Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8

Author Topic: Add real solid density values for stones & wood (added to 0.34.08!)  (Read 84773 times)

Uristocrat

  • Bay Watcher
  • Dwarven Railgunner
    • View Profile
    • DF Wiki User Page

The data from the V3 raws has been encorporated into Dwarf Fortress 0.34.08.  Thanks, everyone!

=======================

News from the Devlog:

Quote
05/11/2012 Toady One We finally nabbed the bug that was intermittently hanging the game. I've incorporated some fan-collected material numbers that came out of an effort spearheaded by Uristocrat.

I believe that Toady is incorporating the data in the V3 raws, in case we find more data and publish an updated version someday.

=======================

I suggest we add solid density information for all the various kinds of rocks.  That way, they won't all be exactly the same when used in rockfall traps and catapults.  Also, it changes their in-game weight (and thereby the speed at which they're hauled) and a few other things.  Here's the data.  The data is also in RAW file form.  People are encouraged to use my mod and the data freely.

Latest RAWS - Currently at V3, which corrects a couple of minor errors in the V2 raws based on better research.

See also: NW_Kohaku's Geology Thread

NEWEST:  My prior source on electrum looks a bit sketchy in hindsight.  Dr. Luuvalo, who knows a lot about metals, taught me a lot.  We believe that a weighted average of gold + silver's density is likely to produce a more accurate density.  This appears to be born out by this Google books result, which lists a range of 13000-16000.  Because DF models electrum as 50% silver + 50% gold in its recipe (the actual proportions vary quite a bit, per wikipedia's article on electrum and may even include copper), I think the best density value for DF's electrum is (19320 (gold) + 10490 (silver)) / 2 = 14905.

NEW:  The guesstimate of 300 kg/m^3 for Saguaro density in the V2 raws was probably wrong.  I have a 6g piece of Saguaro wood with a volume of approximately 14 cm^3, which indicates that the density of Saguaro wood is approximately 430 kg/m^3.  This number appears very reasonable when compared to all the other densities I have researched.  I have more ~1 ft pieces of Saguaro rib wood than I know what to do with right now and I'm more than willing to ship them to people willing to do further research on the matter, or those who wish to duplicate my experiments.

I'll issue a V3 raw with this corrected eventually, but I will probably wait to see if more data can be obtained first.

BishopX was kind enough to point me to MatWeb.  They seem to have a lot of information, but most of it is for modern alloys and whatnot.  Still, I'm including it here in case we can find something useful there.

If you have any questions about my sources, please ask.  I tried to link up most of them, and even more are in the RAWs proper, but a lot of that gem data was either from CSG Network or GemSelect, occasionally supplemented by Wolfram Alpha, as I recall.

Wood data (densities & colors) is now in those V2 raws, but I haven't put anything into this thread yet.  Most of it was taken from the Forest Products Laboratory, a division of the US Forest Service (and their website is back up now).  Another good source of wood data is this site.

Here are the V2 RAWs.  You can still get the V1 RAWs if you want them for some reason.  People who understand mechanical properties like impact fracture are encouraged to comment here.  I have a lot of new structural data for wood and a lot of questions about how to help DF make use of it.

NEW!  We now have a source of data for wood too.  Yes, wood.  How did I find that?  Looking up the Sandbox tree (the one with explosive fruit...).  See for yourself just how much detail we can get:  density, bending strength,  modulus of elasticity, maximum crushing strength, ... oh yeah.  Fun with training weapons maybe?  I wonder....  There are LOTS of different woods in there to look up, too.  We should be able to put in realistic values for all kinds of woods, so that all the woods in the game aren't nearly identical.

OTHER DATA:  Anyone who can find other sources of material data for me to look at is encouraged to post them in this thread.

When looking up densities, I suggest that you search for "specific gravity" instead of density.  You get much better results.  The value DF uses is specific gravity * 1000, so it's pretty easy to convert (e.g. a S.G. of 2.6 == 2600 in DF).

