Sign in to follow this  
Cista

Limit to tree density? (necro-thread)

Recommended Posts

Is there a hard limit to the density of natural forest in Wurm?

I have a suspicion that there is. I went and traveled to northern Inde, to areas that have not ever been terraformed. Without settlement, such areas have potentially had tress sprouting on them for more than 5 years uninterrupted.

But even in such areas, every third or forth tile inside the forest is still grass, without  a tree on it.

 

Of course, we can all plant trees on every tile if we want to. But it seems to me there could be a barrier for natural sprouting of trees when some density is reached. It doesn't make sense why there should be, it seems like unnecessary coding, but how else would you explain that there are no dense forests in Wurm?

 

EDIT: the conclusive findings I got after some experimenting are in this post: 

 

Edited by Cista

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Be careful what you wish for....

 

New tree types have zero personal space issues and love to pack like sardines in a crushed tin can and its awful to say the least :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, SmeJack said:

New tree types have zero personal space issues and love to pack like sardines in a crushed tin can and its awful to say the least :unsure:

 

You mean the forests of walnut, chestnut etc. on Xanadu? You could be right, because some of those forests are very dense, but then again, the Xanadu forests were that dense right from the opening of the server 2 years ago. In other words, the high density did not occur through natural sprouting. You wouldn't know if a forest of e.g. chestnut would reach same density if the area was open first before it grew up.

 

Or did you mean the fruit trees like olive and lemon? That's an interesting point. You may be right there.

I was mainly thinking about the really old forests of pine and maple.

Edited by Cista

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it is a real hardcoded limit.

More likely is that there is a balance between the rate of natural growth of the trees and the rate that sprouts will fall to the ground and make new trees so that generally there will be a few open spaces waiting to take a sprout, a few trees sprouting ready to drop one to an empty tile, and a few withered trees ready to die and leave another empty tile (Not actually sure this happens like this, please correct me if I'm wrong.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea but trees actually never die, they just renew themselves :) like a rebirth on the same tile. That's why if you plant a favorite tree in front of your house for example, it will be there forever.

In other words, in an undisturbed forest, the density can only grow and grow until every tile (theoretically) is filled. But what I have observed is that they never go above 70-80% density, even in desolate parts of Independence, the oldest server.

Edited by Cista

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My opinion on this is that generally players overstate the spreading of trees onto grass tiles having the ability to create dense forests. I think you are right Cista in your observation that any very densely packed tree forests are from the origins of the servers. I remember being on Deliverance from the start of that server where there were seemingly full tile forests of olive trees not far from the south side of Green Dog. Then smaller solid patches of other tree types spread about so that if different varieties were desired to be planted one had to travel a bit to harvest some variety of sprouts.

 

Once any natural forests are diminished by players cutting them down then they can only become dense forests again if players replant them. Since some players are very conscious of replanting these forests around where they live and do so on a secretive basis so that they will not be quickly cut down by others for different motives, players who are near these areas get the impression that they all simply re-sprouted there naturally. Then you have those who don't like trees around them because they cut off vision for hunting or other reasons and cut them all down just to destroy them. To them any new sprouts that appear are annoyances so they interpret this as very fast tree re-growth that would soon recreate dense annoying forests that they must once again need to remove to suit their own particular *viewpoint*.

 

I would say that there is really no "limit" to natural tree "density" but rather a limit on how quickly new sprouts will spread naturally to other grass tiles. Although the effect could be interpreted as a limit to density since it has that effect in a round about way,the re-sprouting mechanism is what creates this situation and with the Wurm random factor thrown into it there is no real consistent numerical factor whereby it can be quantified accurately.

 

The end result then results in speculation with personal preference and wishful thinking becoming the determining factors in the conclusions reached. My *solution* is that since I like trees I replant the ones cut down and slowly over time create forests by planting sprouts of my choice. So if forests regrow slowly or quickly it makes little difference to me since I am not about to wait around for them to do so. More the problem here as I see it is the players who cut them down for various frivolous reasons without then bothering to replant them. If there is any limit to tree density I would attribute it to them since initially there were many dense forests when a new server came into existence, eh?

 

Happy Trails

=Ayes=

Edited by Ayes
space

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looked at the code... trees will not naturally spread to tiles within 2 tiles radius of another tree or 3 tile radius of oak or willow.

 

Also interesting - they won't spread to tiles that contain any tracks, so more animals in an are should cause less tree density :P

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, bdew said:

trees will not naturally spread to tiles within 2 tiles radius of another tree

 

 

Well that is very odd. I have plenty of (walnut) trees on my deed around my house, none of them planted by a person. They plant themselves right next to each other with no problem. In other words, the idea of a barren 2-tile radius around each tree seems completely out of sync with what we see in game.

