Print

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

[mangregnor]

Sorry, I renamed the files. Here are the new links: linux32, linux64.

Thank you!

[Rekov]

Unicorns are showing up under the labors tab for me, not the animal tab. The only mod I am using is All Races Playable, playing as elves, who can start with unicorns. Is this possibly a bug with DT?



EDIT: Nvm this is something else, as Unicorns also aren't showing up as animals in DF itself.

[PatrikLundell]

Would it be possible to use different logic for the animal versus civilized creatures sexuality displays to match the DF bug fix made in the last arc? For animals we don't care whether the marriage commitment is present or not, only whether they're willing to procreate or not (although it should still show asexual, homo, hetero, and bi, but each part being based on either of the lover or commitment flags is set [as they're still used for animals]).

[Clément]

I think what you want to do can be done by modifying Dwarf::get_gender_icon_suffix.

If I understand correctly, you would want to bypass completely the commitment checks for animals while currently only commitment is checked (interest is ignored for animals). The logic for non-animals should stay the same: check commitment, then interest if no commitment for either sex?

[PatrikLundell]

No, it's a DF is a bit messier than that, unfortunately. For whatever reason Toady still generates animal sexuality flags the same way as "civilized" flags are, so you'd either get a commitment or a romance flag for all critters (or none, but not both).
Thus what I'd like to see for animals is:
Male and no flags -> asexual male
Male and (romance or commit to male) and not (romance or commit to female) -> homo male
Male and (romance or commit to male) and (romance or commit to female) -> bi male
Male and not (romance or commit to male) and (romance or commit to female) -> hetero male
and the corresponding set for females, of course.

While in the wishing department, I'd like to see the whole set displayed for sapients, although it gets tricky:

Sex I m f M F
M   - - - - - : Male icon, empty
M   X - - - - : Male icon, black (adventurers only)
M   - X - - - : Double male icon, light blue
M   - - X - - : Male icon, light blue
M   - - - X - : Double male icon, dark blue
M   - - - - X : Male icon, dark blue
M   - X - X - : Bi icon, light blue
M   - X - - X : Bi icon, dark blue
M   - - X X - : Bi icon, light green
M   - - X - X : Bi icon, dark green
F   - - - - - : Female icon, empty
F   X - - - - : Female icon, black (adventurer only)
F   - X - - - : Female icon, (light) pink
F   - - X - - : Female icon, dark pink (or light red)
F   - - - X - : Double female icon, (light) pink
F   - - - - X : Double female icon, dark pink (or light red)
F   - X - X - : Bi icon, (light) pink
F   - X - - X : Bi icon, light orange
F   - - X X - : Bi icon, dark pink (or light red)
F   - - X - X : Bi icon, dark orange

I = indeterminate
m = romance male
f = romance female
M = marry male
F = marry female
 
Marriage would be indicated by darker colors, with the exception of the "odd" ones, where light means homo marriage only and dark odd colors means marriage both ways. Green is sort of a version of blue, while orange is sort of a version of pink to indicate physical gender.
This is inspired by the work Fleeting Frames did to enhance the manipulator, but DT isn't constrained to the 15 color DF palette.

[Clément]

I don't know this "indeterminate flag", but if it is adventurers only, DT don't care, right?

I think there is something wrong with your table, you have bi people that only like one gender. You are also missing cases where there is both m and f or M and F.

Current code is (with commitment_asexual = not M and not F):

• (M and F) or (commitment_asexual and m and f) → bisexual
• male and (M or (commitment_asexual and m)) → male homosexual
• female and (F or (commitment_asexual and f)) → female homosexual
• not M and not F and not m and not f → asexual
• male and ((not M and F) or (commitment_asexual and not m and f)) → male
• female and ((not F and M) or (commitment_asexual and not f and m)) → female

I see bisexual icons with the current version, so I am sure this combination happens.

[PatrikLundell]

Sorry for causing you headaches trying to untangled non existent logic.

The "Indeterminate" flag is the first flag in the array of flags and is set on adventurers, but this flag remains set when they retire and appear in a fortress (and causes some players grief when they want to breed them in fortress mode), so it can actually make an appearance in DT (whether it's worth the trouble to handle that case separately is a different issue).

You're correct: I mentally scrambled my logic so after the male section the heading would have changed to "Sex I m M f F", so both issues are caused by the same error.

Corrected table (I hope...):

Sex I m f M F
M   - - - - - : Male icon, empty/white
M   X - - - - : Male icon, black (adventurers only)
M   - X - - - : Double male icon, light blue
M   - - X - - : Male icon, light blue
M   - - - X - : Double male icon, dark blue
M   - - - - X : Male icon, dark blue
M   - X X - - : Bi icon, light blue
M   - X - - X : Bi icon, dark blue
M   - - X X - : Bi icon, light green
M   - - - X X : Bi icon, dark green
F   - - - - - : Female icon, empty/white
F   X - - - - : Female icon, black (adventurer only)
F   - X - - - : Female icon, (light) pink
F   - - X - - : Double female icon, (light) pink
F   - - - X - : Female icon, dark pink (or light red)
F   - - - - X : Double female icon, dark pink (or light red)
F   - X X - - : Bi icon, (light) pink
F   - X - - X : Bi icon, light orange
F   - - X X - : Bi icon, dark pink (or light red)
F   - - - X X : Bi icon, dark orange

I = indeterminate
m = romance male
f = romance female
M = marry male
F = marry female

[Clément]

Thanks, that is more coherent. I still don't understand everything.

