v0.31 Talk:Glass industry

How much of this should be copied from the 40d article? The only real difference I can see is that now sand is a trade good and can be chosen on embark. Otherwise, it seems pretty much identical. That being said, I don't see why we should say "Consult the 40d article, except sand is easier to get" if the goal is to create a stand-alone DF2010 section. --Shadowfury333 23:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that flowchart doesn't work

On Firefox 3.7, IE 8.0 and IE 9.0PP4, that flowchart doesn't work. I'd take a snapshot of it in chrome, and replace it with an image, if we all agree on that. Plus, it's never a good idea to use tables for that kind of stuff, because it is something the MagmaWiki skin can break. So? --Dree12 18:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The flowchart is incorrect too. It shows: "Wood industry" -> "Ashery" -> "Pearlash". The correct chart would show of course: "Wood industry" -> "Wood burner" (-> "Ash") -> "Ashery" (-> "Potash") -> "Kiln" -> "Pearlash" --83.119.189.36 21:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah... There's generally no point in using a table for this, other than text sizing. The arrows are images too, which causes all sorts of link trouble. If there's more of a consensus, we should just make a new one. --Dree12 01:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Masterwork?

Are you joking? The article is hardly aesthetically pleasing , what with that broken flowchart. A flowchart which takes up half of the page space. Don't worry about changing the rating, though, I'll just upload my personal flowchart on the subject and replace it when I get home from work. It looks nice, and screwy tables won't break it. --Kydo 21:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, there, a clean, functional and accurate flowchart. It looks a little intimidating, probably because of just how much stuff it contains. Any suggestions on how to make it look friendlier without detracting from it's detail? --Kydo 07:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

How about color coding the background of boxes for workshops, products and jobs? Slightly larger boxes might be more pleasing to the eye. And most of the boxes and lines positions vary a lot (e.g. the three 'Glass Furnace' boxes have different y-positions), this creates a disquitingly picture. --Hermano 18:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I can see one mistake... it's "sand bag" + "rock crystal" = "crystal glass", not "pearlash" + "rock crystal" = "crystal glass". I think the color coding is a good idea. --DeMatt 18:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

To quote the article... "Producing crystal glass requires no sand, but does require pearlash and rough rock crystals, a gem which is not found on all maps. Cut rock crystals bought from traders will not work for producing crystal glass." ...and from the glass page... "Making raw crystal glass or crystal glass items is currently not functional. Despite rough rock crystals being available, the game will announce 'Needs glass-making rough gems" So, yeah, cryustal glass requires no sand, but it doesn't matter, because it's all bugged up anyways. Also, I agree to the suggestions to colour code things and increasing the box sizes. I shall do this now... Though exactly how the colour coding will work, I'm unsure, I guess I'll figure it out soon enough. --Kydo 05:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, there, updated to a new version. Straighter, bubblier and colourized. Though it is technically a rather large image and needs to be seriously shrunk down for the page. I made it in MSPaint, which shrinks things poorly, and I don't feel like messign around with a more complicated program for just a rescale. Any other ideas? Or is it good like that? --Kydo 06:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Aren't images a bad choice for charts? They constitute an impractical protocol if you ever need to change the chart and they will break page usability on "extreme" screen resolutions. --Nahno 12:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we should just cut the flowchart entirely, because they make the game feel like work and are so complicated that they don't look good to someone no matter what they look like. --JohnnyMadhouse (Not signed in)

The original flowchart, which was a really fancy table, broke basically every time this page got messed with, especially with the move to the new version. As a result, it made it more difficult to edit the page in general. It also increased the overall size of the page substantially. Using an image, like every other flowchart on the wiki, is a better solution, because anyone can open up paint and make a flowchart, and images can be moved around easier without breaking everything. Also, Dwarf Fortress IS work. It's fun work, but work none the less. The idea of the flowchart is to display the whole picture more clearly than words can explain. --Kydo 15:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)