Biome/Temperature oddities

Started by Lumpy, November 10, 2017, 09:25:14 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Lumpy

I've come to notice that when customizing the global temperature of a newly generated world, especially when making it colder than the default value, there are many temperate forest or boreal forest regions that have a growing period of 'never'. Consequently, vegetation doesn't ever grow on those maps. Is this WAD? How did those areas become forested in the first place? Shouldn't regions that are subject to permafrost be just tundra?

I like to play on SciFi-tropey one-biome-planets now and then, and it is kind of off putting that the temperature customization doesn't seem to work very well with the current biome system. Can this be considered a work in progress? Cheers in advance.

grrizo

I'm not sure that I'm following you. Those biomes have no vegetation? Or they have?
If they have while the growing period is "never", it means that you'll never be able to plant potatoes and smokeweed, for example. Not neccesarily trees and bushes.
Lavish meal, now with extra Yorkshire terrier meat.

Lumpy

#2
Quote from: grrizo on November 10, 2017, 12:07:00 PM
If they have while the growing period is "never", it means that you'll never be able to plant potatoes and smokeweed, for example. Not neccesarily trees and bushes.

Actually, it does mean that plant life of any kind will never grow. Currently, when a cold world is generated, there are 'temperate forest' and 'boreal forest' tiles with a growing period of "never", and if you check random trees and bushes on said maps, it explicitly says that they are not growing due to too low temperature, even during the warmest temperatures that can be reached on a given map. This effectively means that vegetation on those maps will never regrow, which brings up the question why the existing vegetation is there in the first place.

My point is that the current biome logic seems to assign biomes that are not compatible with the actual temperatures on a given tile. If nothing, including trees and bushes, can ever grow on a map, it should be a tundra, instead of a forest.

Canute

Basicly your point is right.
Any forest with no growing period can't be a forest. It is just a glitch that this kind of biome don't get classified into something other.
The the problem of random generated worlds.

But it could still be a random growing periode there, like heat wave/cold snaps during the hot/cold parts to made growing possible.

Snafu_RW

Quote from: Canute on November 10, 2017, 03:53:38 PM
Basicly your point is right.
[..]
But it could still be a random growing periode there, like heat wave/cold snaps during the hot/cold parts to made growing possible.
Certain cacti in N America (at least) spring to mind.. as do locusts (ok, not plants but a similar system)
Dom 8-)

Klitri

What Lumpy said was probably exactly right! I can see how the map generator just wouldn't consider removing the vegetation because Tynan maybe didn't code it to do it yet in the first place; You could sum it all up and just say that it's a bug or a lack of a feature.

Razzoriel

Plant growth needs to be curved, not algorithimic. As in, very low temperatures wont completely halt plant growth, but reduce it to a minimal level.