Dwarf Fortress Wiki - User contributions [en]

40d:Metal profit

2010-01-05T01:44:38Z

UseBees: Iron, Pig Iron, and Steel equations. break-even values.

This article is intended to show the value, costs, steps required, and ultimately the profit of smelting and making something with each bar. It will be especially useful for things like determining if it would be more profitable to smelt an alloy for crafts or use it's component metals for crafts instead. '''This article is a stub.'''

{| class="wikitable" border="1"
|-
! Metal
! Steps to make
! Material Value * Item Value - Coal/flux cost
!Item Value to Break Even
|-
|[[Copper]]||1||2i - 20||10
|-
|[[Bronze]]||1||5i - 20||4
|-
|[[Iron]]||1||10i - 20||2
|-
|[[Pig Iron]]||2||10i - 32||3.2
|-
|[[Steel]]||3||30i - 34||1.1333
|}

The value of a bar of [[coal]] is 10. For the examples I've given it's assumed that you'll use 1 bar of coal to smelt the metal, and another to make something of it. I'm bad with tables and wikis in general, so excuse the weird table.

{{Expand Topic}}

[[Category:Stub]]

User:UseBees

2010-01-05T01:20:32Z

UseBees: Created page with '== Place Holder =='

== Place Holder ==

40d Talk:Speed

2010-01-05T01:20:12Z

UseBees:

== Movement speed seems to have no effect on task time ==

I tested it with roads and bridges. I didn't see any difference in the time it took to complete large, ten-tile roads/bridges from the moment of initiation (IE, the laborer is on-task and standing at the side, building the road) until the moment of completion. Obviously, there was a massive decrease in the overall time-from-zoning to completion, since hauling 26 stones would take a LOT more time. - [[User: ShadowDragon8685|ShadowDragon8685]] 09:45, June 21, 2008. (EST)

== Encumbrance bug in Adventure mode ==

Tested several times. If adventurer has no strength bonuses - all is as expected: more weight - less speed. But adventurer with any stength bonus (at least '''Strong''') does not experience speed loss, even if heavily encumbered. Tested with picking up rocks.--[[User:Dorten|Dorten]] 04:02, 15 January 2008 (EST)

:Report that on the Bay 12 forums if you want to see it fixed (http://www.bay12games.com/cgi-local/ultimatebb.cgi?&category=3).--[[User:Maximus|Maximus]] 15:06, 15 January 2008 (EST)

:Rubbish! Or at least it is now. --[[User:Savok|Savok]] 20:05, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

== Encumbrance ==

"this editor has not noticed encumbrance."<br>
Watch a hauler drag a bin fill of platinum ore to the trading depot. He MIGHT move a tile for every fifty steps his compatriots carrying single bolts get. --[[User:Dadamh|Dadamh]] 15:54, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

:Ow! That's "encumbrance" not "encumbrence." Cruel, you are.
:That's confusingly worded. It sounds like you say in the first sentence that you haven't seen encumbrance, but the other two sentences seem to say that you have seen it. I'll guess that you're trying to quote and reformat your comment appropriately.
:I haven't tested anything, but it appears that both the weight and encumbrance systems are dramatically altered. It also appears that it's hard to set up a system in which encumbrance appears, so we haven't cared about it.
:<nowiki>*tests*</nowiki> --[[User:Savok|Savok]] 16:34, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

::Woot! Success! *points to the next section* --[[User:Savok|Savok]] 20:05, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

== Weight-related encumbrance formula solved! ==

The two weight-related changes from the old version are 1: different weights and 2: weight_new=10weight_old. In other words, 500Γ in the new system is the same as 50Γ in the old. See [http://dffd.wimbli.com/file.php?id=208 the data] that I used.<br>
That 4½ hours was so worth it. --[[User:Savok|Savok]] 20:05, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

== Self-contradicting? ==

Don't the following contradict each other?
"Creatures have to wait x turns before performing another action, where x is Raw Speed/100"
"A creature can move one square every 10,000/Displayed Speed turns, or Raw Speed/100+1 turns"
Even if they do not, it is rather poor wording. I believe the +1 in the second quote is meant to represent the turn during which the unit moves-as opposed to the other Raw Speed/100 turns during which the unit waits. I am not sure, however, and do not wish to edit the article unless I'm certain. --[[User:UseBees|UseBees]] 19:19 4 January 2010 (CST)

40d:Seed

2009-09-29T02:33:38Z

UseBees: kobold bulbs do not produce seeds

:''You may be looking for world generation seeds, listed at [[Pregenerated worlds]].''

