40d Talk:Bedroom design

Editors & Contributors - Please include diagrams and/or clear and well-sized images or screenshots if appropriate. For diagrams, use standard Dwarf Fortress symbols for your diagrams - an x is an up/down stairwell, a ╬ is a fortification, a ▲ is an up-ramp/slope, a B is a bed, etc. etc. For screenshots, use the standard tileset, not a custom one that few may recognize.

Also, please don't personalize a submission by adding a name to it - it discourages the collaborative effort that is a wiki. If your suggestion is lengthy and complex, consider placing it on your User: page with simpler explanation and a link here.

Lastly, if you can keep similar or alternate suggestions grouped within like subsections/topics/categories, that would be a good thing. Future wiki users and DF players thank you.

Designs vs max population

Isn't 200 the absolute maximum number of dwarves one can have at any time?

If so, the High density single floor housing plan of 77x77 is... rather useless, isn't it?

MagicGuigz 16:51, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

The max number of dwarves can be changed in the init files. So no. --GreyMaria 16:55, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

Even if you had only 200 dwarves, linking 2, 3, or even 4 rooms together to make noble housing, offices, and the like is quite useful. --ThunderClaw 10:14, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

I've always found it more space efficient to throw all my nobles into about a 10x10 room filled with 20x value gem encrusted furniture (granted, I *did* have a legendary gem setter making this easier the last time I did it) and just plop down all their necessities. I currently have a countess/count consort, hammerer, tax collecter, and duchess/duke consort all in one room with all their buildings set as royal. They also have a legendary mechanism hooked up to some gem encrusted spikes. Heh. Heh heh heh. Milskidasith 04:19, 10 November 2008 (EST)

cpu use vs fractal desings

I have heard that fractal based designs (like the High density single floor housing) can cause the game to slow down is this true? --Rwindmtg 06:02, 10 November 2008 (EST)

the designs have to be set up by hand - they are just passages that dwarves / creatures path through - so there shouldn't be any reason for the game to slow down other than complex pathing or huge populations.Garrie 09:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Bitmap designs

Coudl we get some kind of colour key for these? Or standardise them or something if there isn't one? It can be very confusing to tell what is what in them. - Alloy 01:37, 23 November 2008 (EST)

Seconded... GnomeChomsky's Tessellated Apartments in particular are munged, looks like an earthquake broke them along several faultlines... --Azaram 00:11, 4 December 2008 (EST)

GnomeChomsky's looks fine - only the beds look weird. Its virtually everything after that which isn't in the standard tile set and needs to be changed. --Squirrelloid 04:08, 4 December 2008 (EST)

I don't see why any of them are hard to understand. Access corridors, walls, doors, sometimes furniture. How hard is it to figure out that the small enclosed areas are the bedrooms, and that a door goes at the entrance to each?--Maximus 17:32, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Its not about hard to understand, its about our style guidelines. All graphics are supposed to be in the standard tileset. --Squirrelloid 18:50, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Most of these diagrams are are large-scale designs that can't be shown via a screenshot, so insisting on "standard tilesets" doesn't even make sense. We could change them to use a consistent set of colors, however. Gnome Chomsky's diagrams use template:qd, which is one of our accepted standards for small diagrams.--Maximus 22:03, 4 December 2008 (EST)

Azaram, what browser are you using and what fonts do you have installed? Can you post a screenshot of what the diagram looks like? Random832 09:23, 5 December 2008 (EST)

Weapon/Armour Racks

You don't need a weapon rack/armor rack to designate a barracks. You can do that with the bed. So why build the racks? Kwieland

Soldiers banging around against beds and other furniture is the number one cause of wounds and deaths during sparring. Designating a barrack from an armor stand will provide an open dojo without clutter. --ThunderClaw 14:05, 6 January 2009 (EST)

(added header) Actually, I believe consensus is that beds cause no injuries when collided with, and that the only real difference (until weapon and armour racks become functional, at least) is that you won't get random homeless dwarves trying to sleep in a barracks that have no beds (unless you have a severe shortage of beds), so you can have barracks in military areas without the risk of civilians sleeping in potentially dangerous places.--Quil 16:37, 6 January 2009 (EST)

I'm not sure what to tell you aside from the fact that I routinely had dwarves die of suffocation (broken necks) before I moved my beds out of my barracks. And these were armored legendary (or close to it) wrestlers, to boot. I've never seen civilians get hurt by being in the middle of a sparring match, but I have definitely seen dwarf after dwarf after dwarf turn up dead on top of a barrack bed with the excuse 'suffocation'. Moving the beds out reduced accidents by 100%. I have not had a dwarf get hurt or die in 5 years, where I would otherwise see one to four a year. --ThunderClaw 16:50, 6 January 2009 (EST)