 

Only if by "within 2 tiles radius" the script understands that as "not on a tile that already has a tree or any of the 4 tiles that are orthogonally neighbouring a tile with a tree", then that could be more in accordance with how forests evolve in Wurm :)

 

 I will have a look again around my place, because while my trees with 100% certainty have planted themselves on tiles diagonally right next to another tree, I am not sure they do it on orthogonal neighbour tiles. If that is the case, then the rule that you have found in the code indeed can explain why even the oldest forests in the Independence wilderness do not have higher density of trees. Thank you!

 

Also I am guessing this rule only applies to tall trees, not fruit trees. Thereby also giving the fruit trees the advantage by which they can "run" through the gaps inside tall tree forests and spread to other landscapes.

Finally, it could even be that the rule only applies to the "classic" tall trees, which are the pine, birch, maple and cedar. In that case the behaviour of my walnut trees is not limited by it. I assume this was more or less also what SmeJack meant further up the thread. Can you see that in the code?

Edited by Cista

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cista said:

 

Well that is very odd. I have plenty of (walnut) trees on my deed around my house, none of them planted by a person. They plant themselves right next to each other with no problem. In other words, the idea of a barren 2-tile radius around each tree seems completely out of sync with what we see in game.

 

Only if by "within 2 tiles radius" the script understands that as "not on a tile that already has a tree or any of the 4 tiles that are orthogonally neighbouring a tile with a tree", then that could be more in accordance with how forests evolve in Wurm :)

 

 I will have a look again around my place, because while my trees with 100% certainty have planted themselves on tiles diagonally right next to another tree, I am not sure they do it on orthogonal neighbour tiles. If that is the case, then the rule that you have found in the code indeed can explain why even the oldest forests in the Independence wilderness do not have higher density of trees. Thank you!

 

Also I am guessing this rule only applies to tall trees, not fruit trees. Thereby also giving the fruit trees the advantage by which they can "run" through the gaps inside tall tree forests and spread to other landscapes.

Finally, it could even be that the rule only applies to the "classic" tall trees, which are the pine, birch, maple and cedar. In that case the behaviour of my walnut trees is not limited by it. I assume this was more or less also what SmeJack meant further up the thread. Can you see that in the code?

 

Are you sure they spread there from other trees, rather than were generated with the map at server start?

 

Small correction to what i wrote above: It checks for oaks in a 3 tile radius, willows in 2 and other trees in 1.

 

3 tile radius = 7x7 tiles around the tree; 2 tile radius = 5x5; 1 tile radius = 3x3. All tiles in this square are checked, diagonals, etc.

 

I don't see anything that would make "new" trees behave differently from "old" trees.

 

I might be missing something, there might be bugs or some other mechanics that i didn't notice... and maybe WO runs a different version of that code altogether... so take all that with a grain of salt ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, bdew said:

maybe WO runs a different version of that code altogether

 

I presume you are coming to these conclusions from searching in the WU code? Your statement above is what I have read from some WU code dissectors, that being there may not be a directly tied sync between WO and WU code, which would then make these discoveries within WU not apply to WO. Too frequently now I see claims being made that well this is how things work in WO because we discovered them in the WU code.

 

In the end maybe it doesn't really matter anyway, as in this instance planting trees in the empty spots removes the visual mystery. It's just that I find it best not to take these claims of code discovery as being the way things are since really only the Wurm developers could reveal the answer, which they decline to do.

 

=Ayes=

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well we can never know for sure, but i think it's a safe assumption that the vast majority of the code is shared between WU/WO, because maintaining multiple copies of the same code is always a pain in the arse and a waste of manhours.

 

That thing about tree spread is hard to test conclusively in WO due to the randomness and long time spans involved, but many other discoveries in WU code were tested in WO. In fact i got at least one bug fixed by the devs in WO that i found code diving in the same file that implements what i wrote above :P

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I think it's a great thing you code, mod and server guys are doing within WU so I am not trying to diminish your accomplishments. Much appreciated by many, myself included. I imagine the Devs just cloned most of it over onto WU and put in some protective measures where they deemed necessary. Well beyond my capabilities to decipher anyway but it's just that I am not one to take claims made at face value but rather question them, even if I know little about it, heh.

 

=Ayes=

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 21/9/2016 at 0:03 AM, bdew said:

 

Are you sure they spread there from other trees, rather than were generated with the map at server start?

 

Small correction to what i wrote above: It checks for oaks in a 3 tile radius, willows in 2 and other trees in 1.