I found a MUCH better source on soil density.  I plan to update my raws with this data soon.  Yes, that website sounds weird.  I didn't name it.  It gives you a lovely calculator for soil density, though.  Contrary to how I deal with rocks, it seems that "bulk density" (not specific gravity) is a more reasonable measure.  Otherwise, we ignore the fact that the soils have a lot of air.  I think that undersea soils, due to compaction from the water, are a bit denser, though.

Wolfram Alpha is one good source of density information, but it likes to give me g/cm3 instead of kg/m3.  All I have to do is multiply that by 1000 to convert it.  You can also take the specific gravity and multiply that by 1000 (and specific gravity is easier to search for).

NOTE:  For comparison, all non-ore rocks appear to be at the current default density of 2670 kg/m3.

Stone Density Data:
MineralSolid Density (kg/m3)Sources / Notes
Alabaster2300Wolfram Alpha (same as Gypsum)
Alunite2745Wolfram Alpha
Andesite2430Wolfram Alpha
Anhydrite2960Wolfram Alpha
Basalt2850Wolfram Alpha
Bauxite3100Minerals Zone
Bismuthinite7000Wolfram Alpha
Bituminous coal1350Wolfram Alpha
Borax1730Wolfram Alpha
Brimstone2070No clue what "monoclinic sulfur" is so used the other density from Wolfram Alpha
Calcite2930Wolfram Alpha
Cassiterite6900Wolfram Alpha
Chalk2710Wolfram Alpha
Chert2650Wolfram Alpha
Chromite4795Wolfram Alpha (Search for the mineral not the ion)
Cinnabar8100Wolfram Alpha (Search for the mineral, not the word)
Claystone2700Mentioned in The later Proterozoic Torridonian rocks of Scotland: their sedimentology By A. D. Stewart; a Google books result.
Cobaltite6330Wolfram Alpha
Conglomerate2000Answerbag says it's 1700-2300, used the middle of the range given.
Cryolite2975Wolfram Alpha
Dacite2400Gerlach lists dacite density as 2.4*1012 kg/km3, which I let Google convert for me.
Diorite2870Wolfram Alpha
Dolomite2850Wolfram Alpha
Gabbro2920Wolfram Alpha
Garnierite2540Webmineral
Gneiss2800Wolfram Alpha
Granite2600Wolfram Alpha
Graphite2250Wolfram Alpha (Search for the material)
Gypsum2300Wolfram Alpha (Lists data for Alabaster; used that.)
Hornblende3235Wolfram Alpha (Search for it as a mineral)
Ilmenite4720Wolfram Alpha
Jet1320Calculated based on the specific gravity listed on Wikipedia.  Middle of the range of 1300-1340 was chosen.
Kaolinite2600Wolfram Alpha
Kimberlite2540Geophysical Characteristics of Canadian Kimberlites  (Chose the median value from Table 1)
Lignite1250Wolfram Alpha
Limestone2710Wolfram Alpha
Limonite3500Mindat.  Gives a range of 2700-4300, took the middle of the range
Malachite3800Wolfram Alpha
Marble2780Wolfram Alpha
Marcasite4890Wolfram Alpha
Mica2883Simetric.  Used the "solid" value.
Microcline2560Wolfram Alpha
Mudstone2250Wolfram Alpha says it's the same as shale
Obsidian2650Cochise College gives the specific gravity as 2.6-2.7, so I converted and averaged that.  Real values should be variable, depending on trapped gasses.
Olivine3320Wolfram Alpha
Orpiment4250Wolfram Alpha
Orthoclase2560Mindat & Wolfram Alpha
Periclase3785Wolfram Alpha
Petrified wood2200HPWT, chose the middle of the 1900-2500 range.
Phyllite2800Geophysical Field Pattern in The West Bohemian Geodynamic Active Area (PDF), mentions "dense Ordovician phyllites."
Pitchblende7600The Free Dictionary, gives a range of 6000-9200, depending on the UO2:UO3 ratio.  Middle of range was chosen.
Puddingstone2000No source found. It's a type of conglomerate, so I used that value.
Pyrolusite4730Wolfram Alpha
Quartzite2600Wolfram Alpha
Realgar3560Wolfram Alpha
Rhyolite2600University of Colorado GEO 1010 gives a range of 2500-2700, chose center.
Rock salt2170Wolfram Alpha (Search for it as a mineral)
Rutile4250Wolfram Alpha (Search for it as a mineral)
Saltpeter2105Wolfram Alpha (Search for it as a mineral)
Sandstone2400Wolfram Alpha
Satinspar2300Wikipedia; same as Selenite
Schist2900Wolfram Alpha
Selenite2300Wikipedia; same as Satinspar
Serpentine2450Wolfram Alpha
Shale2250Same as mudstone.  Source Wolfram Alpha
Siltstone2500Assumed it was a slightly denser sandstone.  If you want to download a 16MB PDF of some book to hunt for a better value, try The Petrology of Sedimentary Rocks
Slate2750Wolfram Alpha
Sphalerite4050Wolfram Alpha
Stibnite4630Wolfram Alpha
Sylvite1990Wolfram Alpha
Talc2710Wolfram Alpha
Tetrahedrite4900Wolfram Alpha

