Stack Sizes - A reminder to Lum

[Remus]

Originally Posted by Lum This is on my to-do list for the near future.

Having just resubbed and started to relist all those bloody outfittings on the AH, please Please can all the outfitting stack sizes be increased to 100.

10 might be good enough for end users, but it a nightmare for producers of the things - as if outfittings weren't already painful enough to list on the AH!

Your post is dated 22nd July 2009 so we are quickly heading towards six months. Any clues as to how near the 'near future' actually is?

[Maibec]

/signed

First priority has to be getting outfitting into stacks of 100 instead of 10.

Then shipwright materials. Oak frame timbers, for example, should stack to 1000. As should mast sections, rigging, sailcloth, etc etc etc. Also cannons should stack to 1000.

This would make warehouse management much, much easier.

[Kerrilyn]

Originally Posted by Remus Having just resubbed and started to relist all those bloody outfittings on the AH, please Please can all the outfitting stack sizes be increased to 100. 10 might be good enough for end users, but it a nightmare for producers of the things - as if outfittings weren't already painful enough to list on the AH! Your post is dated 22nd July 2009 so we are quickly heading towards six months. Any clues as to how near the 'near future' actually is?

Mog I was going to suggest that too. I had to bring a super hauler down to JB to relist outfittings once because there were too many stacks to fit in my almost empty warehouse! ugh!!!~~ *throws a wispie*

/sign /sign /sign /sign /sign

(I'd actually prefer a stack size of a thousand to be honest)

Also it would be nice if other stack sizes could be looked at too. And if the devs are rilly feeling nice, the tonnage system should be overhauled to a scaled integer system so that 1 heavy round shot doesn't weigh a ton. (like weigh stuff in pounds or 1024ths of a ton or something, and just divide displayed weights by the same amount.. u_int64_t isn't that scary people~)

Edit: Funny extra thought, whenever I think of stack sizes, I think of Civilizations....

[Remus]

Originally Posted by Kerrilyn And if the devs are rilly feeling nice, the tonnage system should be overhauled to a scaled integer system so that 1 heavy round shot doesn't weigh a ton. (like weigh stuff in pounds or 1024ths of a ton or something, and just divide displayed weights by the same amount.. u_int64_t isn't that scary people~)

I like the idea of tons—hundredweight—quarters. Have you got a nice little bit of code for that?

It still wouldn't allow for single cannonballs, but pounds are really too small a quantity for shipping weights. Besides which, we probably disagree over how many pounds there are in an hundredweight or ton, but there is no disagreement that there are twenty hundredweight in a ton and 4 quarters in an hundredweight.

[Kerrilyn]

Originally Posted by Remus I like the idea of tons—hundredweight—quarters. Have you got a nice little bit of code for that?

Um it's quite simple rilly. It depends on what flavor you want. And what language.

Here's an example of 1024th system, in some very fast C code:

(Keeping in mind that a left shift of 10 is equal to multiplying an integer by 1024, and a right shift of 10 is equal to dividing it by 1024)

(may require the math lib depending on the platform)

#include <stdio.h>

#define TO_TONS(x) ((x)<<10)  // convert raw 1/1024ths of tons into tons (/1024)
#define TO_RAW(x) ((x)>>10) // to convert tons to raw 1/1024th of a ton (*1024)

#define TONS_PART(x) ((x)>>10) // (same as 'to_raw') extract the integer tons part of a raw weight
#define FRAC_PART(x) ((x) & 0x3FF) // extract the fractional part from a raw weight

int main (void)
{

        int Weight;

        Weight = TO_TONS(23) + 512;   // 23.5 tons

        printf("You are carrying %i tons and %i 1024ths of a ton\n", Weight >> 10,  Weight &0x3FF);

        // alternatively:
        printf("You are carrying %.1f tons\n",Weight/1024.0); // in floating point, way slower though


        // add a ton of weight:

        Weight += TO_TONS(1); // note that actual code wouldn't likely ever add a constant like that
        return(0);
}

That code is fast but can only work with values that are power of twos for the division. Conceptually you're using the upper 54 or 22 bits for the integer portion and the lower 10 bits for the fractional portion for 64-bit or 32-bit integers. (note that 32-bit platforms can usually handle 64-bit integers, specially x86 or 68k)