Dwarves can use '''seeds''' to grow [[crops]] in [[farm plots]]. Every plant in the game (excluding [[Kobold bulb|Kobold Bulbs]]) produces seeds. 1-2 seeds are created when a plant is [[Plant_Processing|processed]]/[[Miller|milled]], [[brew]]ed, or eaten (but not when [[cook]]ed!). Seeds are stockpiled with [[food]].

The 6 underground ("genuine dwarven") plant seeds can be purchased at the beginning of the game (see [[Starting Builds]]).

__TOC__

Fortresses can have a maximum of 200 seeds of each type. If your fortress has 200 seeds of a given type, no more seeds of that type will be produced until the seeds are consumed (either through planting or cooking) or otherwise destroyed (you can however acquire more than 200 seeds by trade, but why would you?). This is good in that all plant related jobs will no longer cause huge hauler bee-lines. It is bad in that a (though marginally) amount of food and value is lost.

All seed types can be cooked, producing one unit of edible food per seed. Cooking seeds has the danger of cooking all seeds, sabotaging your own farming. So better only cook seed types you cannot or want not to plant. Seeds have the further disadvantage that they tend to produce small meals thus using up lots of barrels.

Even though your dwarves will do a decent job of consolidating seeds into as few [[bag]]s as possible, massive seed stocks will still use up a huge number of bags. This can be controlled somewhat by [[dump]]ing surplus seeds from inside bags, especially if a single seed sits in a bag. You can also use the [[stocks]] screen to dump all of a seed type that you do not intend to plant. You will however hardly ever need more than 40 bags and that is for more than, say, 2000 seeds. So buy some cheap leather soon, get your leatherworker to it and make those bags, so you can forget about one more micromanage thing.

== Seeds plantable only indoors ==
There are six types of seeds that can be used to plant crops underground (in [[soil]] or in stone that has been muddied by [[irrigation]]):

* [[Plump Helmet]] spawn
* [[Sweet Pod]] seeds
* [[Pig Tail]] seeds
* [[Cave Wheat]] seeds
* [[Dimple Cup]] spawn
* [[Rock Nut]]s (which are used to grow [[Quarry Bush]]es)

These are the only plants (aside from Tower Caps) that will grow inside the cave; all other (gatherable) plants can only be found and grown aboveground. Most (but not all) aboveground plants will produce seeds (see [[List of crops]]), which in turn can be planted to grow crops. [[Trade]]rs will almost always bring seeds with them (if the [[biome]] fits) which can be used for farming if you cannot find any yourself.

== Seeds plantable only outdoors ==

There are several types of seeds that are grown aboveground. They generally work the same way as underground crops: plant them in a farm plot, wait for them to grow, harvest them, and then process/mill, brew, cook, and/or eat them raw. Note that there is an important distinction between "inside" and "aboveground": these crops can be grown in any space marked "Above Ground", regardless of whether it's inside or outside. This means that via the usage of a skylight or [[Farming#Greenhouses|greenhouse]], they can be grown in a secure location, perhaps even adjacent to your underground crops.

