SEV: Taking me to the edge of sanity

[Captain Kwok]

Seriously, it's a combination of pathfinding and sometimes combats. The heaviest script execution times are on turn 1, 10, 20, etc. when the AI updates its designs... but those are just little bumps. You'll notice pathfinding kick in around turn 4-5, when the AI first starts exploring/surveying.

[Raapys]

Yah, that's really the worst part of it: The AI isn't using the long processing time to do something sensible, like figuring out what he should do next. It's used for the actual movement of the ships, since the pathfinding mechanism apparantly isn't optimized at all.

[Romulus68]

Try changing the ship movement speed in the options.

[Captain Kwok]

To clarify, it's not the movement itself but the pathfinding - so it is sensible really. This is due to the line of sight in the game, so it's calculating the path for the ship each hex that it moves. Although I don't think it calculates again in squares that have sensor coverage - but if it does that may be a point of optimization.

[Slick]

There have got to be other optimizations for pathfinding. Numerous other games use pathfinding, oftentimes with more complex pathing/obstacles without a noticable slowdown. SEV, in fact, really has a simple pathing, even with the rules of sight. I'm thinking this is a negative consequence of going from square grids to hex grids. Although I really like the hex grids over squares, somehow, when I first saw the demo, I had a bad feeling that this change would cause a slowdown.

[Fyron]

Slick said:
I'm thinking this is a negative consequence of going from square grids to hex grids.

Hexes have 6 adjacent locations to analyze, squares have 8. If anything, hexes should reduce the pathfinding calculations by virtue of 25% fewer adjacent locations to consider. Of course, if you optimize it to ignore squares/hexes that are in the opposite direction of the target, you pretty much have 3 versus 3 locations to consider. Sight and larger systems, plus double the movement, seem like they would have more of an effect than hex vs. square.

[Theonlystd]

the sim times are depressingly long


Grab a book,mow your lawn, do the dishes your turn might be done when you return.

[Slick]

Imperator Fyron said:
Slick said:
I'm thinking this is a negative consequence of going from square grids to hex grids.

Hexes have 6 adjacent locations to analyze, squares have 8. If anything, hexes should reduce the pathfinding calculations by virtue of 25% fewer adjacent locations to consider. Of course, if you optimize it to ignore squares/hexes that are in the opposite direction of the target, you pretty much have 3 versus 3 locations to consider. Sight and larger systems, plus double the movement, seem like they would have more of an effect than hex vs. square.

Except that your incorrect opinion does not reflect reality. Hex grids do require more math overall when compared to square grids. If hex grids provided more efficient pathing, then why aren't all 2D computer games coded for a hex grid? This is illustrated more especially in the early days of computer gaming, when computing power and graphics forced optimization everywhere. Nowadays, optimization is not so important to programmers. They expect their customers to store their bloatware on ever increasing storage devices and play their games with ever more powerful CPU's and graphics cards.