Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
I was looking in the new WorldGenerator.eco.template to try and find this out myself, and I saw the entries for crushed Sulfur in Grasslands (id 29) and block sulfur in grasslands (id 27 and 39 at different depths), but I thought Id 123 was in warm forest at depth 20-30, and Id 189 was in Tundra at depths 30-100. Id 189 is also the largest deposits (block count 15 - 68) and is the only sulfur entry with "spawnatleastone=true", so while I was looking at exposed shallow grassland tiles, I was concentrating most of my attention on Tundra.
I could easily be reading the file wrong, but knowing which biome that forced sulfur spawn is in will make a difference. I also saw in another thread that finding sulfur in the world may become a convenience rather than a necessity when the hotfix drops that removes sulfur from the first cement recipe so that worlds converted from 11.0 are not locked out of modern tech, so it might all be a moot point in a week or two.
That file is text, but that doesn't make it easy to read. I would certainly have believed that I was the one making the mistake.