Aboveground crops include:

* [[Wild strawberry]]
* [[Rope reed]] (very rarely found, though you can buy them from traders)
* [[Prickle berry]]
* [[Sun berry]]
* [[Muck root]]
* [[Hide root]]
* [[Whip vine]]
* [[Blade weed]]
* [[Fisher berry]]
* [[Rat weed]]
* [[Longland grass]]

==Cooking with seeds==
Some players recommend cooking seeds as a cheap way of training up a new [[cook]] -

:1) In the {{k|z}}-[[Status#Kitchen_Status_Screen|Kitchen]] sub-menu, only allow the seeds you want to have cooked ({{k|c}})
:2) Limit a [[kitchen]] workshop in the workshop profile so only your new cook will use that kitchen (by limiting the skill level, or assigning it by name, or both.)
:3) Set that kitchen on "Easy Meal - Repeat"

Only 2 seeds/meal will be used, and the amateur cook consumes no costly materials in his efforts to learn his new art.

However, others argue that it is better ''not'' to cook seeds, as once 200 seeds for a particular plant have been accumulated, additional seeds will not be produced when eating, [[brewer|brewing]], [[miller|milling]], or [[thresher|threshing]], saving a considerable amount of work for food haulers.

[[Category:Agriculture]]

40d Talk:Starting location

2009-09-27T05:19:40Z

UseBees:

Trees do not only grow on the lowest Z-Level. I have trees growing on multiple Z-Levels. --[[User:Tracker|Tracker]] 02:46, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

Hmm. Maybe only up to a certain height? My first map--while initially pretty decent (sand, water, trees, rock, variety of minerals) had trees only in the most lower left hand corner (one screen's worth), which also happened to be the lowest surface level I had. But you are right, my current fort (nice entrance, there was a pocket by a river tributary that I turned into my entrance gateway, but no sand) has trees on two levels, the lowest surface, and the second lowest. Still, it's something to be aware of.
--[[User:Draco18s|Draco18s]] 03:26, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

Absolutely - that's why I changed it to say "lower" instead of lowest. --[[User:Tracker|Tracker]] 03:35, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

So I noticed. :)
--[[User:Draco18s|Draco18s]] 03:26, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

== Towns ==

Any benefit of building in towns? Other than mining under the elves and dropping them into pits? --[[User:Ikkonoishi|Ikkonoishi]] 19:35, 3 November 2007 (EDT)
:Yes there is. Humans are more than happy to share their stuff with you, and won't be at all upset if you rob them blind it seems. --[[User:Ikkonoishi|Ikkonoishi]] 22:11, 3 November 2007 (EDT)
::Think this'll ever get changed? Seems kind of unrealistic to me...--[[User:Tarsier|Tarsier]] 19:56, 5 November 2007 (EST)

== Mountain tiles guarantee certain features. ==

As per my addition, for each mountain square in the 2nd zoom view, you're guaranteed pits, a chasm, and an underground river. I have confirmed this myself using the reveal tool, and Today has confirmed at least part of it: http://www.bay12games.com/cgi-local/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=2&t=001176 - [[User:Kjoery|Kjoery]] 16:49, 6 November 2007 (EST)

:Confirmed this too.--[[User:Richards|Richards]] 03:20, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

== Towns Revert ==

Any reason why that edit was unacceptable to you Savok? I'm not going to revert, but I would like an explanation. --[[User:Ikkonoishi|Ikkonoishi]] 12:06, 12 November 2007 (EST)

== Errors in PNG? ==

Contrary to the text in the attached PNG, I've had fortresses with pockets of sand sufficient for glassworking even when sand doesn't show up in the embark screen. [[User:Kidinnu|Kidinnu]] 09:25, 28 November 2007 (EST)

Yes, all maps I've ever had have had at least a few squares of sand. Is it guaranteed? --[[User:Penguinofhonor|Penguinofhonor]] 22:18, 30 November 2007 (EST)
:I have never seen any pockets of sand. --[[User:Strangething|Strangething]] 16:27, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

Another error is that magma and volcanoes now appear on the map [[User:MikeWulf|MikeWulf]] 23:41, 6 March 2008 (EST)
:Note that underground magma is hidden. Only lava on the surface is shown on the map --[[User:Strangething|Strangething]] 16:27, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

== Layers ==

The paragraph about layers is not explicit enough for newbies. For instance, 'igneous intrusive' never shows up on the embark screen. What I would like to see is something like
* red sand - useful for glass making
* gabbro - in this layer you may find chalk, a flux
* felsite - in this layer you may find copper ore
etc. (Caveat: the data I gave as example is most likely false and/or incomplete).

