Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 301 302 [303] 304 305 ... 342

Author Topic: Future of the Fortress: The Development Page  (Read 1569339 times)

tps12

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress: The Development Page
« Reply #4530 on: April 18, 2011, 12:35:09 pm »

No, it's silly to defend the bridge as possibly having some other purpose when there can be no other purpose right now.

Sure, you can make a bridge out of some sort of purposeful modeling of government waste or a personally wealthy merchant who just wants a personal bridge for show... but to do that, you have to actually model in government waste, and make the game recognize the difference between being waste and just being stupid AI. 

If you don't do that, it's just AI that doesn't recognize what it's doing, and you're just making up stories to try to rationalize a bug.

It's characteristic of procedural generation is that you can get complex and organic looking outcomes like that without modeling things like government waste, the same way you can get interesting looking mountain ranges without modeling plate tectonics. As long as the result is plausible (the point Aquillion spoke to), that complexity is one of the whole benefits of doing things procedurally.
Logged

Miuramir

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress: The Development Page
« Reply #4531 on: April 18, 2011, 12:59:25 pm »

One problem Kohaku is that all rivers are basically streams or creeks rather then anything one would call a river. So people arn't really going to brand it an outright bug since by all means a small bridge to get into a single nondescript house happens in reality.

Also because of how the game handles resources... the roof of the shack they call a house costs more then the bridge.

The river is 16 dwarf-squares across at that point, by actual measurement.  If we use 2m per dwarf-square [1], that's a 32m river, and usually you'd need a few meters past the actual water's edge on either side for support, approaches, etc.  For comparison, this is pretty close to the size of bridge you'd need to cross an 8-lane highway in the US (Euro lanes are frequently narrower, it might be closer to 10 lanes there).  Depending on depth and flow rate, that's reasonable to call a river (rather than stream, creek, etc.).  Prior to 1400, that would *not* have been a casual sort of construction; even now, this is not usually the sort of thing a few people throw up for the heck of it. 

With only a quick look, the closest match I found was where the Aar river (one of the major rivers that make up the Rhine) passes through Bern, Switzerland.  The Old City of Bern (a UNESCO World Heritage site, with an unusually large amount of the medieval character preserved) had about 5,000 inhabitants, and was situated on a hilly peninsula created by a large loop of the Aar.  The 1638 map is obviously later than our target pre-1400 (and the outer defensive works by then had cannon in mind), but you can clearly see the gaps left as the city built successive walls further out.  The largely wooden houses were ravaged by a great fire in 1405, and rebuilt in stone afterward; so much of the surviving old city dates from just a hair after the end of our target timeframe. 

The Untertorbrücke has a fascinating history in its own right.  Bern was founded around 1191, and their first attempt at setting up a bridge around 1254 triggered a war!  This 1470 manuscript illustration of the 1254 interdiction is an interesting resource.  Things were resolved, and the wooden bridge completed by 1256; it survived a heavy siege in 1288.   Construction was of oak and at least partially covered. 

A 1460 flood severely damaged the bridge, and it was decided to rebuild in stone and a master architect was brought in; construction of the main way was finished by around 1467 when the bridge chapel was consecrated, but further work was put on hold due to cost overruns and various wars.  This 1477 manuscript illustration shows it in the usable but not fully defensible state it was in the interim.  Construction resumed in 1484 and by 1487 it was considered complete.  Further fortifications were added around 1517, and the state of the bridge around 1600 is visible on this detailed map drawing.  By 1757, the defensive value of the fortifications had become less useful and more of a hassle, and the renovation of the bridge basically consisted of removing the previous defenses, and putting it back much closer to its medieval core. 

Note that this bridge remained the only bridge over the Aar in the city until 1834, and the wooden bridge added at that time was a much smaller footbridge.  (There was a 1466 wooden bridge built elsewhere to replace a ferry, but that was well outside the city of the time.)  Even this 1819 lithograph (from the viewpoint of the far bank) shows that the densely packed medieval city still contrasts with the more pastoral setting on the far bank; and this remains somewhat the case even today; this high-res 2007 image (click through for much higher resolution version) and this similar hi-res photo also from 2007 show the difference clearly. 

The modern bridge length is listed as 52.5m, with two 14m arches and a 15m arch.  Based on Google Earth measurements, the actual water distance, not counting the solid approaches, is about 43-45m.  Given the uncertainty on the "actual" size of a dwarf square, this is of roughly equivalent size to the bridges we're talking about, probably about a third longer. 