NOTES:  Some of these were already in the raws (e.g. cobaltite).  But my raws differentiate lignite from bituminous coal and correct the density of several minerals like ilmenite which were in the raws, but which had incorrect values.  My raws have notes of the values I changed.

My raws also correct the layers the gem tanzanite appears in.  It (which should occur in metamorphic rocks, not gabbro.  The raws mentioned uncertainty, but it's definitely not the same as peridot.  It should also be rare, but I didn't change that.  IRL, tanzanite is only found in one place in the world.

I found some very different data for the gypsum related minerals.  I'm getting them all at the same density, except for anhydrite, which is a lot more dense than the others and I've consulted several different sources to check.  The value already in there was too high and looked more like a value for anhydrite.  If anyone wants to do more research, I suggest trying to find good average values for things with huge ranges (like pitchblende) or good data to differentiate the gemstones (the garnet group, in particular, has a big range and it's not clear where all of the members should fall in that range).

I made a broad categorization for gems, too.  I don't know if this is useful, but maybe it could be used to simplify things.  Some of the uncategorized gems might fit in the classifications given.  I didn't research that, but maybe I should.  Most of this comes from this great source for gem data.  If you notice, that table is properly colored, too, based on the gem's color.  Most of my color research, though, was based on going to Google Image Search and typing in the gem name.  You do have to be careful to make sure you're getting a picture of the right gem, though, in a few cases.

Here's another nice list of gem properties with a lot of specific gravities for use.

Gem Data:

CLASSGEMSDENSITY
BERYLSBeryls, heliodor, aquamarine, emerald, goshenite, morganite2770 (2630-2910)
CHRYSOBERYLS     Chrysoberyl, alexandrite, cat's eye3730 (3680-3780)
CORUNDUMSRuby, sapphire4005 (3960-4050)
DIAMONDSDiamonds3520
FELDSPARSMoonstone, Sunstone2655 (2550-2760)
GARNETSGarnets, pyropes, melanite, demantoid, topazolite, grossulars / tsavorite, almandine, rhodolite, spessartines     3900 (3500-4300)
JADESJades3000 (2900-3100)
OPALSOpals2115 (1980-2250)
QUARTZAmethyst, agates, aventurine, bloodstone, carnelian, citrine, chalcedonies, chrysoprase, jaspers, morion,
onyx, prase, quartzes, sard, sardonyx, tiger eye, tiger iron
2650
SPINELSSpinels, rubicelle3820 (3580-4060)
TOURMALINESTourmalines, schorl3140 (3030-3250)
ZIRCONSZircons4650 (4600-4700)
UNCATEGORIZEDSchorl, variscite, chrysocolla, pyrite, peridot, tanzanite, kunzite(see below)