This way, by comparing the embark screen to this page, the reader would immediately find out what (s)he may find in the site.
--[[User:Aykavil|Aykavil]] 09:51, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

:I added a link to [[stone layers]]. There's a lot more in-depth info there. --[[User:Strangething|Strangething]] 16:32, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

== Fun starting locations ==

A starting location that looks pretty good from the readouts can turn out to be as boring as hell once you arrive at it. Are there any tips for finding ''interesting'' locations? --[[User:Theory|Theory]] 16:46, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

: Define "interesting"? Anything with a [[chasm]] or in a [[terrifying]] biome could be 'interesting', I'm sure! Personally I often like completely flat land, so I can make the area interesting with my own constructions! That said, I'm considering next building a settlement on the side/s of a steep canyon or river valley! --[[User:Raumkraut|Raumkraut]] 17:51, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

== Magma ==

Regarding finding Magma, this page reads: "look for darker igneous rocks like basalt, obsidian, gabbro" -- is this accurate? Basalt and obsidian are igneous extrusive, while gabbro is igneous intrusive. Only the igneous extrusive page calls out that magma is commonly found there. --[[User:Sev|Sev]] 20:41, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

== Mode:Civilisation==
I just noticed, when starting a new fort and choosing which dwarf civ I was from, a symbol I hadn't seen before. Normally dwarve homelands are just blue omegas, this time I saw an omega and also 2 blue {{Tile|î|#ff0|#000}}s. Anyone else seen this/know if this has any significance? --[[User:Juckto|Juckto]] 05:25, 20 November 2008 (EST)

:I've had this happen to human civs and one dwarf civ- it means they somehow acquired forest sites during worldgen. [[User:Random832|Random832]] 08:42, 20 November 2008 (EST)

::The flipside of humans conquering forest retreats and building towns on them is that you can end up with elves living with them who wear metal armour. I had an 'elven diplomat' show up to discuss human diplomacy, and many 'human' merchants and guards were also elves. That could get scary in the event of a siege! --[[User:Navian|Navian]] 09:41, 20 November 2008 (EST)

:::Not five minutes ago I had a goblin ambush that was mostly made up of Elves. They all had goblin-esque second names, so presumably they were kidnap-ees, although it seems that you can have large families of elves/humans/whatever who are all descended from kidnapped children and now happily evil.--[[User:Quil|Quil]] 14:32, 20 November 2008 (EST)

== Elevation changes and inaccessibility ==

I have my doubts about this being true. I'm on a huge mountain map and the wagons have traveled over its peak without a care, since they can go up ramps without a problem. I believe trees and boulders are what causes problems, not elevation.--[[User:Maximus|Maximus]] 17:25, 10 December 2008 (EST)

:Hmm, ok. I've just cured some accessibility problems on a fairly mountainous map myself, and it seems the problems were right outside my fortress. There's an elevation change only 3-4 squares below (i.e. to the south of) my entrance ramp, and when I used the "upward ramp" designation on the area, my Dwarves dug away at the 3x5 area I'd marked, and -hey presto- the next caravan could suddenly get the big wagons into my trade depot (the smaller ones could get there fine anyway). I admit I was felling trees in the area as well, for timber, but I'd been doing this for the past two game years and it didn't seem to make any difference to accessibility. Ah well, maybe some more testing is required! [[User:Saiph|Saiph]] 21:01, 10 December 2008 (EST)

== "Invaluable" vs. "Unnecessary" ==

Okay, rather than a revert war, could we have opinions on which form of the sentence (if either) is a problem?

I for one certainly did not misunderstand the original form as trying to say that magma was worthless, and I would be likely to interpret the current form as trying to say that magma is unnecessary.