If I ignore the colors in the table, that give the same cases you gave for animals: OR'ing the commitment and interest flags and consider the two remaining flags: f or m = heterosexual or homosexual depending on the creature sex, mf = bisexual, nothing = asexual. But in your first post, you said to ignore commitment flags for animals.

What happens when commitment and interest contradict? A male mF is a bisexual in your table, but wouldn't that be some kind of closet homosexual (marrying a female but interested in males)? Are there consequences on the couple fertility or thoughts?

Your table is also far from listing every combinations. Are there the only possible ones? No more than two flags and no fF or mM?

Is an adventurer any different from other asexuals?

I guess there was already a lot of discussion about all this somewhere in the forum. Do you know where? It would be simpler to reread that than ask so many questions.

[PatrikLundell]

If the table is implemented, it would work for animals as well, although it would provide redundant info (we don't really care whether the animals only want sex or if they're supposed to want marriage as well, only that they're prepared to engage in sex).

If I said commitment flags should be ignored that's incorrect. DF uses two booleans to sort of create a tri state set of (not interested, interested, commitment) versus each gender where commitment implies interest as well, but both flags aren't set at the same time. Thus, we're interested in whether one of the interest/commitment flags is set => sexual interest, or none (no interest), but we don't care which one.

All combinations in the table exist in DF. I've for instance had a case there DT reported one dorf as homo and one as hetero, but they formed a lover pair. gui/gm-editor examination showed that the "hetero" one was actually commitment level hetero and interest level homo.

As far as I know "side interests" do not have any effects, but I don't know if it's been investigated, so my current assumption is that there are no effects apart from the possibility to "get derailed" by a minor level attraction before encountering a suitable major level option, which results in a lover relation that will never progress to marriage, but also blocks marriage in the other direction as the lover position is already filled.

fF and mM are not possible, as per the above, unless I'm wrong (which is always possible).

Adventurers are unique in having the Indeterminate flag set. Asexuals do not have any flags set, and I assume that goes for gender less creatures as well.

I've very bad at remembering references (and have sub par forum search skill), but there have been various discussions in various places, although I think it was some time since it happened last, so they're not trivial to find. The best would probably be to have one of the gurus chime in.

I think it's encouraging and healthy to ask questions rather than just go along with what people claim.

[Clément]

I understand better with a tri-state value.

Ignoring the indeterminate adventurer case, we can cover everything with:

S O
- - Asexual
- I Heterosexual no commitment
- C Heterosexual with commitment with deeper colors (♂ ♀)
I - Homosexual no commitment
I I Bisexual no commitment
I C Bisexual with commitment with other sex other sex half with deeper colors (or ⚥ ⚥ with your colors)
C - Homosexual with commitment with deeper colors (⚣ ⚢)
C I Bisexual with commitment with same sex same sex half with deeper colors (or ⚥ ⚥ with your colors)
C C Bisexual with commitment  with deeper colors (⚥ ⚥ or ⚥ ⚥ with your colors)

S: Same sex
O: Other sex
I: Interest
C: Commitment


For animals, Interest and Commitment should be considered equivalent. Only the current icons are used.

Is that all good?

[Starver]

I'm just poking in here to ask if it's a thing that XP cannot run Therapist. I've been looking into another program (failing differently) and decided to check DT and other things. For this, I get the message "The procedure entry point CancelIoEx could not be located in the dynamic link library KERNEL32.dll.", which seems to mostly crop up as a complaint in QT developer forums (and other random software that may or may not be developed within a similar Framework).

Tried on multiple XP machines (yes, there are some... yes, I appreciate what the foremost reply about this will be) and all fail in this manner. DF itself, meanwhile, perks worfectly.

[PatrikLundell]

That would be perfect in my view. Of course, no other voices have been heard yet...

@Starver: If I understand it correctly DT is produced using QT, so if there's an underlying QT compatibility issue it's not surprising if it would hit DT as well.

[Clément]

Windows XP is very old. Qt 5.9 does not support Windows XP, but Qt 5.6 does.

I did not check every function, but I think the system calls that DT requires are all available on Windows XP. It is possible that with the right compiler and the right version of Qt, Dwarf Therapist could run on Windows XP. I could try a MSVC 2015 + Qt 5.6 build, but is it really worth the effort?

Edit: try this build. If you don't already have it, you will need to install Visual C++ Redistributable for Visual Studio 2015.

[feelotraveller]

That would be perfect in my view. Of course, no other voices have been heard yet...

That looks like a good change to me.  I imagine that there will be some people who might not want this extra information though, so perhaps there could be a show more gender information toggle in grid options?  [Edit: actually the simplified version should probably just show male and female.]

Also I would suggest making the colours a little different - bisexual with same sex, yellow and light green, bisexual with double commitment orange and mid teal/aqua - or other as long as there will be no confusion at a glance. 

[Clément]

First try: (this link directly to my github branch so it may change in the future).

There could be three level of information: sex only, simple orientation (like animals), full orientation (distinguishing interest and commitment).