If DF squares are more like RL circles, then DF 'circles' are more like diamondesque four-pointed stars IRL.
Don't know if it copies/displays well on everyone's machine/browser, but character 2726 works well as an example (for those that don't want to run their own plotting program or spreadsheet graph of the problem) and follows below:
✦
Great. In addition to Dwarfy physics, we've also concluded they use non-Euclidian geometry. When will the madness end?!That could be difficult to answer if there's an infinite area but a finite border or a finite area with an infinite border. (Or a finite (and toroidal) area with no border, but we aren't playing Asteroids here... :) )
It might be worth mentioning that with vanilla DF, while not full screened and at the default zoom, the vertical pixel count for each tile doesn't equal the horizontal pixel count. So if this is the case for you, you won't ever get rooms that appear circular, even if you are digging out the correct tiles.
Something to take note of is that a square is "technically" round in Dwarf Fortress, since it takes the same amount of time for something to go diagonally as it takes for it to go in any other direction.
Which must mean that circles are squares.
But squares are also circles.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Something to take note of is that a square is "technically" round in Dwarf Fortress, since it takes the same amount of time for something to go diagonally as it takes for it to go in any other direction.
Which must mean that circles are squares.
But squares are also circles.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Wrong -- diagonal movement costs 1.4 squares of movement.
Wrong -- diagonal movement costs 1.4 squares of movement.
I've previously quoted that information, but others have said that there's no basis for this, so I don't throw this fact around any more and go with the apparently more provable "Modified Manhattan" distance. Still, we can deal with it being otherwise.
He's reffering to that info needing verification in DF movement costs.Wrong -- diagonal movement costs 1.4 squares of movement.
I've previously quoted that information, but others have said that there's no basis for this, so I don't throw this fact around any more and go with the apparently more provable "Modified Manhattan" distance. Still, we can deal with it being otherwise.
a squared + b squared = c squared
Basic geometry of a right triangle.
He's reffering to that info needing verification in DF movement costs.Wrong -- diagonal movement costs 1.4 squares of movement.
I've previously quoted that information, but others have said that there's no basis for this, so I don't throw this fact around any more and go with the apparently more provable "Modified Manhattan" distance. Still, we can deal with it being otherwise.
a squared + b squared = c squared
Basic geometry of a right triangle.
It's things like this why I want the philosopher back so bad. Imagine if you had this guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Lobachevsky) running around your fort.