The code for other units, like say, tons-hundredweight-quarters (1/80th of a ton), you can't use that optimization, but can do the same thing with integer tools at hand:

#include <stdio.h>

int main(void)
{
        int Weight;
        int Tons,Hundred,Quarters;
        int Rem;

        // let's say we have a cargo hold with 233957 quarters in it, and we're using hundredweight quarters for internal values
        // To display that to the user, we do this:

        Weight = 233957;

        Tons = Weight / 80;
        Rem = Weight % 80;
        Hundred =  Rem / 4;
        Rem = Rem % 4;
        Quarters = Rem;

        printf("%u hundredweight-quarters or %u tons, %u hundreds, %u quarters\n", Weight, Tons, Hundred, Quarters);

        return(0);
}

Note that in either system, the unit would simply change to the new smaller unit (1024ths or hundred-quarters):

1 ton of oak logs under the first system would have a weight value of '1024'
1 ton of oak logs under the second system would have a weight value of '80'

All cargo holds and item weights would have to be multiplied by that value during the conversion of course. An SMT would carry 3000*80 = 240,000 hundred-quarters instead of tons in the new system. Would prolly have to manually edit some items so that they made sense though (a deed would weigh 1 hundred-quarter instead of 80, it's a sheet of paper for the love of wispies!)

Originally Posted by Remus It still wouldn't allow for single cannonballs, but pounds are really too small a quantity for shipping weights. Besides which, we probably disagree over how many pounds there are in an hundredweight or ton, but there is no disagreement that there are twenty hundredweight in a ton and 4 quarters in an hundredweight.

Actually wouldn't a hundred-quarter (based off of a long ton) be something around vaguely 30 pounds? That's not too far off for a cannon ball, considering they come with a charge of power included in that weight (it's iron + powder to make them and we have no separate powder storage either, aside from the special buff powders).

In any case it would indeed be much closerific than tons when calculating the stack value.

Oh update, I checked out ammoes in game, an individual cannonball weighs 1.12 pounds, (it's 0.0005 per ton), if you assume long tons with 2240 pounds/ton. for other values it will vary but it's still bout a pound either way..much lighter than expected @.@. With teh quarters-hundreds system it would be 0.04 hundred-quarters per cannonball with exact equivalance.

[Maibec]

Oh, come on. This is a suggestion upon which everyone can agree. Don't make Master Jedi use his lightsaber.

[Remus]

Originally Posted by Kerrilyn Actually wouldn't a hundred-quarter (based off of a long ton) be something around vaguely 30 pounds? That's not too far off for a cannon ball, considering they come with a charge of power included in that weight (it's iron + powder to make them and we have no separate powder storage either, aside from the special buff powders). In any case it would indeed be much closerific than tons when calculating the stack value. Oh update, I checked out ammoes in game, an individual cannonball weighs 1.12 pounds, (it's 0.0005 per ton), if you assume long tons with 2240 pounds/ton. for other values it will vary but it's still bout a pound either way..much lighter than expected @.@. With teh quarters-hundreds system it would be 0.04 hundred-quarters per cannonball with exact equivalance.

Ah, yes I was still thinking of cwt when I wrote that bit about cannonballs. Quarters haven't been in regular use where I live since I came to appreciate metrology; I have been involved with enough historical stuff to have encountered them in their context, but I only thought to add them later.

Of course a ton is 2240 pounds. What else would it be?

So set the weight of a cannonball to a quarter then (that'll upset the combat types!), but you'll have to work out a means of displaying the new imperial weights. From memory, the usual notation was a dash (I'd use an em-dash) as I did in my earlier post:

tons—hundredweight—quarters
eg, 18—10—3

I don't think there was a dedicated symbol like we had for shillings ("⁄" - spot the difference from forward slash "/").

Originally Posted by Maibec Oh, come on. This is a suggestion upon which everyone can agree. Don't make Master Jedi use his lightsaber.

Yes, do it quick, before I go completely off my trolley.

Tons—hundredweight—quarters, indeed!

[Kerrilyn]

Originally Posted by Maibec Oh, come on. This is a suggestion upon which everyone can agree. Don't make Master Jedi use his lightsaber.

Nobody's disagreed so far mog.