If enough other people do/did see the original form as being misleading (i.e. were misled by it), then I will withdraw my objections, but I do very much think that the original form is both the more correct and the less subject to misinterpretation. It would be possible to rephrase further to avoid the "misinterpretable" part (e.g. change "it" to either "that" or "doing so"), but I think the end result would not be as good as the original form before this change was made. --[[User:The Wanderer|The Wanderer]] 16:03, 17 January 2009 (EST)

:"invaluable" according to [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/invaluable Merriam-Webster]: "valuable beyond estimation, priceless <providing invaluable assistance>"<br>I say you're wrong. --[[User:GreyMario|GreyMaria]] 16:15, 17 January 2009 (EST)

::Yes, I know it means that. That's exactly my point; magma is invaluable, not unnecessary.
::The original form said that magma is invaluable, meaning "valuable beyond estimation" exactly as you say. The current form says that magma is unnecessary. The people who edited it into the current form apparently didn't mean it to say that, but that's what it says; the antecedent for the "it" in that part of the sentence is the magma, not the burning of charcoal.
::I could go into considerably more detail if you want, analyzing possible alternate forms of the sentence and alternate interpretations of those forms, but I hope it wouldn't be necessary... --[[User:The Wanderer|The Wanderer]] 17:01, 17 January 2009 (EST)

:::My interpretation was that the convenience of magma made wood-burning for charcoal unnecessary. Unnecessary is being applied to the main subject of the sentence (charcoal). Talking about wood-burning under magma though is a bit confusing. "Magma is invaluable for fueling your smithies, making it unnecessary to burn wood for charcoal fuel." A bit wordier but a bit clearer? And this way we get to use both "invaluable" AND "unnecessary"! --[[User:Torasin|Torasin]] 17:28, 17 January 2009 (EST)

::::That would work in theory, but it's not necessarily the best way of phrasing it in that context. Still, I don't think I'd object to it; I still don't think there was anything wrong with the original form (my primary evidence for that, aside from grammar, being the fact that I was not even slightly confused by it), but the form you suggest would be better than the IMO misleading current form. --[[User:The Wanderer|The Wanderer]] 18:36, 17 January 2009 (EST)

:::Yeah, the antecedent for "it" is "the burning of charcoal". Fuck you too, English Language. --[[User:GreyMario|GreyMaria]] 19:34, 17 January 2009 (EST)

::::At least in English you can figure it out, as opposed to, say, Latin, where you can order the words any damn way you please and its supposed to mean the same thing. (Fucking Roman poets) --[[User:Squirrelloid|Squirrelloid]] 19:42, 17 January 2009 (EST)

:::I can see how it could be reasonably read that way, but as I've said (or tried to say) at least once, I find the current form to be considerably more open to the opposite interpretation than the previous one was. Some third form would probably be better than either, at least potentially, but I'd rather not leave it as it stands... --[[User:The Wanderer|The Wanderer]] 20:32, 17 January 2009 (EST)

::::As a more productive contribution, the current version reads just fine. I don't understand how there can be any confusion whatsoever. There is nothing unusual about that sentence structure, and I can't imagine the average 5th grader would have much problem with it, much less adults savvy enough to play a game whose graphics are rendered mostly in text with a byzantine user interface. In short, there is no 'other way' to read the sentence. Grey Mario has it right - there is exactly one way to interpret that. --[[User:Squirrelloid|Squirrelloid]] 23:00, 17 January 2009 (EST)

:::::The thing is, I would have said exactly the same thing about the original form, and I do see the current form as being at least as easily misinterpreted as the original form.
:::::I suppose I am, at least partly, arguing from a position of "there was nothing wrong with the original so it shouldn't have been changed so we should change it back", which isn't a very defensible position if there's nothing wrong with the current form either. I *do* think that there's more wrong with the current form than was wrong with the original, but I don't have very much to back that up besides the simple fact that I was not tripped up even slightly by the original form whereas I did find the current form to read strangely when it was first changed.
:::::I quite literally had difficulty figuring out what the commit message was talking about; the only conclusion I could arrive at was that the person who made the edit (you, if I'm not mistaken) had misunderstood the sentence.
:::::If the commit message had said e.g. something about a grammatical fix, and had made the exact same edit, I probably wouldn't have said anything. However, since the commit message seemed to be based on the assumption that the original writer had misunderstood the meaning of "invaluable", it seemed obvious to me that the edit had been based on an incorrect premise and therefore was itself incorrect; I therefore reverted it with what seemed to me at the time to be an explanation of (or at least pointer to) the fact that the original form had not involved a misusage of "invaluable" but had simply been using it in a different correct manner. At this point I don't necessarily object so much to the current form (though, as I've said repeatedly, I do think the original was better) as to the notion that the original form was that kind of bad.
:::::--[[User:The Wanderer|The Wanderer]] 15:52, 18 January 2009 (EST)

