Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11

Author Topic: How is DF not technically doomed?  (Read 23401 times)

Putnam

  • Bay Watcher
  • DAT WIZARD
    • View Profile
Re: How is DF not technically doomed?
« Reply #135 on: February 28, 2016, 05:08:21 pm »

moving away from a tile based system early on would have helped so much but now the whole game's built around tiles.

Could you explain why you think that's the case? I don't see why it would be such a boon. Surely it would only make things more complicated?

It's worth noting that DF's predecessor, Slaves to Armok, wasn't tile-based. It's not as if Toady hasn't tried doing things that way
It means objects can be located anywhere in space rather than being confined to a grid (Though it'd still be possible to keep the game looking exactly the same as it does now) which greatly simplifies physics calculations because there isn't the strange task of making physics apply to a tile-based game.

That is completely off-topic, unless you're actually saying that easy to program implies easy to compute. If so, I want this list sorted by bogosort in the next 5 minutes:

Code: [Select]
5 4 7 5 1 2 3 4 9 1 5 4 3 4 9 7 5 1 2 3 4 3 5 7 1 2

Bogosort is very simple to program, heck, here's a quick implementation in python:

Code: [Select]
import random
def bogosort(yourlist):
    while not all(yourlist[i] <= yourlist[i+1] for i in xrange(len(yourlist)-1)):
        random.shuffle(yourlist)

Urlance Woolsbane

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: How is DF not technically doomed?
« Reply #136 on: February 28, 2016, 05:14:45 pm »

moving away from a tile based system early on would have helped so much but now the whole game's built around tiles.

Could you explain why you think that's the case? I don't see why it would be such a boon. Surely it would only make things more complicated?

It's worth noting that DF's predecessor, Slaves to Armok, wasn't tile-based. It's not as if Toady hasn't tried doing things that way
It means objects can be located anywhere in space rather than being confined to a grid (Though it'd still be possible to keep the game looking exactly the same as it does now) which greatly simplifies physics calculations because there isn't the strange task of making physics apply to a tile-based game.
I'm not the most knowledgeable in this department, so have patience with my ignorance, but doesn't a tile-based system allows for Toady to "cheat" more easily than a mesh-based one? Most physical discrepancies in DF are invisible, which is beneficial not merely in terms of immersion, but also in regards to optimization. Surely not having to calculate each object's mesh (even rather primitive ones, per your proposal) frees up a fair amount of processing power for DF?

It also means that terrain and structures can be mesh-based, which is better for simulating their destruction and can have their vertices used as pathing nodes (If a beeline to the target destination is not possible, the AI is definitely going to make a beeline towards a vertex).
Agreed, but I'm not sure that's viable for something with the scale of DF. Look at the FPS-damage done merely by flooding or by smoke. Imagine the processing-strain resulting from simulating all the minuscule bits scattered by a cave-in.
Logged
"Hey papa, your dandruff is melting my skin. Is that normal?"
"SKREEEONK!!!"
"Yes, daddy."

Untrustedlife

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
    • My Website
Re: How is DF not technically doomed?
« Reply #137 on: February 28, 2016, 06:08:44 pm »

moving away from a tile based system early on would have helped so much but now the whole game's built around tiles.

Could you explain why you think that's the case? I don't see why it would be such a boon. Surely it would only make things more complicated?

It's worth noting that DF's predecessor, Slaves to Armok, wasn't tile-based. It's not as if Toady hasn't tried doing things that way
It means objects can be located anywhere in space rather than being confined to a grid (Though it'd still be possible to keep the game looking exactly the same as it does now) which greatly simplifies physics calculations because there isn't the strange task of making physics apply to a tile-based game.

That is completely off-topic, unless you're actually saying that easy to program implies easy to compute. If so, I want this list sorted by bogosort in the next 5 minutes:

Code: [Select]
5 4 7 5 1 2 3 4 9 1 5 4 3 4 9 7 5 1 2 3 4 3 5 7 1 2

Bogosort is very simple to program, heck, here's a quick implementation in python:

Code: [Select]
import random
def bogosort(yourlist):
    while not all(yourlist[i] <= yourlist[i+1] for i in xrange(len(yourlist)-1)):
        random.shuffle(yourlist)

As a programmer That got me to laugh out loud +1 my friend +1.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2016, 06:10:47 pm by Untrustedlife »
Logged
i LIKE LOVECRAFT
My website:
untrustedlife.com
Check out the open source simulation game I am developing!
Thrive

Orange Wizard

  • Bay Watcher
  • mou ii yo
    • View Profile
    • S M U G
Re: How is DF not technically doomed?
« Reply #138 on: February 28, 2016, 06:25:20 pm »

If we're using python why not just list.sort()
Logged
Please don't shitpost, it lowers the quality of discourse
Hard science is like a sword, and soft science is like fear. You can use both to equally powerful results, but even if your opponent disbelieve your stabs, they will still die.

Putnam

  • Bay Watcher
  • DAT WIZARD
    • View Profile
Re: How is DF not technically doomed?
« Reply #139 on: February 28, 2016, 06:26:43 pm »

bogosort is bigger and better than list.sort(), which IIRC uses timsort. Timsort is, what, O(nlogn)? Bogosort is O(n!), much bigger number!

