quercus_munitor

Or just make the day scale with your z-coordinate.. Now that would make living at z=+-20k a real challenge!

Do we have any idea wether this would cause any sort of performance issues if implemented? I mean, calculating paths for every single hostile creature over multiple chunks sound like a rather cpu-heavy task.

Is that a slide rule in the last pic?

Troutskij chowder?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bog_iron In short. Yes.

I'm not sure I get this. Do you mean to say 4k length and 2k breadth? And I'm not sure I get the 2k being a radius either. If that was the case, the total area would be closer to 12k if I'm not mistaken. Either way, if islands are indeed generated in 'chains' I personally wouldn't mind smaller sized islands compared to the current worldgen. As you correctly point out there is somewhat a lack of breadth except for metallurgy and agriculture to a point. However, as I've understood, the current tfc is quite problematic in regards to implementing new features, hence the total rewrite. Furthermore, if the mod is being built up from scratch why not make an effort to get rid of the current world gen? To me it does not currently feel believable. The world consistently consists of 3 rock layers with ore being concentrated in the border zones between these layers. Essentially making depth and not knowledge about rock types and their ability to generate specific ores the primary factor for success in mining. Basically the way things currently are, mining in tfc1 still feels alot like mining in vanilla. Any effort made on the developers part to move away from vanilla and to a more complex, rich and believable gameplay is welcomed by yours sincerely. Tbh I'd have no problems sacrificing a black goat on an altar in the middle of a pentagram drawn with blood if that's what it takes to move this mod out of the dark ages that is vanilla.

Personally I don't see the point in ever owning a gun except for hunting. I'm not really sure I get the whole 'individual protection'-argument. I mean, if your personal safety is not guaranteed, isn't that then a problem of the federal government failing in providing you with this? Should it not exclusively be a job for the law enforcing body to grant individuals a feeling of protection?

Had this problem as well. Anyone else?

Catacombs of Paris is what we're looking at. From what I remember it's basically a cemetery in the sewers.. decorated with the remains of the dead. Interesting observation btw: We're looking at primarily femurs (thigh bones) and skulls if I'm not mistaken. The first question that should spring to everyones' mind is: Where's the rest of the bones?

Well, look at it this way: We know for a fact that there are 23 different rock types. We know for a fact that there are 3 seperate layers everywhere in the world[1]. This brings us at a total of 12k something combinations or 500 something if the first layer is known. The problem I have with the knowledge about the 49 change in terrain gen is that I'm not looking at 500 different combinations in regards to the upper rock layer. Hence what I'm suggesting is, that there still exists some sort of bias towards what rock types can generate untop of each other, possibly determined by the seed. Admittedly the few 100s of holes I made in my current game is probably not a conclusive set of data. But from what I've observed I've at best looked at 50 or so different layer combinations which is somewhat lower than it should theoretically be. In regards to the boundaries of a rock layer you're somewhat on the right track: A change in rock type does not neccesitate a change in the lower layers and vice versa. However; and this is a big however, there's from what I can tell still a very great tendency to this still being the case. These are all considerations I'm doing with the specific purpose of being alot better at surface prospecting: If I can determine with a very high probability that the layer I'm standing on does not carry gabbro below; or that there is a very low chance that it does I can react to this in a much more effective and targeted fashion. It could be that I'm shooting in the dark here, but I'm trying to come up with a much more sophisticated method of finding specific ores in contrast to what I consider to be rather crude methods i.e. mining in straight lines at 60. [1]This may not be the case in oceans, don't know that for sure

Just gonna quote myself here, because I can. I'm well aware of the spatial boundaries of rock layers not correlating with each other. The fact that they don't however is a rather trivial challenge to handle though. If a surface rock type doesn't change for kilometers it should be obvious that the chances for the deeper layers to not change as well is rather small.

Or you could have both options tbh. Historically arrowheads have definitely been forged on an anvil and with a hammer, but it'd surprise me quite a bit if there isn't evidence of metal arrowheads made from molds. The difference between the methods would be analogue to the difference in hardness between pig iron and wrought iron: An arrowhead made on an anvil would be much sharper, harder and durable in contrast to an arrowhead from a mold which would obviously be fast to produce but of poorer quality. Basically if you want a good, sharp cutting edge it's hammer time! Regardless of swords or arrowheads being the subject at hand..

Of course I tried that. The problem though is deciding on a layout of branches. Doing random branches whenever you feel like it serves no purpose to methodically search for a specific rock type hence reducing prospecting to pure chance. On the other hand, if you decide on a set distance there's the tradeoff to consider between getting 100% of rock type changes and time needed to basically break rocks in front of you. You could also decide to only branch off at rock changes in your main tunnel, but seeing as these changes in layers do not necessarily follow the cardinal directions you'd probably be better off just having a set system. The way I see it the efficiency of branching off a main tunnel drops significantly when you're prospecting thousands of square kilometers. Besides, if seeds are generated with sets of rock layer compositions and if deep gabbro in your seed is only found in a few of these you'd be wasting alot of time tunneling through areas which you could potentially have elimited as not-gabbro bearing by just knowing the two upper layers. This is partially the basic problem with blindly tunneling. Secondly there are just too many unknown factors on the path to succes when using that method: You've got absolutely no idea how far the current layer is, wether you're mining through it lengthwise (bad for efficiency) or what's ahead of you. Tbh the more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that surface prospecting has a lot shorter path to succes, luck aside.

Noticed something similar to this: If a cobblestone block is placed under a smooth stone block and allowed to fall down from where its placed, the block above the smooth stone will be replaced with a cobblestone block of the type you initally placed. Don't know if anyone else has noticed this before, and I'm too lazy too do a search for it..

I'm sorry if I'm coming out rude or anything, but this is just flat out wrong statement. Various types of chert and obsidian* have been used for at least the last 40-50k years or so in making toolheads with the specific purpose of cutting down trees. In relation to the discussion of stone breaking stone: This is in no way illogical. In fact with a sufficient difference in values on Mohs hardness scale between two rocks, the weaker one will break upon striking two rocks together. This however doesn't mean I'm in favour of a stone pickaxe being implemented. *probably also a range of other rock types, but these are the primary ones to my knowledge