Print

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

[Atlas]

Personally, I can't wait for the confusion when it gets added back in

Seriously, you can dig out HUGE CAVERNs in actual rock and have no problems.... Assuming that dwarves know how to make arched cielings, which I bet they do.

Now, caveins in the dirt layers, that i would like to see. It would also be much easier to implement, as you wouldn't need to figure out what to do with the 15+ layers of rock above the fall.


Also, I really really hope he makes it so constructions don't break when they fall a few zlevels. Dwarven diving rigs will no longer require magma!

[Blargityblarg]

All of my non-residential rooms are 7x7 or larger.

Yeah, only playing since 3d.

[Jimmy]

I still play old school and leave walls unmined to support the roof. No area 7x7 or larger. Occasionally I go for multiple z-levels though.

My favorite design is this:



After smoothing and with a central stockpile it looks like this:



You can place workshops around the central stockpile for quick access. I use this design for almost all my fortresses.

[Quantum Toast]

I sometimes leave some supports just because I think it looks better that way. But lately I've started digging out some pretty big caverns while hunting for ore, and I'm pretty sure I'd gone way over the 7x7 threshold even before that.

[Eater of Vermin]

I can't wait until they're re-implemented.   

I normally stick to under 7x7 - close quarters and cramped tunnels feels more dwarfy to me - but there've been times I've gone oversized.  I'd love to load up some of my older forts and see what fun results...

Hmmm...  which suggests a couple of possible future improvements.

How about a random time delay on oversized sections?  The bigger the amount over size, the quicker the collapse?  Then you may not realise you've made an Oops until a season or three afterwards...

Or, to fix the potential "hole in the ground at z=0 because X z-levels have collapsed" problem, how about introducing a new rock "type" of rubble?  Which takes up 10% more space than a standard wall tile?

Maybe something like this: a 7x7 section collapses, so a 7x7 section of the level above moves down, right?  Let's say that 90% of those tiles become rubble with 10% staying as solid rock.  That means that of the 49 tiles falling down, some 44 (rounded up) become rubble, taking up an extra 4 (4.4 rounded down) tile space.  That means that there's no room on the collapsed level for 4 of these "rubble" tiles, so they stay in the ceiling level, preventing the next z-level above from collapsing.

Let's say that you have a level entirely made of rubble.  That's not as stable as solid tiles, so then the limit should be reduced from 7x7 to, say 3x3.  So, when digging out underneath a collapsed area (ie. it has a rubble ceiling) you'd need to use supports to prevent further disaster.

Perhaps I should move this to the suggestions forum?

Nar...  I doubt it'd be implemented.  So I'll just have another Bourbon instead and see what other fun items I can come up with...   

 

[eviscerator]

I use lots of 8x8 squares.  It gives you 4 workshops with a 2 wide path between all of them, and I put a 2x2 up/down stairwell in the middle.  Plus, and 8x8 dining room as the corner of a 17x17 square of living quarters (4 8x8 squares the the dividing walls) works out well.

Ironically, I started playing in 3d but still thought anything over 5 stood a chance of collapse, with 6 wide being only a little dangerous.  I used to make 11x11 stockpile rooms with a single pillar in the middle.

Should be FUN when the Toadster Scamps adds collapses back in.

[smjjames]

I don't see what the problem with 7x7 areas are, I create areas larger than that all the time.

I agree with the proper collapses though, as we will be seeing the usage of supports more often.

[Deadmeat1471]

Cave ins are removed? BAD dwarf architect, he didnt tell me that i could make giant halls with no fear!

[LordZorintrhox]

Hah, I read the topic title and was like "what?  I already dig that way."  I had no idea that 2D had this stipulation, about automatic cave-ins with areas larger than 7x7, but my standardized architecture has ended up specified exactly like that: everything is on a grid of 7x7 rooms separated by 1 tile walls.  Some standard ways of fancying up those squares lead to a variety of modular rooms.

I agree with the many who have stated that they dig with supports anyway for the aesthetic.  For gigantic halls Moria style, I always carve out circular 5x5 columns centered on the 7x7 square's corners.  Especially with a tileset (like mine), it just looks too nice not to.

Also, support-based architecture is functional for the neat-freaks out there: most of the city-like blocks my designs are based around end up with columnar supports on the corners that are large enough to house utility functions.  Right now I have a large central receiving hall that is 23x23 on the entry-level portion of my fortress.  The way it interacts with the surrounding architecture, there are four areas large enough on the corners to house pump stacks and full maintenance stairways for the cistern above.  When I get to implementing the fortress's grand fountain, I can covertly pump the water without any dedicated architectural feature apparent and use hydrostatic water pressure to ensure a good spray.  Another example was two forts ago, in which a Moria hall was to be dug out right under some small ponds.  Rather than ruin the natural walls and forgo engraving, I dug out one of the supports into a drainage column and seamlessly drained the ponds into my cistern.

[Shurikane]

Note: on my side, I like the fact that I'm able to somehow support an entire structure on one tile. 

[Lummox JR]

One advantage of the current system is that it's possible to build bridges out of constructed floors instead of using retractable bridges or drawbridges. When I built a long aquifer I gave it supports, but a proper bridge over a major river would never be possible if this was re-implemented without some changes.

[HatfieldCW]

I don't know how hard it would be to upgrade the physics here.  Would the DF system support material raws for shear strength, tensile strength and mass?  I'm guessing it wouldn't take much.

[Thexor]

I don't know how hard it would be to upgrade the physics here.  Would the DF system support material raws for shear strength, tensile strength and mass?  I'm guessing it wouldn't take much.

Ha... ha... ha. "Not much work", indeed!


Okay, let me restate that. It would be easy as pie to add those stats to the raws. It would be one of the hardest and most processor-draining tasks ever to actually make them work.

Take a look at real-life physics simulators. Even on small-scale projects (like the ten thousand bridge-building Flash games out there), where everything is tightly controlled (one or two materials, fixed to a pretty low-resolution 2D grid), having a few dozen or so objects on-screen starts to cause problems.
Now, consider DF, where you've got absolutely enormous areas in 3D space. An accurate physics simulator for any kind of realistic construct would probably be more work than a speech system that passes the Turing test.

Imagine, if you will, your entire fortress being constructed of 3 flows. Whereas water has to update pressure throughout the system, the physics system would have 3 inter-related stats to update for all of the solid tiles throughout the map. Notice that most maps have a whole lot of solid tiles. Notice that transmitting just one variable, pressure, through a relatively small number of water tiles has a massive effect on FPS. Now imagine that for 3 variables spread through the entire map.

This would make a full-fledged catsplosion look like a tiny hindrance. 

[Shima]

I like leaving pillars of stone (Or constructing some) for aesthetic reasons.  However, I tend to leave them in the middle of 10x10 spaces.

[Lummox JR]

I think some of the strain of a physics system could be taken off by prioritizing stress-prone areas, or even keeping track of only which objects exceeded a certain stress threshold. Then objects could update and transmit those stress variables as needed and adjust the list. While this wouldn't be 100% realistic it would be pretty decent, and CPU stress would be highest only in times of collapse or near collapse. However this is not only non-trivial to implement, but it probably would still have fairly detrimental effects on FPS. Another way to handle this is to bundle several connected structures together that have similar stress readings, so that stress is transmitted between macro units before being distributed on the micro level.

I'd be surprised if water doesn't already have some kind of optimization in place for grouping bodies of water into major units, but if it doesn't then there's actually room for significant improvement in the framerate.