Orange Wizard

  • Bay Watcher
  • mou ii yo
    • View Profile
    • S M U G
Re: How is DF not technically doomed?
« Reply #140 on: February 28, 2016, 06:29:10 pm »

Hah, I can go bigger than that.
Code: [Select]
def sort(i):
    while True:
        pass
Logged
Please don't shitpost, it lowers the quality of discourse
Hard science is like a sword, and soft science is like fear. You can use both to equally powerful results, but even if your opponent disbelieve your stabs, they will still die.

Putnam

  • Bay Watcher
  • DAT WIZARD
    • View Profile
Re: How is DF not technically doomed?
« Reply #141 on: February 28, 2016, 06:31:07 pm »

but then it'll never get sorted

(the same is actually technically true of bogosort, since shuffle relies on a random function that'll probably have a period less than n!)

Orange Wizard

  • Bay Watcher
  • mou ii yo
    • View Profile
    • S M U G
Re: How is DF not technically doomed?
« Reply #142 on: February 28, 2016, 06:38:48 pm »

Code: [Select]
def sort(i):
    from time import wait
    wait (9999999999)
    return i.sort()
?
Logged
Please don't shitpost, it lowers the quality of discourse
Hard science is like a sword, and soft science is like fear. You can use both to equally powerful results, but even if your opponent disbelieve your stabs, they will still die.

Putnam

  • Bay Watcher
  • DAT WIZARD
    • View Profile
Re: How is DF not technically doomed?
« Reply #143 on: February 28, 2016, 06:46:04 pm »

that's still O(nlogn), just with a massive constant added to the front (which big-O doesn't care about)

Orange Wizard

  • Bay Watcher
  • mou ii yo
    • View Profile
    • S M U G
Re: How is DF not technically doomed?
« Reply #144 on: February 28, 2016, 06:51:29 pm »

Programming is hard.
Logged
Please don't shitpost, it lowers the quality of discourse
Hard science is like a sword, and soft science is like fear. You can use both to equally powerful results, but even if your opponent disbelieve your stabs, they will still die.

Isngrim

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: How is DF not technically doomed?
« Reply #145 on: February 29, 2016, 02:14:07 pm »

-snip-
I'm not the most knowledgeable in this department, so have patience with my ignorance, but doesn't a tile-based system allows for Toady to "cheat" more easily than a mesh-based one? Most physical discrepancies in DF are invisible, which is beneficial not merely in terms of immersion, but also in regards to optimization. Surely not having to calculate each object's mesh (even rather primitive ones, per your proposal) frees up a fair amount of processing power for DF?

It also means that terrain and structures can be mesh-based, which is better for simulating their destruction and can have their vertices used as pathing nodes (If a beeline to the target destination is not possible, the AI is definitely going to make a beeline towards a vertex).
Agreed, but I'm not sure that's viable for something with the scale of DF. Look at the FPS-damage done merely by flooding or by smoke. Imagine the processing-strain resulting from simulating all the minuscule bits scattered by a cave-in.
Yep,Fps would get bad fast with the scale of things in DF (especially after breaching hfs),im to tired to go into a bunch of details,so download Unity or UDK,and blender.Then add 100 plus low poly shapes (something with at least couple hundred triangles more then a cube[ A simple capsule shape has 960 traingles]) have them move around,then add your controls and try moving about,.That's not taking into account for fluid physics,terrain destruction,temperature,AI (which needs to be more robust to traverse 3D space then a simple grid as i recall),and all the fun stuff that now happens outside of the Fort.then there is the FPS issue,with 3d graphics low FPS can actually render the game impossible to play,or make the player feel sick,were in 2d graphics it makes the game feel more like a turn based game without making the player queasy
Logged
08:43 PM The wild animals and insects sang a merry tune and the trees performed a dance. I know you're trying to cheer me up, Vishnu, but that was actually a bit creepy.-Rhons

Man of Paper

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: How is DF not technically doomed?
« Reply #146 on: February 29, 2016, 03:51:37 pm »

Just popping in to say that if DF has taught me anything, it's that everything is doomed.
Logged
"I cross dress whenever I masturbate, thus preventing it from being gay." - evictedSaint on Discord at 9:42 P.M. Eastern U.S. on December 29th, 2018

evictedSaint

  • Bay Watcher
  • if (ANNOYED_W_FANS==true) { KILL_CHAR(rand()); }
    • View Profile
Re: How is DF not technically doomed?
« Reply #147 on: February 29, 2016, 05:06:25 pm »

Just popping in to say that if DF has taught me anything, it's that everything is doomed.

It was inevitable.

Max™

  • Bay Watcher
  • [CULL:SQUARE]
    • View Profile
Re: How is DF not technically doomed?
« Reply #148 on: March 16, 2016, 12:08:11 pm »

Programming is hard.
Code: [Select]
import:pythonKnowledge
      if false do find(pythonBooks) then
            if boredom ~= 1 do
                somethingElse
            return "Sort your own damn list!"
            end
      end
Logged
Engraved here is a rendition of an image of the Dwarf Fortress learning curve. All craftsdwarfship is of the highest quality. It depicts an obsidian overhang which menaces with spikes of obsidian and tears. Carved on the overhang is an image of Toady One and the players. The players are curled up in a fetal position. Toady One is laughing. The players are burning.
The VectorCurses+1 tileset strikes the square set and the severed part sails off in an arc!

Ggobs

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: How is DF not technically doomed?
« Reply #149 on: May 04, 2017, 12:45:20 pm »

Just popping in to say that if DF has taught me anything, it's that everything is doomed.

sigged
Logged
Just popping in to say that if DF has taught me anything, it's that everything is doomed.
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11