::::::The original was wrong. It said burning charcoal was invaluable. Needless to say, as most people assume basic grammar, then the original editor of course thought that the original writer had misunderstood invaluable. The grammar wasn't wrong, the word was. Thus the editor correctly reported it as fixing word usage. --[[User:Squirrelloid|Squirrelloid]] 19:12, 18 January 2009 (EST)

::Since there is so much dissent over which word the "it" binds to in the sentence, surely we can agree that either form is going to mislead some people and do away with both. [[User:VengefulDonut|VengefulDonut]] 08:37, 19 January 2009 (EST)

:::Except 'it' isn't actually confusing - the grammar is simple and obvious. The Wanderer seems to have a problem understanding basic grammar despite english apparently being his native tongue (which I gather from a lack of strange phrasing characteristic of other languages in his prose - not that other Western European languages would disagree with english on this point, can't speak for other languages). I don't think it needs to be changed for this reason. Now, having 'burning charcoal' as the subject of a sentence in a paragraph about Magma may be a little strange, so there may be other reasons to want to change the sentence, but acquiescing to people's requests to avoid grammatical sentences because proper grammar confuses to them is a bad idea - that way lies madness. Anyone who is misled by proper grammar should blame no one but himself. --[[User:Squirrelloid|Squirrelloid]] 10:56, 19 January 2009 (EST)

::::Obvious... to you? Yeah. To me? Sure. To everyone? Not so much. We can't afford to be aloof in word usage when the target audience is so broad. While it is strictly correct and clear to those of us closely familiar with english, others who read this wiki might be taken for a spin. We want to prevent that. [[User:VengefulDonut|VengefulDonut]] 22:23, 19 January 2009 (EST)

:::: Madness is a prerequisite to play this game, and edit this wiki, so, I guess it's not so bad! Yet, as a french canadian I think the initial wording was not misleading. But to prevent an edit war, we should rules that out in a pit, with sharp metal objet. :) --[[User:Karl|Karl]] 12:16, 19 January 2009 (EST)

Reworded what seemed to be the offending phrase to something somewhat wordier but about a billion times clearer, in my opinion. If you really think this tiny part of the wiki is quite so important, do feel free to replace it and keep arguing about what seems to be a rather minor point.--[[User:Quil|Quil]] 23:45, 19 January 2009 (EST)

== What is the RED LINE (and other questions) ==

I'm using 40d and have been seeing something show up that I can't find an explanation for anywhere.
That is, when viewing the accessable civilizations on the embark screen, often a red dashed line (-----) shows up next to a civilization (so far just Goblins). What does this mean? Furthermore, the ordering of listed civilizations seems to change by location does this imply their proximity to the site currently being viewed?
I hope that these questions are in the right section. It seems that "embark screen" is synonomous with "location" in terms of this wiki.
Thanks.
--[[User:Jpwrunyan|Jpwrunyan]] 18:57, 28 January 2009 (EST)