I see, thanks for the heads up. I wondered about the suffocation as well. Another question - do dwarfs train faster as a guard or as an off-duty military dwarf? Does it make a difference? It seems if I have several (say 6) off duty, only two will spar in the barracks, but 6 guards will all spar at the same time. Do I need to designate more barracks? Does it mack a difference if I have two weapon racks in the same room and designate both as barracks?--Kwieland 01:47, 8 January 2009 (EST)

Fortress/Royal Guards are well known for sparring enthusiastically. The dwarves in the regular military don't have a clear determiner, so it's probably either their stats or their personality. I unfortuantely don't have a clearer answer for you. --ThunderClaw 11:10, 8 January 2009 (EST)

RE the bed/suffocation thing, I've had barracks with beds in them and barracks without beds in them, and I must confess I've not seen a statistically significant difference in the amount of injuries that people have suffered when sparring, even with unarmoured sparrers. Although I've only ever had one case of suffocation, long ago, so maybe there's a large element of random chance or some other variable involved.--Quil 17:35, 8 January 2009 (EST)

Entirely possible. For my mileage, though, I've had a bunch of broken necks and/or crushed lungs from idiots knocking eachother up against beds, so I avoid them in the barrack. --ThunderClaw 17:47, 8 January 2009 (EST)

RE op, because if you have no wood you cant make beds.--Mrdudeguy 19:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Sharing Spaces

Do dwarves get upset if bedrooms are used as hallways to one or two more bedrooms? --Spreggo 22:13, 30 January 2009 (EST)

I believe that opening and closing doors causes noise, which will wake a sleeping dwarf. But if you only have one door into the bedroom suite, that should be fine. Although then you risk locking some dwarves in with your mad dwarves. RomeoFalling 06:10, 31 January 2009 (EST)

I've done some testing and there doesn't seem to be any negative effects, which is useful because a lot of my diagonal room designs require this. I'll keep an eye on it and see what happens though --Spreggo 23:10, 2 February 2009 (EST)

Database error?wtf?

Whenever i try to access this article,i get the following error.

Database error
From Dwarf Fortress Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
A database query syntax error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software. The last attempted database query was:

    SELECT page_id,page_len,page_is_redirect FROM `wiki_dpage` WHERE page_namespace = '10' AND page_title = 'Qd/switch/╔' LIMIT 1 

from within function "LinkCache::addLinkObj". MySQL returned error "1267: Illegal mix of collations (latin1_bin,IMPLICIT) and (utf8_general_ci,COERCIBLE) for operation '=' (localhost)".

I can view it before. It can't be displayed,but i can still edit it,and the content of this article seems intact(no corruption etc). Every entry in history get the same error too.

Also,this article Design_strategies does not seem to work too,though it get a different error. What has happened to wiki?

Update: I see there is a entry about this problem on talkpage of mainpage already.

This page is broken

This page makes heavy use of the ParserFunctions extension and it's simply not rendering if I activate that extension. I'm not familiar with the syntax used for all that but my guess is that it's way too big. I suggest the people who originally made it try to split in either different blocks of code or on different pages. I might be making some tests to see if it can be fixed but I might break stuff. --Senso 15:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Efficiency

Is it efficient to make a hotel-like layout
i.e.

b b b b b b b b b
d d d d d d d d d
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
d d d d d d d d d
b b b b b b b b b

x=walking space
d=door
b=bed

I know it doesn't create much happiness but is it space efficient for how many space it uses... Sausage 1:10 AM, 30 March 2009 (EST)

No, because since there are no walls between them the doors are quite pointless to have EVERY space, and it will probably create way more unhappiness than you think, it's not smart in the long run, you're better off putting one wall between every bedroom.

I believe the spaces in his diagram represent walls. Maybe not the best choice of symbol, but still, it makes more sense than without walls.Wlerin 18:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The maximally-efficient bedroom shape in terms of size per happiness per dwarf is 3x1, I think, because that lets you fit in a bed, coffer and cabinet. It also has the added bonus of being able to be jammed in absolutely anywhere - I've not found a need to get any smaller, simply because 3x1 is already tiny. If you wanted to make super low-rent housing you might look at this (with walls between of course) but it'd probably be easier in that case to have a bunch of 1x1 "bedrooms" in a big open cavern. 3x1 has been the best so far - my favourite of the designs on this page is the "High density single floor housing" design - 61x61 to house a full fortress, not bad. FangXianfu 02:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Personalisation?