 

3 tile radius = 7x7 tiles around the tree; 2 tile radius = 5x5; 1 tile radius = 3x3. All tiles in this square are checked, diagonals, etc.

 

Thanks for all your efforts!

The 3x3 quadrat as no-go zone for other trees is however still not what I am seeing. As my walnut trees are all naturally spread on my deed, which used to be all grass. And they enter that quadrat.

 

Again, one explanation could be that the code you are seeing is only for the 4 classical tall trees, and new trees such as walnut and linden do not conform to it.....? I would still find it very hard to believe that the other trees will not sprout in such a 3x3 quadrat, but I cannot really disprove your info for other trees than my own walnuts. I should let some birch spread into my deed lol.

 

EDIT: going to add one more qualifier to what I have said. Even though trees on my deed do plant themselves on neighbouring squares, it looks like the ones that I have currently let survive, are all neigbours to an enchanted tree. If it is the case that an enchanted tree does not check like an actual tree in the script for placement of new trees, then that could of course be the reason. I do believe neighbour sprouting happens regularly - I will be back with more hard data soon. 

 

Edited by Cista

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just went to an area that was pure grass on server reset and in a single 3x3 were 6 walnuts and one olive tree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember what it was like when trees briefly had collision detection... especially the olive forests.

 

Now we are back to being able to walk thru trees.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Klaa said:

I remember what it was like when trees briefly had collision detection... especially the olive forests.

 

Didn't trees always have collision and then it was removed a few years ago to the current state? I remember when Deliverance opened those olive forests on the south side were almost impenetrable and you had to cut a path through them to get very far. Even on WU now since they do have collision olives can easily block your progress.

 

=Ayes=

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Ayes said:

Didn't trees always have collision and then it was removed a few years ago to the current state? I

 

It was removed when bridges came out and it caused issues. It was turned back on at some point in WO then turned back off like a day later. In WU it is currently on by default.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Beta and early Gold, trees didn't have collision detection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On September-20-16 at 3:03 PM, bdew said:

 

Are you sure they spread there from other trees, rather than were generated with the map at server start?

 

Small correction to what i wrote above: It checks for oaks in a 3 tile radius, willows in 2 and other trees in 1.

 

3 tile radius = 7x7 tiles around the tree; 2 tile radius = 5x5; 1 tile radius = 3x3. All tiles in this square are checked, diagonals, etc.

 

I don't see anything that would make "new" trees behave differently from "old" trees.

 

I might be missing something, there might be bugs or some other mechanics that i didn't notice... and maybe WO runs a different version of that code altogether... so take all that with a grain of salt ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

We have a row of oaks right beside our tree lot.  I see trees well within the oak kill radius all the time.  Sometimes they even make it to old so I can cut them. When the oak kills them, they just disappear.  However, I don't ever recall seeing other trees right beside an oak so that 1 tile radius may be in effect.  But it is pretty clear the notes from the WU code above don't directly apply to WO.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The trees can survive in the kill zone until the oak has an age tick which then wipes the kill zone

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Time for a small update on this issue.

 

I am observing the walnut (new tree type) and birch (old type) on my deed. As I expected, I have definite proof that walnut will plant themselves inside the 3x3 area that we have been discussing. However, I have so far only seen them do it on the diagonal. I do not so far see them do it on the ortogonal axis of tiles. 

 

I also went on a little excursion now. Here are two pictures from a nearby deserted deed that is now overgrown with linden (new tree type). Of course there is not 100% guarantee that someone has not messed with it, but for an initial result it is a nice illustration. There are many of the lindens that have planted themselves on the diagonal axis, while not a single tree stands next to another on the ortogonal axis. 

 

In both pictures you will see a grass tile which has trees on all four ortogonal tiles. In other words, the trees do not mind planting themselves inside the 3x3 of another tree. However, none of these trees stand next to another tree on the ortogonal axis, as all the corners of this 3x3 around the grass tile, are also grass. The trees align in a diagonal gridwork.

Sorry the pictures are dark.

 

I would definitely not have thought this before I began looking at it, but at this point I believe the diaginal gridwork is in fact the rule that limits tree density. I will return later with 100% solid evidence from my own deed on both tree types.

 

6Tl8ud5.jpg

 

yOSwdh8.jpg

Edited by Cista

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it helps Inspiration (WU server) has been running with treegrowth set to 1 (means every sprout turns into a tree) for about 3 months now. There are distinct oak and willow zones where there is separation/clear tiles between trees although I need to login later/tonight to check the diagonal tiles as well.

 

Feel free to login to the server to check it out if it helps.

 

~Nappy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if i can get WU to run the simulation at a (much) faster rate, then plant a single tree in the middle of a flat empty map and let it spread to check out the patterns... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this