March 6, 2024: Dwarf Fortress 50.12 has been released.
News: February 3, 2024: The February '24 Report is up.
News: February 4, 2021: Dwarf Fortress Talk #28 has been posted.
News: November 21, 2018: A new Threetoe story has been posted.
Forum Guidelines
Anyway, I've been trying to dig deeper, but my dwarves refuse to. I'm not really deep, yet. I'm in the fourth level of the igneous intrusive layer and the next layer seems to have more olivine (which indicates more gabro, an igneous intrusive layer rock). Of course, I have one level that has a combination of sedimentary and igneous intrusive rocks, so that next level might be a transition zone.
Is it a coincidence that my dwarves refuse to dig into the next geological layer or is there some other reason? I know it's not that there's other work. They've completed all other dig jobs and sit around idling until I designate something above that level. If it helps, the deepest level in which my dwarves have actually inhabited (sorta. . . it's my tombs) is six levels above the problem level.
EDIT: Here's my region:
[ January 01, 2008: Message edited by: Ostsol ]
Blue spots are doors, red are tables, brown are chairs, and yellow are stairs. The entire space is 57 squares wide and has 128 2x3 bedrooms. The dining room has seating for 48. Arranged differently the dining room could seat more, but this setup is fairly aesthetically pleaing and dwarves don't eat all at the same time anyway.
quote:
Originally posted by wereboar:
<STRONG>excuse me for an unrelated question, but how do you make the tiles look square in windowed mode?</STRONG>
Use a character set with square characters.
quote:
Originally posted by DJ:
<STRONG>No it doesn't. At least not any worth mentioning. It also has a tiny mouth, so I just don't see how could a carp bite someone.</STRONG>
Pfft! Next you'll tell us that elephant tusks aren't for skewering dwarves. . . :roll:
[ November 12, 2007: Message edited by: Ostsol ]
When most laymen or amateur programmings think of implementing threading into an application they tend to think of dividing the program into two or more major tasks. For example, in a first person shooter one might think of one thread being devoted to rendering, one to physics, one input, one to AI, one to streaming new content, etc. . . Intel's tbb has shown me that that line of thinking only scratches the surface.
I used tbb to thread each of the three loops in my fBm generator. The first loop consists of a dozen iterations at most, while the second and third loops consisted of a thousand. Normally I would never even have considered trying to split such loops into multiple threads. How many iterations per thread? How many threads should I have in total? The answer depends on the platform and would normally require one to write a system to analyze the platform the program is running on. Use too many threads and you bog down the system with context switches. Use too little and you're not getting the most out of the hardware. tbb figures this out for you. It's easy and it works quite well.
On a related note:
Python also compiles down to a byte code. The difference between this and Java is that when you actually run the code Java will compile again to whatever native code the platform uses. This is known as a "just-in-time" (JIT) compiler. The result is that Java should theoretically run just as fast as any natively compiled programming lanugage, like C/C++. Any difference in speed is due to the efficiency of the compiler and the libraries.
Python, on the other hand, does not utilize any JIT compiler in the basic distribution. Its byte code is interpretted by software, though there are instances where code can be as fast as natively compiled code. This is most often with libaries written in C.
C# and other .NET langauges are similar to Java. They compile to a platform-independant byte code (Common Intermediate Language [CIL]) and a JIT compiler is utilized during runtime.
There are distributions of Python that do take advantage of the JIT compilers in .NET and Java: IronPython and Jython, respectively. For the basic distribution there's also a library called Psyco, which procides JIT compilation (though only on x86 platforms).
[ September 03, 2007: Message edited by: Ostsol ]
quote:
Originally posted by qwertyuiopas:
<STRONG>But with the Z axis, couldn't you just build down? There would be plenty of space.
So, even without a mountain, you might still be able to play.</STRONG>
If one could dig down into the bedrock that would be feasible. However, if the water-table is above that, you'd constantly find your hole-in-the-ground filling with water.
