How prevalent is FPS death in this game...

How prevalent is FPS death in this game? I don't want to spend countless hours learning everything only to find out it gets unplayable after a while.

Attached: dorf.png (1679x977, 82K)

Set the population cap to 50. Small comfy forts are better anyway.

Just keep your dwarf-count around 200 and you'll be fine.

Play it on my shit i5 and Itzel hd laptop and never ran into a real issue

LMAO 2CAT!!!

>played autism sandboxes for thousands of hours
>most of the times past wathever content they could offer realistically
>still can't get past the ascii
It's not fair bros, why was I born a brainlet?

Attached: 1476796601175.png (1587x1600, 1.13M)

Just get a texture pack retard, if 5 minutes of effort is keeping you from playing one of the best games of the century then you're a dummy

Just use the noob launcher and a tileset.

ascii is a meme just get a tileset.

It's inevitable for any successful fort, unless you try some of the intervention mentioned ITT.

Attached: 1342165421642514.jpg (600x428, 27K)

I've heard 200 dwarf limit 10 years ago, surely modern CPUs would allow more by now?

The game can only use a set number of cores, so it's literally never going to get better unless toady rewrites all of the code.

If you're dwarfy in the least, your dwarves will kill one another before the fps does.

>play comfy fort
>suddenly fps plummets below 10 shortly after breaching the caverns
>nothing i do fixes it
>do reveal, check cavern pops etc...
>everything is normal
>see unmoving cat in front of a forbidden door
>unforbid the door
>cat immedietly rushes trough and fps goes up to 100

200 dwarves is just a good general guideline, not some precise metric that's revisited every year after a battery of benchmarking has been done on a variety of hardware.

Modern CPUs have moved towards multiple cores that can work together well. But DF doesn't make good use of multi-threading, so that progress doesn't make much difference.

And as said, eventually slowdowns become inevitable (regardless of your system), as the number of things to track and handle become more and more of a burden. That's part of why Losing is Fun, because long term success eventually becomes stagnant and boring and slow.

Personally, I'd limit yourself to 100 early on; you can always increase the limit later on if you feel that you really need more dwarves.

How long do you think the big wait will last?

Attached: Dwarf Fortress.gif (682x711, 203K)

Can you not tell what's going on in this tavern?

Attached: The Lanturn of Manors.png (797x598, 44K)

If you use DFHack theres tools to automatically remove excess irrelevant shit like the dust on dwarves eyelashes or whatever
Also you can create a trash dumping zone under a raised bridge and then lower it to instantly remove all the trash from existence

1. fuck off cazzie, get a custom tileset
2. fuck you cazzie, the ASCII graphics add charm

What tileset is that? Square ASCII?

part of it is attributed to how bad you layout your fort too. if you create lots of endless loops it uses up more cpu time for pathing. kind of sucks but if you are playing from an optimization standpoint with a cap of like 250 you start to pay more attention to how pathing will handle your designs.

That looks like a holding pit for nobles. Where's the lava switch?

it's actually a tavern m8