Function Part Discussion

Mass volume translation is extremely easy to do. Actually, it is the way to go, since different stockpiles have different limitations. Traditional stockpiles placed on the ground are limited by volume only, while a truck moving goods is limited by volume and mass (if you load it too much, it wont be able to move)

I personally prefer if special goods require special containers, instead of assuming goods are packaged acordingly.

Transactions will be in mass, storage will be in volume. Density will allow easy conversion between these.

I worry that proliferating storage from just stockpiles to three types would be too much, but if you guys support it I'm with you. Just keep in mind that stockpile has two meanings. A) Any entity that can store compounds; and B) An FP that allows the TO to store solid compounds

Stockpile then for solids.
Cistern for liquids.
Tank? for gases. (Any other ideas)

Plus, like Tarpy said, placing farms in AoE is not the same as Sim City zoning.

Quote :

Transactions will be in mass, storage will be in volume. Density will allow easy conversion between these.

Will all the transactions be in Mass, I mean most liquids and gases are sold in liters (which again can be easily converted to m^3).
--It looks, odd keeping track of liquids by Mass. I mean I know chemistry, well not really, they use moles with isn't quite the same thing (but it readily converts to mass).

I just seems odd to me 50 kilos of crude....
I am agreeing that Solids will be sold by mass.

Quote :

Stockpile then for solids.
Cistern for liquids.
Tank? for gases. (Any other ideas)

Sounds about right.

And ---again, my mistake.

Althou it may be more common for transactions in reality for fluids to be in volume, keeping it in mass will maintain consistency throughout all the transactions.

NickTheNick wrote:

Althou it may be more common for transactions in reality for fluids to be in volume, keeping it in mass will maintain consistency throughout all the transactions.

Completely true, and that's why I originally wanted fluids and gases to be measured by mass.

Stockpiles have been moved to the "concept partially completed" category, and I'll updated the description tomorrow (it's getting late here).

Exactly. Anything else left on stockpiles?

I'll fit in the two new FP's, Cisterns and Tanks, into the Research Web.

By the way, I went to Here once. It was nice, but too windy.

Edit: Stockpiles will become available first, then a bit later on will come Cisterns, and then later would come Tanks.

NickTheNick wrote:

By the way, I went to Here once. It was nice, but too windy.

lol

Also, I think you're right about the stockpiles. There's nothing really more to add up to them.

Are you guys OK with me if I move them to the "concept complete" category?

Yessir.

I have moved stockpiles to the "concept fully developed" category.

If you have any more ideas for stockpiles or want to make changes to the current concept, please don't post on the forum- Send me a private message and I'll examine your suggestion.

Next we're discussing handles. Does anyone want to begin the discussion with a suggestion?

Did you copy and paste? Did you mean stockpiles?

EDIT:Oh, wait, wait a second. Before you close the discussion, you added something to the description that was never discussed. You don't choose what specific material it stores. For example, if I place a building with a stockpile in it that has a storage capacity of 30 m3, that building could store 20 m3 of wood and 10 m3 of coal, or 30 m3 of steel. You don't have to designate what it holds. Think of stockpiles from Stronghold. They just allow the building to store whatever solid compounds come their way.

NickTheNick wrote:

Did you copy and paste? Did you mean stockpiles?

Haha.. Thanks for pointing that out, that was sooo humiliating.

Also, I'm going to try and think of concepts for handles.

I'll post when I have any ideas.

OK let's start with handles.

When handles are placed in the Tech Editor, the player can edit their size (extend them) and rotation (can rotate them).

Then the player would have to define the holding point of the handle. The holding point is the area where the user of the Tech Object (a creature) will grip onto the tech object. The holding point wouldn't really have any effect on the TO itself, and will only be used to let the computer know where a creature should grip on to the object. Also, to make things simpler, the holding point can only be placed on the corners of the handle.

Once the holding point has been defined, the player would have to create the tip of the handle(I'm not sure how it should be called). Here, the player would create a main function for the handle and the object on it. The player would be able to choose axes, hammers etc. Once the tip of the handle has been created, the player would be able to modify the rest of the handle (place decorations).

Feel free to make any suggestions.

Sounds good. What do you mean by the corners of the handle though?

Also, just to make sure, these handles are solely for tools. The large, cylindrical wooden shafts used in water mills, for example, are not the same as handles. That sort of machinery is quite deep for the scope of the game, and will be added later on, when we figure out how to make an editor that would let the player make such contraptions. In the meantime, that mechanism of the water mill you saw would all be a single FP called Water Mill.

Anyways, back to Handles, the player could set multiple points at which the creature holds the handle, and could also use a mannequin of their creature equipped with the tool in the editor to rotate the object into a position for the creature to hold it. Think of all the different ways a creature could hold a gun. We don't want the computer having to guess how to position it.

Tip of the handle could be called the tool of the handle. Actually, that sounds kinda strange, so idk.

Corners of the handle- The top or bottom part of the handle

I realize these would be used solely for tools.

Yeah, I actually was also thinking about the mannequin thing, but I accidentally forgot to mention it.

Any more ideas?

Ahh, okay, those corners.

Tarpy wrote:

I realize these would be used solely for tools.

Yeah, I know, I was just clearing that for some of the others.

Any more ideas out there?

I think thats all there is for now.

@NickTheNick- I agree with you completely.

Handles are done.

Torches- These are going to be really simple.

You can adjust their height, but not width.

They would give off light in a certain x radius. The x radius would be divided into 5 light levels- 5 (very bright, usually right next to the torch),4 (bright, but not as much as 5),3 (dim),2 (dimmer), 1 (near dark) and 0 (areas not affected by light, dark). If two light levels of two different torches collide at one point, the areas where the light levels collide gets lighter, more precisely- The light level in the area equals light level 1+ light level 2. If the result is larger than 5, than it will become 5.

Ideas are welcome.

For units equipped with torches, they should get the ability light entities on fire, as well as lighting up their surroundings.

Also, i was thinking it would be nice if we could implement a way for AI wild organisms to be scared away from units equipped with torches, to simulate the large benefit torches gave historically to early humans in warding off wild beasts. It was also an integral component of Mammoth hunting.

The question then is, would it be easy to code?

For units being equipped with torches, their ability to light entities on fire would be very easy to implement (via boolean).

As for the wild organisms, it would be a moderate challenge, but I think it would be doable. Creatures would simply avoid straying into light levels above 0 that are emitted by torches.

We could expand it to just fire in general. However, are there any considerable numbers of organisms that dont get scared from fire?

Learning AI can handle reaction to fire, as long as we define a function along the lines of distanceToFire. Creatures will learn wether being close to fire is dangerous, or good.

Edit: They wont have an instinctivr fear og fire, hoewever. We woul have to harcode that

Ahh, okay, good. So I think thats all on torches.

NickTheNick wrote:

Ahh, okay, good. So I think thats all on torches.

yup.

Next are arrowheads, not much here either.