[1] Depending on debate, a dwarf-square is probably between 3' (~0.9m) and 20' (~6m) across, and typically assumed to be on the lower end of that range; I personally tend to think something in the 5' (~1.5m) to 2m (~6.5') range is the best fit, and normally use 2m for simplicity.
Logged

Untelligent

  • Bay Watcher
  • I eat flesh!
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress: The Development Page
« Reply #4532 on: April 18, 2011, 01:07:05 pm »

and you're just making up stories to try to rationalize a bug.

Haven't DF players been doing that for years?

Also I don't see any reason whatsover to remove a bridge as awesome as that.
Logged
The World Without Knifebear — A much safer world indeed.
regardless, the slime shooter will be completed, come hell or high water, which are both entirely plausible setbacks at this point.

Jiri Petru

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress: The Development Page
« Reply #4533 on: April 18, 2011, 01:44:13 pm »

Also I don't see any reason whatsover to remove a bridge as awesome as that.

I have one: bridges would be cooler if they were something rare and remarkable, rather than something you encounter every two steps. Sure, players can come up with interesting backgrounds for a silly bridge the find in game, and that's great! But players are more likely to come up with these interpretations if the silly bridges are something extraordinary, something they can boast about - like Cacame the dwelven king! If there were a couple of Cacames in everyone's world, nobody would care. If you have a silly bridge in each town, you won't care either.

Miuramir's example of the bridge in Bern would never happen if Bern had 12 bridges.

The same logic of course applies to many in-game elements, not only bridges.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2011, 01:50:39 pm by Jiri Petru »
Logged
Yours,
Markus Cz. Clasplashes

Skid

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress: The Development Page
« Reply #4534 on: April 18, 2011, 02:08:05 pm »

Of course we need to remember that is is fantasy.  If dwarves can build magma cannons and monstrous adding machines in their spare time, some human hobbyist can probably afford to build a bridge or two.
Logged
Playing a cheesemaker in an average Fortress 'round here would be. Freaking. Terrifying.

Jiri Petru

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress: The Development Page
« Reply #4536 on: April 18, 2011, 03:43:42 pm »

There is still a lot of work to do.

Of course we know that, Footkerchief, and we love what Toady has already done (well, at least I do). This is just a friendly discussion on possible future improvements, or isn't it?  ;D

Of course we need to remember that is is fantasy.  If dwarves can build magma cannons and monstrous adding machines in their spare time, some human hobbyist can probably afford to build a bridge or two.

You know what would be cool? If the game used the bridges already there and made variations between them - like you would have only one stone bridge in town, but a couple of ferries and perhaps a floating footbridge here and there.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2011, 03:46:11 pm by Jiri Petru »
Logged
Yours,
Markus Cz. Clasplashes

Neonivek

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress: The Development Page
« Reply #4537 on: April 18, 2011, 04:58:49 pm »

One problem Kohaku is that all rivers are basically streams or creeks rather then anything one would call a river. So people arn't really going to brand it an outright bug since by all means a small bridge to get into a single nondescript house happens in reality.

Also because of how the game handles resources... the roof of the shack they call a house costs more then the bridge.

that would *not* have been a casual sort of construction; even now, this is not usually the sort of thing a few people throw up for the heck of it.

and Yet that would be true... IF bridges weren't such a small undertaking provenly in game.

If you pay attention to the bridge you would see that they are all just extra large suspension bridges without further support. In fact there are no side rails.

In otherwords it is a cheap arrow drawn bridge you see in the woods rather then a testiment to medieval bridges. Except without the rope.
Logged

Cruxador

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress: The Development Page
« Reply #4538 on: April 18, 2011, 05:41:28 pm »

You know what would be cool? If the game used the bridges already there and made variations between them - like you would have only one stone bridge in town, but a couple of ferries and perhaps a floating footbridge here and there.
Or if it varied based on location. The bridges of Venice are not much like the bridges of London, after all. And things can vary more than architectural differences. Perhaps in one city every road has a grand stone bridge. Perhaps in another there is only one bridge in the entire city, but the houses are built over the river so far that they almost touch so people just walk from the roof of one house to another. Even in small towns and farmsteads, one place could toss logs across the creek, one could place stones.
Logged

NW_Kohaku

  • Bay Watcher
  • [ETHIC:SCIENCE_FOR_FUN: REQUIRED]
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress: The Development Page
« Reply #4539 on: April 18, 2011, 07:32:23 pm »

It's characteristic of procedural generation is that you can get complex and organic looking outcomes like that without modeling things like government waste, the same way you can get interesting looking mountain ranges without modeling plate tectonics. As long as the result is plausible (the point Aquillion spoke to), that complexity is one of the whole benefits of doing things procedurally.

