From the Pressure Plate page: "(See the individual device pages for complete details of how open and close signals affect each device.)"
- Most of the information seems to be on Lever#On.2FOff_states. I am uncertain if there are any differences or the best way to solve the above inconsistency. -AnnanFay (talk) 01:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
It would be interesting to add something about value calculation of bridges. Does someone know what multipliers are used? In my case for example, my finely-designed and finely-built bridge had 25 displayed added (5*stone blocks) and 125 architecture. Is that simply x5 for the design then? I personally don't know, otherwise I'd add it myself.--Afghani84 (talk) 07:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
> While bridges do not provide structural support, the game will still allow you to place unsupported > constructions adjacent to them which will result in an immediate cave-in once completed, often tossing > the unlucky mason off the edge, to a horrible death any bystanders' great entertainment. However, extending > a supported construction alongside a bridge will not cause a cave-in.
You definitely cannot safely extend an otherwise supported C-menu construction alongside a bridge safely in version 0.47.04. You must still build it in sections, extending out from already built parts, same as you always had to, to avoid unsupported portions adjacent to the bridge being built before the parts that support them.
I've been playing Dwarf Fortress on and off since the days when you needed to make sure you didn't excavate too large an underground area to avoid it caving it, so I am well versed in avoiding cave-ins. I have just started playing 0.47.04. I had this exact situation come up. I figured there was no reason for me to be micromanaging things I no longer needed to micromanage if the game had advanced, which it has in so many ways.
Here is what I had:
> ╚══════╝ > +++++xxx > +...+xxx > +...+xxx > +...+xxx > +++++xxx
The south end of the bridge is to the north of a constructed floor, actually the top of a wall around a windmill. The squares marked x are where I wanted to build a 3x5 constructed floor, which would have been perfectly safe to designate all at once if the bridge were not there (except I would have needed to build a ramp by the wall for dwarf access). In older versions with the bridge there I would have had to carefully designate and build the five sections to the west, then designate the middle five once those were finished, and finally the last five. That was how I was going to do it, but then I remembered reading something about how it was now safe to extend otherwise supported constructions alongside a bridge. So I reread this page, then confidently designated the entire floor.
I figured the worst that would happen is that I would learn the wiki was wrong. Which is exactly what happened.
I have generally found this wiki to be reliable. Could someone versed in editing here please fix this, amending the cited section so it says whatever it was supposed to say--I'm not even sure what the intent of the last sentence of my quoted passage is if not sabotage, though I trust someone wrote it with a valid reason--but without conveying misinformation?
220.127.116.11 16:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- The article wording dates back to the v0.34 version of the article, and hasn't changed much since then. I think these two statements are saying the same thing (or are intended to):
- From the article: "extending a supported construction alongside a bridge will not cause a cave-in"
- From you: "You must still build it in sections, extending out from already built parts"
- I'm guessing what happened is that your dwarves tried to build sections of the floor that were accessible from the bridge, but were not yet connected to a supported construction, thus causing a cave-in. If this is what happened, the issue was that you were connecting the floors next to the bridge to an uncompleted construction, not a supported construction (which must be completed by definition). At any rate, the statement in the article is not "sabotage" or "misinformation". It could be clarified that constructions actually need to be built to provide support, so I'll try to add some wording to emphasize this. —Lethosor (talk) 20:29, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you. The previous wording made it seem that a designation that was safe in the absence of the bridge would also be safe in its presence, which isn't true. Your wording is clear. I've signed up, as you can see, and have contributed some new text and corrected clear errors, but I am still reluctant to change things where I am uncertain of what was meant without a much better feel for the community. Automeris (talk) 09:57, 8 November 2020 (UTC)