Uncategorized Gems:
GEMDENSITY
Variscite2510
Chrysocolla2150
Pyrite4890
Peridot3335 (3220-3450)
Tanzanite3350 (3200-3400)
Turquoise - (NOT CURRENTLY IN GAME)    2700 (2600-2800)
Kunzite3150

EDIT:  Moved tiger iron to the quartz group and schorl to the tourmaline group.  It might be worth adding turquoise as a gem; I honestly didn't realize that it wasn't in the game already.  Credit for that goes to Shinziril, who posted it in this thread.

Colors are weird.  On one hand, some of those in game aren't too reasonable (cobaltite is not actually blue, it's greyish-silver, like iron, zinc, etc.), even though there is a cobalt blue pigment.  Bismuth is the same.  Yes, it can look purple, depending on the light.  My sample really looks light blue to silver most of the time, though.  And bloodstone, in spite of what you might think based on the name, is dark green for the most part (though it has deep red bands).  And I don't even know how to represent opals, given that they have every color in them, though I guess most of them should be white or clear.

So feedback on the colors I put into those raws is appreciated.
« Last Edit: May 14, 2012, 03:42:25 pm by Uristocrat »
Logged
You could have berries on the rocks and the dwarves would say it was "berry gneiss."
You should die horribly for this. And I mean that in the nicest possible way.

Kogut

  • Bay Watcher
  • Next account: Bulwersator
    • View Profile
Re: Add real solid density values for stones (and here's the list)
« Reply #1 on: March 19, 2011, 05:54:39 am »

Suggestion: produce diff to RAWs and post it on mantis.
Logged
The worst bug - 34.11 poll
Tired of going decades without goblin sieges? Try The Fortress Defense Mod
Kogut, the Bugfixes apostle of Bay12forum. Every posts he makes he preaches about the evil of Bugs.

Uristocrat

  • Bay Watcher
  • Dwarven Railgunner
    • View Profile
    • DF Wiki User Page
Soil Densities
« Reply #2 on: March 19, 2011, 06:04:59 am »

SOIL DATA

EDIT:  This post was unimportant.  I'm modifying it to have a place to put all the soil density data I found.

I had soil densities before, based on a really simple model I made (which was actually pretty accurate!), but now I've found a much better source.  DF soil classifications are based on something called a texture triangle.  It's kind of confusing:  you click on that image, and it calculates values for you.  If you're wondering about the URL, I have *no* idea why they named their site that, but the information is great.

I actually used this tool from the same site to get this data, though.  It lets me plug in sand/clay/silt percentages to get a density value (loam, if you're wondering, is a roughly-equal mix of all three of those), then tells you what sort of soil that is and what its bulk density is.  It won't let you have things like 100% clay, though, but that's okay:  that wouldn't be very realistic, anyhow.  Fire clay is somewhat closer to pure clay, but I took that density from elsewhere.

Soil NameBulk Density (kg/m3)Sand %Clay %Silt %
Clay1210206020
Silty Clay121055045
Sandy Clay133055405
Clay Loam1320333433
Sandy Clay Loam1410602515
Silty Clay Loam             1290103060
Loam1410402040
Sandy Loam1560651025
Silt Loam1410201565
Loamy Sand169080515
Silt1450101080
Sand (all colors)17109055

I would actually like to differentiate the sand there, but they're based on color, not material.  Do I assume that black sand is volcanic sand, or iron-bearing sand?  Here are the other soils:

Soil NameDensity (kg/m3)
Peat850
Pelagic Clay2200
Calcareous Ooze          2690
Siliceous Ooze2460
Fire Clay2300

The value for peat comes from here and assumes some water content.  Maybe I should assume a peat bog where it's completely wet and bump that up to 1100 or something.  I don't know.  Fire clay comes from the same site (I think it's supposed to be a heavier clay, which isn't on that texture triangle).  The undersea soil data is from something called Geotechnical Properties of Deep Continental Margin Soils (PDF warning).
« Last Edit: May 06, 2011, 03:36:24 am by Uristocrat »
Logged
You could have berries on the rocks and the dwarves would say it was "berry gneiss."
You should die horribly for this. And I mean that in the nicest possible way.