And once again, you're missing the part about how there has to be some sort of story or reason behind purposeful waste.

I can't pull up an exact matching article, but I remember reading about something in Chicago. There were two publicly constructed apartment buildings built in the downtown area.  One was built for $80,000, and then an identical one was built on the exact same blueprint for $140,000. 

That's what government waste/corruption looks like.  An additional $60,000 written off to a political ally with a construction company.

There's a story there, where you would be able to track down who is wasting taxpayer money to pay back favors for who.

When it's a random person building a massive bridge across a river just because this game doesn't yet handle architecture or how to build bridges very well, then we're just making the game look laughable and unrealistic when Toady has clearly worked hard to make the game look realistic and organic.

and you're just making up stories to try to rationalize a bug.

Haven't DF players been doing that for years?

Also I don't see any reason whatsover to remove a bridge as awesome as that.

Yes, and it's obviously becoming a bad habit when you don't report a bug just because you rationalize it.

Worse still, people complain when bugs or exploits are fixed because they grew used to it.

Bugs are bugs, and need to be reported as such.  This complacency harms the development of the game.
Logged
Personally, I like [DF] because after climbing the damned learning cliff, I'm too elitist to consider not liking it.
"And no Frankenstein-esque body part stitching?"
"Not yet"

Improved Farming
Class Warfare

tps12

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress: The Development Page
« Reply #4540 on: April 18, 2011, 08:10:52 pm »

It's characteristic of procedural generation is that you can get complex and organic looking outcomes like that without modeling things like government waste, the same way you can get interesting looking mountain ranges without modeling plate tectonics. As long as the result is plausible (the point Aquillion spoke to), that complexity is one of the whole benefits of doing things procedurally.

And once again, you're missing the part about how there has to be some sort of story or reason behind purposeful waste.

What's the distinction between the bridge with no reason versus the mountain range with no reason?

When it's a random person building a massive bridge across a river just because this game doesn't yet handle architecture or how to build bridges very well, then we're just making the game look laughable and unrealistic when Toady has clearly worked hard to make the game look realistic and organic.

"Laughable and unrealistic" is in the eye of the beholder, but I think Aquillion made a strong case that a single weird bridge is plausible even if the game itself doesn't attempt to explain its existence.
Logged

Untelligent

  • Bay Watcher
  • I eat flesh!
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress: The Development Page
« Reply #4541 on: April 18, 2011, 10:49:31 pm »

I'd still rather have the possibility of bridges like that than not have the possibility of bridges like that. Especially if there's no good, reasonable reason to put it there. Just because it's a bug or a flaw in some procedural generator does not mean it needs to be removed or fixed, especially if it adds to the flavor of the game.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2011, 10:51:48 pm by Untelligent »
Logged
The World Without Knifebear — A much safer world indeed.
regardless, the slime shooter will be completed, come hell or high water, which are both entirely plausible setbacks at this point.

Jeoshua

  • Bay Watcher
  • God help me, I think I may be addicted to modding.
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress: The Development Page
« Reply #4542 on: April 18, 2011, 10:58:26 pm »

Think how horrible it would be to have to walk around the city wall to get to that home tho.  Good thing the bridge is there, after all!
Logged
I like fortresses because they are still underground.

Aquillion

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress: The Development Page
« Reply #4543 on: April 19, 2011, 12:03:21 am »

No matter how lofty its goals are, the game is never going to be able to fully model all of the things that make humans inefficient and chaotic, especially in something as big and as convoluted as city planning.

So it's not only all-right but desirable for the city-planning algorithm to occasionally make odd decisions.  Ideally, yes, it would model everything leading up to those odd decisions, but that's not going to be feasible in all cases.
Logged
We don't want another cheap fantasy universe, we want a cheap fantasy universe generator. --Toady One

Areyar

  • Bay Watcher
  • Ecstatic about recieving his own E:4 mug recently
    • View Profile
Re: Future of the Fortress: The Development Page
« Reply #4544 on: April 19, 2011, 05:55:40 am »

Ferries would be an excellent way to test the basics of a 'moving fortress' mechanic that iirc is planned for not too far into the future.
Logged
My images bucket for WIPs and such: link
Pages: 1 ... 301 302 [303] 304 305 ... 342