I submitted my own 'personal' design I use in forts.

Everyone else has got ownership to their designs too, why remove owner attribution rights to their design that they contributed?

Example: THLawrence's Living Pods, GnomeChomsky's Tessellated Apartments, Vaniver's Greek Cross design, Raynard's Fractal modified for 3d

Seems unfair I am singled out from the rest of the entries that have existed longer with personalisation, you have to remember that designs are art and have been crafted by the individual with careful thought, why forcefully and permamently remove the artists' signature? I'd understand it maybe with some of the extremely common designs (the very first and second) or using a generic fractal shape.

I feel my design was something I had never encounted anywhere else yet and I had put very careful consideration into the concepts behind it to making an interesting concept which allows traffic to flow continously directly between it instead of having to be redirected in other ways. --Nexii Malthus 21:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi - First, as a fellow DF player, welcome, and nice design!

"Everyone else" does not, in fact, get, or even expect, credit. All those you list were edited 6 minutes after after yours - some old hiccups are not noticed until something new is added that emphasizes the problem. And the problem is minor, but exists on multiple levels.

This is not a free forum, nor a blog nor a bulletin board, but a wiki - and wikis tend to want anonymity in articles. In part, that's because they are not about personal achievement - which is what the last paragraph of your post seems to want. You have to remember that a wiki is not about the contributors, but the contribution itself - without your name attached, it's still just as valuable, neh? Nor can you be sure that you, indeed, "invented" it - you were simply the first to post it here.

But more, anything with a personal label is a dis-incentive to be later edited - and that's what a wiki is all about. Like it or not, anything you or I contribute could, and probably will, be edited sometime later. (One can only hope it will either be helpful, or get caught and a separate entry made!) And it's precisely because of that that personal names should not be on the articles, or a sub-section of them - you are submitting it to the community, for the community - not for yourself, not in any sense.

This is not my policy, but one discussed and established long before my arrival. (Orig comments here, among others: Talk:Fortress_defense#Use_of_User_Names_in_Defense_Designs). So, again, great design, thanks for sharing, keep up the contributions - because that's everything that a wiki is about.--Albedo 23:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, well the original point for the personalisation is that I have a certain vision of this design, what I wrote is rather incomplete, a wiki fills up in little steps. So the way I understand it is that if anyone wishes to modify the design it should end up as a different entry instead of fighting against me, and it'd end up being silly having 30 sandwitches of all the same name, namely Sandwitch. Sandwitching layers like this is rather obvious, but I have a certain design vision with pros and cos. If someone just came over and rewrote a paragraph, that wouldn't be collaboration, that'd be smearing valuable contributions for someone else to force their own vision. It is just that Dwarf Fortress is an extremely unique game allowing absolute freedom that no fortress will be exactly same, it even becomes an art, due to the large part of aesthetics that designs play to combine function and fun. Just because I am submitting for the community doesn't mean someone could overwrite large portions of art to accomodate their own vision.

Well, there is no pretty situation anyhwere, wikipedia doesn't suit itself to such galleria I suppose so I have to agree.

I guess what we should aim to do is provide abstractions of the concepts. Writing down to the modular designs and explain with keywords what variations are possible? Anyone else have any idea of what to do? I think this page might become unnecessarily cumbersome if we don't modify the page to be more modular. Hope you can make any sense of my random ramblings. To simplify or to complexify. --Nexii Malthus 04:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Larger rooms?

It's funny to see this page, because I did things completely differently. I was having the dorfs dig around in soft sand and making 5x5 bedrooms (was 8x8 originally, but I toned it down after finding out what happens when the economy kicks in...). The idea was to get legendary diggers fast without wasting time on adornments, then send them out to find the goodies. It all went so well, until while they were bashing out that 32x32 royal bedroom on the bottom level they found the spot with the adamantium... Dorf and Dumb 06:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Mac Compatibility

Just as a data point, the recent edit to the diagrams does not produce something legible for me on my Mac. Firefox Safari. Cheepicus 23:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The diagram in those images was not (until very recently) one of the recently edited ones. What does it look like now? VengefulDonut 00:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

They look fine to me. But I had to fix my default fixed-width font in Firefox - it was set to Courier and I changed it to Menlo. I'm on Snow Leopard. --Bombcar 05:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)