Uristocrat

  • Bay Watcher
  • Dwarven Railgunner
    • View Profile
    • DF Wiki User Page
Wood Data
« Reply #3 on: March 19, 2011, 06:19:30 am »

Wood Data

I never did put the wood data into a thread.  This post was unimportant, so I'm editing it to be the wood data now.

TreeDensity (kg/m3)      Species Used as BasisSource
Mangrove       830Black mangrove (Avicennia spp.)          US Forest Service       
Saguaro430Carnegiea gigantea(Determined empirically)
Pine510Red Pine (Pinus resinosa)US Forest Service
Cedar570White-Cedar (Tabebuia spp.)US Forest Service
Oak700Encino Oak (Quercus spp.)US Forest Service
Mahogany600African Mahogany (Khaya grandifoliola & K. senegalensis)     US Forest Service
Acacia600Acacia mollissima syn. A. mearnsiiUS Forest Service
Kapok260Cieba pentandraUS Forest Service
Maple540Acer spp.US Forest Service
Willow390Black willow (Salix nigra)US Forest Service
Larch590Western Larch (Larix occidentalis)US Forest Service
Chestnut430American Chestnut (Castanea dentata)US Forest Service
Alder410 (450 might have been a better choice)   Red Alder (Alnus rubra)AHEC
Birch650American Birch (Betula spp.)US Forest Service
Ash600Fraxinus spp.US Forest Service
Candlenut140Aleurites moluccanaThe Wood Explorer
Mango520Mangifera spp.US Forest Service
Rubber490Hevea brasiliensisUS Forest Service
Cacao430Theobroma cacaoInpa.Gov.BR
Palm680Red Palm (Cocos nucifera)Wood Database

There are also colors in the raws.  For example, cacao wood is labeled as "chocolate" ... which is actually accurate, IRL :)  The experiment determining the density of Saguaro wood was determined by finding that a 6g (+/- 0.1g) piece of dry Saguaro wood had a volume of approximately 14 cm^3 (+/- 1 cm^3), leading to the conclusion that Saguaro wood has a density of approximately 430 kg/m3.  Samples of the wood are available upon request for anyone who wants to attempt to duplicate these results.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2012, 01:26:49 pm by Uristocrat »
Logged
You could have berries on the rocks and the dwarves would say it was "berry gneiss."
You should die horribly for this. And I mean that in the nicest possible way.

FGK dwarf

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Add real solid density values for stones (and here's the list)
« Reply #4 on: March 19, 2011, 07:07:53 am »

Interesting stuff! Couple of comments:

For sulphur/brimstone, monoclinic/rhombic refers to the crystal structure. rhombic is the stable allotrope at room temperature and pressure according to wiki, so you chose the right value.

However, the density doesn't always take into account any large holes in the rock or mineral. I used to have some sulphur and remember there being big gaps between the crystals, making it quite crumbly, so the value for a big chunk like the Dwarves would mine may be somewhat lower. Same goes for other pure minerals. Rocks tend to have fewer holes as they're formed of many minerals squashed together.

Conglomerate is made of of other rocks cemented together, so it's density probably varies so much because its composition can vary.

Wiki gives the specific gravity of jet as 1.30 to 1.34, a little higher than lignite, probably becasue jet is formed under higher pressure, like bituminous coal.
Logged

Jeoshua

  • Bay Watcher
  • God help me, I think I may be addicted to modding.
    • View Profile
Re: Add real solid density values for stones (and here's the list)
« Reply #5 on: March 19, 2011, 07:19:51 am »

I would love to see more realistic stone values.

