilst tied up micromanaging your fortress more.
All the above IMO, I'm willing to be corrected by the community over any or all the details. ;)
Post by: Grand Sage on May 03, 2017, 06:25:15 am
thx for the quick response!
Post by: Chase on May 03, 2017, 11:24:38 am
Yes, well, I can certainly feel the game slowing down through the first 2-5 years (dropping from 100 to 50-40 fps), but it is mainly for the lage embarks and generational fort purposes that I ask.
thx for the quick response!
DF is terribly unoptimized, it's best to work around your computer rather than attempt to build one for DF. I set a max of 100 dwarves on a 3x3 embark and have no problems. DF isn't really a game you can play as fast as you like, rather you play at the game's pace. It takes time getting used to.
Post by: Grand Sage on May 03, 2017, 01:22:02 pm
Post by: Thisfox on May 03, 2017, 04:42:51 pm
Post by: Grand Sage on May 04, 2017, 03:46:03 am
Guess the problem is that i really want those 200 dwarves + visitors... mainly because im not a fan of editing the init file, i always play games on default settings. that might just be my problem though... But we are going for a fast dual-core computer with a lot of RAM, right?
Post by: Starver on May 04, 2017, 05:01:03 am
The long enforced pause during the Seasonal Backup Save (another non-default) is a definite punctuation to play (there used to be also significant pauses just prior to immigrants, invasions, caravans, etc, as the incomers are derived from the global geography/history records beyond the fortress, but that seems to have been smoothed out in later revisions), but I use that time to move away from DF and do whatever else it is that I have on the go, knowing that it'll sit patiently on Paused once complete if I get overly distracted.
This fits my playing style, with the aforementioned mostly-paused-whilst-micromanaging. YMMV, and all power to your elbow in getting better hardware. Because it's not just gling to be a DF-playing-machine, and it might improve your experience of other programs, for at least as much enjoyment or personal pecuniary profit.
Spoiler: A little more about me, that doesn't help you much at all (click to show/hide)
1 Liquid depths in numbers (doesn't affect things), music off (a pity, as I like it, but I'm often taking in other audio from another source), and often I increase the inter-cavern layer heights (if anything, makes for more resources necessary to handle the increasingly demanding maps).
Post by: Grand Sage on May 04, 2017, 08:47:14 am
Post by: Kirkegaard on May 04, 2017, 11:17:58 am
I like to keep my forts waaay longer than that, and that gets very hard due to the nature of the game code. I don't think hardware is really ever the issue, it is a software problem. And it will stay that way until Toady takes some time to study/re-code etc. unfortunately it is way more fun to code new features. So that may take some time.
Post by: Grand Sage on May 07, 2017, 01:00:22 pm
Post by: azrael4h on May 11, 2017, 10:12:44 pm
Does people generally only play 0-5 years on a fort before restarting?
I like to keep my forts waaay longer than that, and that gets very hard due to the nature of the game code. I don't think hardware is really ever the issue, it is a software problem. And it will stay that way until Toady takes some time to study/re-code etc. unfortunately it is way more fun to code new features. So that may take some time.
My average is probably that, though that's as much not finding anything FUN at a site as anything else. I went 17 (15+2 after a reclaim) years at one with constant attacks, considerable terraforming, and building a mountainhome. I only retired because I wanted to see what happened after it was left alone for some time. I'm still playing that world 30 years later.
Quite honestly, processing migrants/newborns is more of a chore to me than most things; most of the time once I have a functional fortress I just let it run in the background and let them build on my projects. But the way I process new civilians, I end up renaming them, tracking down spouses and children and tying them together with a surname change, then going through their labors and changing it to what I need.
Post by: Thisfox on May 12, 2017, 12:17:48 am
Does people generally only play 0-5 years on a fort before restarting?
I like to keep my forts waaay longer than that, and that gets very hard due to the nature of the game code. I don't think hardware is really ever the issue, it is a software problem. And it will stay that way until Toady takes some time to study/re-code etc. unfortunately it is way more fun to code new features. So that may take some time.
Nope, but I often get bored with a fort if it's ten years old or more.
It's not an fps thing, it's just the realisation that I want a new challenge, and that my current fort can't offer that challenge. I might let the fort run in the background for a while, or I might move on to a new fort with new challenges. I'll usually keep playing that world, in a different fort, sometimes even a different civilisation, but I've got a lot more worlds to choose from now that I've been trying to mess with cooking "the perfect world" for me.
Post by: oldmansutton on May 12, 2017, 08:19:20 am
When I play on my netbook (I travel a lot), I'm usually on a small or pocket world, in up to 4 square tiles, and I still find it playable.
But then, running down to 15 FPS really isn't so bad, as it gives me time to think about what I'm going to do next.
Post by: Rusty Shackleford on May 13, 2017, 05:22:22 pm
In my experience its made a huge diffrence.
A solid state hardrive and as much RAM as you can fit on a fast two-core processor.
I have an utterly gutless HP netbook running linux and I've had 100fps with a 30 dwarf fort on a 1x2 embark after 17 years and hundreds of items in conventional stockpiles.
Post by: Grand Sage on May 15, 2017, 04:18:47 am
Im not comfortable with anything but windows, but who knows, maybe its worth a try?