v0.34 Talk:Bridge

According to the page,

Materials: When choosing materials, the order that they are presented on the list determines how the bridge will be labeled, NOT WHAT ORDER YOU PICK THE MATERIALS! The highest one up on the list is the core construction material. This will define the color of the bridge (and possibly how fire resistant it is, although this hasn't been tested extensively). Materials are placed on the list in order of distance, so simply make sure the primary material is the closest or at least closer than any secondary materials you wish to use.

…this isn't true in my experience. I was building a 3x6 bridge across a brook, with dolomite being both the nearest material and the first material listed. (I agree that the material list is sorted by distance.) However, the bridge, when I chose (1 dolomite, 4 granite) was always granite. It wasn't until dolomite became the majority material (i.e., 3 dolomite, 2 granite) that the bridge itself became dolomite.

Sure DF doesn't just choose the material that occurs the most as the bridge's material?

—Deathanatos 10:32, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Built a 4x3 bridge with 4 different logs. Designation order: maple, chestnut, cedar, oak. Order by distance (and list-order): the reverse, oak (24), cedar (25), chestnut (26), maple (27). Order in which materials were fetched: maple, cedar, chestnut, oak (since the distances were close together, I assume the architect grabbed the next closest-to-him material on the list, and the distances from his standpoint were slightly different than the distances during designation.). Resulting bridge material - cedar - which would pretty much only make sense if the selection is now random when no particular material dominates. (side note: no wood preferences on either the architect or carpenter. Dunno if that would affect things) Urist McDorf 02:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

It might be using the item with the lowest ID number - that is, the oldest item. --Quietust 12:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Strategies

Does this page need a Strategies section at all? I think it should simply cover bridge basics and fundamentals, like Lever, perhaps some general enhancement concepts like Pressure plate, etc, and leave more complex & specific constructions to the many pages devoted to them, like Trap design, Security design, etc. Move the complex designs to Trap Design, or maybe just replace them with an "Also see: Trap Design". (and for Armok's sake! Get rid! of all! the! exclamation! points! AND! ALL! CAPS!!) Urist McDorf 05:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that section under Strategies is not well written, and is far too specific to be on the top level page for Bridges. If nobody objects in the next few days, I'm going to delete it. To the contributor of that section, I suggest you copy your text out of the history of this page and submit it on the forums instead. --Nkosi 02:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think the complex heavy-beast-trapper design may be interesting enough to merit inclusion on the Trap Design page. But don't let me stop you from zapping it - if I decide I want to spend the time rewriting the design for TD, I can always snarf it out of the page history. Urist McDorf 04:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Alternatively, we could post it on Bridge/Strategies, for example. --Lethosor 20:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)