As a matter of fact... thank you for gathering this into one place, I'm going to mod it in to my raws right now!
Logged
I like fortresses because they are still underground.

Kogut

  • Bay Watcher
  • Next account: Bulwersator
    • View Profile
Re: Add real solid density values for stones (and here's the list)
« Reply #6 on: March 19, 2011, 08:11:02 am »

I would love to see more realistic stone values.

As a matter of fact... thank you for gathering this into one place, I'm going to mod it in to my raws right now!
And you will post resulting file and diff, right?
Logged
The worst bug - 34.11 poll
Tired of going decades without goblin sieges? Try The Fortress Defense Mod
Kogut, the Bugfixes apostle of Bay12forum. Every posts he makes he preaches about the evil of Bugs.

Uristocrat

  • Bay Watcher
  • Dwarven Railgunner
    • View Profile
    • DF Wiki User Page
Re: Add real solid density values for stones (and here's the list)
« Reply #7 on: March 19, 2011, 09:48:37 am »

Conglomerate is made of of other rocks cemented together, so it's density probably varies so much because its composition can vary.

Wiki gives the specific gravity of jet as 1.30 to 1.34, a little higher than lignite, probably becasue jet is formed under higher pressure, like bituminous coal.

I fixed that per your comment.  Pitchblende, though, is the *really* variable one, going from ~6000-9000.  I wonder if just splitting the difference like that gives a good average?  And whether my guess about siltstone was reasonable or not.
Logged
You could have berries on the rocks and the dwarves would say it was "berry gneiss."
You should die horribly for this. And I mean that in the nicest possible way.

NW_Kohaku

  • Bay Watcher
  • [ETHIC:SCIENCE_FOR_FUN: REQUIRED]
    • View Profile
Re: Add real solid density values for stones (and here's the list)
« Reply #8 on: March 19, 2011, 10:20:36 am »

That's fantastic, Uristocrat.  People doing research to flesh out the raws is exactly what we need more of to help iron out the kinks in this game...

I'm surprised how much of a difference there is in these numbers - sylvite has about a quarter the density of cinnibar, which is the sort of thing you wouldn't expect to see.
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

Uristocrat

  • Bay Watcher
  • Dwarven Railgunner
    • View Profile
    • DF Wiki User Page
Re: Add real solid density values for stones (and here's the list)
« Reply #9 on: March 19, 2011, 10:30:06 am »

That's fantastic, Uristocrat.  People doing research to flesh out the raws is exactly what we need more of to help iron out the kinks in this game...

I'm surprised how much of a difference there is in these numbers - sylvite has about a quarter the density of cinnibar, which is the sort of thing you wouldn't expect to see.

Yeah, I also learned that cobaltite is already in the raws as something pretty dense, so it's a great thing to lob at goblins, at least if you don't mind using up your dark blue stone :)  *sigh*  So there are still trade-offs between aesthetically pleasing fortresses and goblin crushing ability.

I've also noticed (via speedhack dwarves) that the weight *really* changes the hauling speed (it might not be as bad for non-speedhack dwarves, though).  The suckers really lag when hauling gold (which is, again, already in the raws) vs. normal stone.  So this should be interesting in other ways, too.

Are there any other material values with significant gameplay effects that we should research?

Also, I looked up another source for pitchblende (err, uraninite, UO2, actually), which gives a specific gravity of 6.5-10.0 (so, a density of 6,500 - 10,000).  They really can't pin it down much, huh?  Meanwhile, that same source (a RL book) gives rutile as exactly 4.23, which is in close agreement with the 4250 I already have listed.
Logged
You could have berries on the rocks and the dwarves would say it was "berry gneiss."
You should die horribly for this. And I mean that in the nicest possible way.

Rose

  • Bay Watcher
  • Resident Elf
    • View Profile
Re: Add real solid density values for stones (and here's the list)
« Reply #10 on: March 19, 2011, 10:38:29 am »

This is a fine list. good work.
Logged

Fayrik

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Add real solid density values for stones (and here's the list)
« Reply #11 on: March 19, 2011, 10:44:24 am »

Now, I might be wrong here but...
You're trying to add "Realistic density values" to DF, right?
...But, from the admittedly limited amount of time I worked on DF's solid density, they seemed pretty accurate already.
Maybe I just missed something?
Logged
So THIS is how migrations start.
"Hey, dude, there's this crazy bastard digging in the ground for stuff. Let's go watch."

Uristocrat

  • Bay Watcher
  • Dwarven Railgunner
    • View Profile
    • DF Wiki User Page
Re: Add real solid density values for stones (and here's the list)
« Reply #12 on: March 19, 2011, 11:15:48 am »

Now, I might be wrong here but...
You're trying to add "Realistic density values" to DF, right?
...But, from the admittedly limited amount of time I worked on DF's solid density, they seemed pretty accurate already.
Maybe I just missed something?

Most of those are set to a default value for rock of 2670 right now.  If you scan the list, you'll see that it's pretty reasonable for many of the rocks, but a pretty bad estimate for the rest.

That said, it still needs some double-checking to make sure it accounts for *all* of the materials with no values set.

I'm betting there are other things, perhaps including non-stone objects that may or may not have proper values right now.  Most of the material properties only matter for weapons, though, which is why the metals and metal ores got all the attention.  Of course, as I pointed out, we *do* use rocks as weapons in catapults and stonefall traps, so maybe we should take a look at whatever other values need adding.
Logged
You could have berries on the rocks and the dwarves would say it was "berry gneiss."
You should die horribly for this. And I mean that in the nicest possible way.

NW_Kohaku

  • Bay Watcher
  • [ETHIC:SCIENCE_FOR_FUN: REQUIRED]
    • View Profile
Re: Add real solid density values for stones (and here's the list)
« Reply #13 on: March 19, 2011, 01:33:28 pm »

When it's a wide ranging estimate like 6,500 to 10,000, I'd probably err towards the average density of stone in general - odds are this isn't pure ore, and as such, should probably have a little fudging towards the density of the other materials it would likely be mixed with. 

A wide estimate like 6,500 to 10,000 probably means there are varying levels of how much uranium is actually in those uranium-oxide compounds, and Uranium is extremely dense, but also very rare stuff in any form of concentrated quantity.

As for "what other properties are important", I'd have to go back and look at what properties are useful, ever, in the metals section

Flint was used as an arrowhead by Native Americans, for example, and according to wikipedia, flint is a form of quartz that is described as a form of chert.  Flint can hold a very sharp edge, and would be a useful item for making something like crossbow bolts or even elven arrowheads.  The sort of thing you should be trying to knap in Adventure Mode, definitely.  Giving chert some sort of maxedge property would be a good idea.

Of course, it's kind of weird to apply all the same material properties to chalk as you do to an obsidian arrowhead, but you never know when some odd mechanic somewhere down the road might use it... maybe chalk mechanisms will one day break down faster than granite mechanisms?
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

Bohandas

  • Bay Watcher
  • Discordia Vobis Com Et Cum Spiritum
    • View Profile
Re: Add real solid density values for stones (and here's the list)
« Reply #14 on: March 19, 2011, 04:27:54 pm »

I support the idea of adding the correct values, especially since Uristocrat has already done all of the real legwork by looking them up.
Logged
NEW Petition to stop the anti-consumer, anti-worker, Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement
What is TPP
----------------------
Remember, no one can tell you who you are except an emotionally unattached outside observer making quantifiable measurements.
----------------------
Έπαινος Ερις
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8