A few days ago, courtesy of @SteveAdamo. It’s the same as @Silas’ and was given for the same reason 
.
Tried the DF wiki? Failing that, google should have plenty of stuff.
Working as intended.
1 Like
I need to do some relearning too. A succession game would be really fun.
But i was more like “Argh why can’t get my dwarfs to do anything”
Ok lets rephrase that: Do you know any easy to understand and idiot (Thats me) proof guide?
Not really. Some of the stuff on google may be useful, I dunno 
.
1 Like
Youtube. The answer is youtube.
There was a really good tutorial I once watched. I will see if I can find it for you.
1 Like
And now it occurs to me that the tutorial is completely useless due to the new update 
1 Like
Such is Dwarf Fortress.
1 Like
WARNING: Continued from Desktop Tuesday: The Engineer - #90 by Dwalus
Wrong; Dwarf Fortress runs on 64-bit bit systems, but isn’t 64-bit itself and doesn;t support 64-bit CPUs itself. That is why it can’t use more than 4 GiB of RAM (32-bit addresses can’t access more than 2**32 bytes).
[quote=“Dwalus, post:90, topic:23517”]but that’s not even remotely an issue because RAM isn’t the important part, but the processor speed.
[/quote]
Wrong. Often with software design there’s a trade-off between memory consumption and CPU usage. Do you use one algorithm or another? Do you cache data (and how much)? Can you afford pre-computed lookup tables? If you’re designing for modern computers with more RAM you make different choices; and when your main bottleneck is CPU time you choose to use more RAM and less CPU.
Wrong. Being created a decade ago just makes it recent (or “recent-ish”), not modern. Using software design practices from 50 years ago makes it “retro” at best even if it was created today.
[quote=“Dwalus, post:90, topic:23517”]and even now it won’t run on most of the computers that existed when it was first released.
[/quote]
Wrong. It will still run on a computer that was “relatively high end” in the late 1990s (from 5 years before the game’s first release). The only thing that has changed is how far you can go (population size, etc) before the game reaches “too laggy to play”.
Wrong. You’re confusing “modern” with “recent”. Something’s age has very little to do with how modern it is. If I used hand tools to create a kerosene lantern it would be new lantern using old technology and wouldn’t be modern (and would be even less modern than a 20 year old electric torch, despite being 20 years newer).
Now tell me; are you going to persist in disagreeing with me at every single opportunity, and continue being consistently wrong every time you do?
No, actually it was a recent update. It can now support 64-bit CPUs themselves.
Key word, often. The main point to consider here is that more RAM doesn’t actually help Dwarf Fortress here. Blame it on bad design/resource allocation but RAM makes only negligible differences in SF performance.
Actually, one of the synonyms of modern is twenty-first century. It is, by definition if not by design, modern.
No, I’ve actually tried myself on my old Win '97 system. Sure, it will work very slowly on high end 90’s systems but on many it won’t run at all.
No, that’s because the kerosene lantern was invented before. Dwarf Fortress was “invented” recently which makes it modern by definition.
Wrong. Actually the whole Dwarf Fortress debate came up because you wanted a game that allowed complex systems and multiple builders. I suggested it (because I like suggesting fun games to people) and you said you didn’t want to play because it wasn’t modern. It didn’t start as an argument at all, just a friendly suggestion on my part.
As for as being “wrong all the time”, you’re the one who suggested the tech eras idea that nobody liked, which I argued against. The current argument is a matter of opinion since we’re using two different but equal definitions of modern. So no, you’re wrong there too.
Also, it should be noted you’re the one who had several posts edited because you broke the community guidelines. Since you still can’t seem to keep a civil attitude, I will no longer be responding to your posts. We have fundamental differences in opinion which cannot be reconciled.
Ah - you’re right - the first version that is actually 64-bit was released 3 days ago!
You’re (intentionally?) missing the point. If it was designed for modern computers it would benefit from more RAM. It doesn’t because it’s not designed for modern computers - it was designed for 10+ year old computers (and extremely recently, compiled for 64-bit).
Sure, in the right context, when applied to something that changes very slowly, “modern” can even mean “something from the last 500 years”. Software is one of the most rapidly changing fields (especially games), and “modern” in that context is on a completely different scale.
You’re agreeing with me (while trying your hardest to disagree by using your “not high end” old computer as a red herring)?
Now you’re splitting hairs. The idea for the game (the “invention”) is at least 10 years old, which is not modern in the context of computer games. The implementation of that idea (the game’s code) uses out-dated/obsolete practices and is designed for old (in the context of PC hardware) computers; and is even less modern.
Note that I am NOT saying that “modern” is good - for some things it is, for others it isn’t.
The only reason the Dwarf Fortress “what is/isn’t modern” debate came up is that you’ve been looking for any excuse to disagree with me since failing to understand why Stonehearth can be improved for “long game” players.
I didn’t suggest a “tech eras” idea that nobody liked. I pointed out that Stonehearth already has them (haven’t you noticed the new “Tier 2 town” quest, etc yet??).
Also note that only one of my posts was edited; and only because you’ve been deliberately taunting.
Note: I do have a tendency to post something, then double-check it after posting and fix typos I missed and/or add notes (like this one). It’s possible that you’ve mistaken my edits with censorship.