:The red dashed line indicated that that civ is at war with you, and will generally be nasty to you, unless I'm mistaken. The ordering of listed civs indicated their proximity, although the one at the top will be your civ since YOU are that civ, so you're closest to yourself.--[[User:Quil|Quil]] 16:48, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::That's what I thought... but I could have sworn I saw the WAR tag once and got cofnused.--[[User:Jpwrunyan|Jpwrunyan]] 23:37, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::I think the dashed line indicates frequent ambushes from that civilization, or other hostilities that will preclude later-game sieges. WAR, I think, implies an area where said enemy is already at war with a nearby dwarf settlement and will also raise the level of threat on your fort. I've settled in areas where the goblins normal and the elves were dashed line - the goblins traded and the elves attacked. --[[User:FJH|FJH]] 11:23 2 March 2009 (EST)

== Inaccessible places ==

On my Pocket world (I use an EEE,) the only cold biomes I've found are deep in the mountains, where I'm not even allowed to embark. Am I forbidden to go there because it's in the mountains, and if so, could I set up fortresses as far into the mountains as possible and pave the way to the colder areas?{{user:yrael/sig|I can't help it, my computer just sux...|DATE=[[User:Yrael|Yrael]] 12:11, 9 February 2009 (EST)}}

:Isn't that weird? I understand not being able to embark to, for example, the middle of the ocean, but why not mountains? No trees? Bring logs. You could expand the size of your embark site either horizontally or vertically so that it touches at least one non-mountain space but if your framerate is an issue, I guess I can see why that might not be a solution for you.--[[User:Jpwrunyan|Jpwrunyan]] 23:41, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:As a stop-gap solution, there's a utility called EmbarkAnywhere that will let you embark in/on mountain-only tiles without any problems. As for world gen temperature distro, it sounds like there's a couple settings that are out of whack. At worst case, you can always manually paint a few horizontally gradient temperature strips in the preset field editor in the detailed World Params. --[[User:N9103|Edward]] 02:43, 10 February 2009 (EST)

== Deprecated Utility ==
Regional Prospector has been replaced by editing the init file to [SHOW_EMBARK_<feature>:ALWAYS] should the comment about it on the page be removed?--[[User:UseBees|UseBees]]

User talk:Warmist

2009-09-26T00:14:25Z

UseBees:

Is it possible to have the source please? Just rather curious and have an idea of implementing something similiar in another program for reading stuff from DF. I really would like to know how memory hacking with DF is done, especially the graphics interface, I have been forever stuck on getting a good working example though. Especially as I am a self-taught C++ programmer I feel rather clueless. I really don't mind messy code and I'm not forcing you, but it'd be absolutely invaluable to me. [[User:Nexii Malthus|Nexii Malthus]] 00:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
:actually that part of code is quite clean... So I could give you source.[[User:Warmist|Warmist]] 13:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
::Yeah, I am still interested btw. --[[User:Nexii Malthus|Nexii Malthus]] 06:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
:::Oh and latest version is crashing after it says "Found!", so I could help run a debugger to track it down as well as any other bugs that may pop up. --[[User:Nexii Malthus|Nexii Malthus]] 07:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Warmist

2009-09-26T00:11:31Z

UseBees:

40d:Marble

2009-09-25T22:35:23Z

UseBees: grammar; fixed unnecesary repetition

{{Stone_layer|name=Marble|tile=▓|color=#FFF|basic_color=#FFF
|uses=
* [[Flux]]
|properties=
* [[Economic stone]]
* [[Metamorphic layer]]
* [[Material value]] 2
|contains=
* [[Malachite]]
{{list|metamorphic ore}}
* [[Graphite]]
* [[Calcite]]
{{list|metamorphic stone}}
{{list|metamorphic gem}}
}}

'''Marble''' is one of the types of [[stone]] that forms entire [[stone#Stones forming entire layers |layer]]s.

Marble is the only [[metamorphic layer|metamorphic rock]] that also can be used as a [[flux]] [[stone]]. Like most of the other [[flux]] stones, It has a [[Material value]] of 2, this combined with its abundance, makes it valuable as a furniture craft material.

If you intend to use it in this manner, remember to turn it on in the [[economic stone]] menu.

{{Rocks}}
[[Category:Stone]]
[[Category:Economic Stone]]
[[Category:Metamorphic Stone Layers]]

40d Talk:Starting location

2009-09-25T22:05:57Z

UseBees: