Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: November 2001:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Safe paths for triremes etc. (PR#1007)

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Safe paths for triremes etc. (PR#1007)

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: Raahul Kumar <raahul_da_man@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Gregory Berkolaiko <gberkolaiko@xxxxxxxxxxx>, freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx, bugs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: Safe paths for triremes etc. (PR#1007)
From: "Ross W. Wetmore" <rwetmore@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 22:35:17 -0500

First thing you want to do is change all the storage locations where
move_costs are used to be at least shorts. Right now, the max_cost is
set at 255 so it fits into a uchar - But 255/10 == 25 moves is not a
useful upper bound for moves on most sized maps. 255/3 at least allowed
most practical moves on the standard 80x50 map :-).

You should probably consider something bigger than 10 as well. Ideally
railroad moves should be computed in a separate space. They can then
be used just to break ties (i.e. infinitely small), or scaled in by
a settable parameter without impacting the overall storage requirements. 
This at least gets around the storage update issues, i.e. finding all 
the corner cases.

Also, if you do this for railroads, include the possibility of maglev
or updated railroads as well, i.e. do the base changes once in a way
that will be compatible with all reasonable forseen upgrades.


At 02:59 AM 01/11/18 -0800, Raahul Kumar wrote:
>--- Gregory Berkolaiko <gberkolaiko@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > currently on another project though where I could use some help. It's
>> > to do with movement code, I'm going to replace movecosts of 3 with 30.
>> > Same for all other movement costs, multiply by 10. 
>> Oh, you are going to run into all sorts of trouble ;)
>Oh Yes, most definately. Lots and lots of trouble, hence the request for

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]