1 huge map vs 4 large maps.

ID:175350
 
May 3 2003, 6:35 pm
Just wondering which would be better, if there is any differnce at all, using a 100x100x1 map or using a 50x50x4 map.
The only things that I can think of that would make either the better option are:
-100x100x1 means no zoning.
-100x100x1 means less teleporter objects.
-100x100x1 means I dont need to worry about teleporting trains/trams/buses across to differnt sections of the city.
-50x50x4 is easier to work on in DM. At my current resolution moving around the map in DM is a little slow and it gets on my nervs. If this was really a huge problem I could always just build things in differnt map then copy them over, or even just work on it in notepad.


Im pretty much sold on 100x100x1, but there might be something Im missing (Ie, it could put a heap of extra stress on the CPU for some reason)
May 4 2003, 12:21 am
Well to compare all the maps in Kemet RPG are 100x100, its reaching up into the 12th Z level now days, all of them have active NPC mobs roaming around. I notice a slight bit of lag on my 1.2g Machine when I run that game but not much. And it handles pretty well. Even at 100x100 I still link over the overhead maps together. One reason I did this was to later be able to split the areas up on different servers so the work load could be shared by various machines. But for a 100x100 map? I think you could do it with ease no problem.

LJR
May 4 2003, 12:40 am
In response to LordJR
It will most likily end up 150-200x150-200x2 by the time Im done with it, but thats still way less tiles then 100x100x12.
I forgot that I need to include a Z level too be the 'indoors mirror'. Once it gets big I think I'll run my own tests.
Plus there wont be too many 'active' NPC mobs, mainly just Bump-n-talks so it should be able to handle itself rather well.
May 4 2003, 4:26 am
BTW, 100x100x1 is not the same as 50x50x4. I use about 100x100x4, but that's me, and you're you. And my PC is evil! Aggghhh! :HFOljcm ,
May 4 2003, 4:59 am
Looks like you're using the wrong computer to work on maps. I've had my friend open 750x750x10 maps on his 600 mhz machine, and they ran flawlessly, but for some reason, my 1800 and another friend's 1400 ran like crap, I found that when I dual-head, however, they run much better, for whatever reason. Like Hazman noted, 50x50x4 is different from 100x100x1, it's bigger.
May 4 2003, 5:08 am
In response to DerDragon
How so? Shouldnt 50x50x4 be 4 50x50 maps, and 100x100x1 be 4 50x50 maps also?
May 4 2003, 6:49 am
In response to DarkView
50*50*4=10,000
100*100*1=10,000

Look like the same size to me...
May 4 2003, 11:10 am
In response to Nick231
So it is... Mi.
I play on BYOND at night, and my brain is in 'off' mode. That mean no maths.
May 4 2003, 11:34 am
I don't think it makes any difference whether you use x, y or z coordinates to determine your map size, if map still consists of the same number of turfs either way. The only real aspects to consider are how you as the developer want to manage the maps. Larger maps can provide a larger, cleaner area without those annoying "edge of map" places. Ensya (which uses 250x250 maps) has an item that lets you teleport as far as you want in any particular direction. If you're on a 250x250 map, you can go a lot further in any particular direction without hitting the end of the map just by typing in larger numbers. But on a smaller map, like 50x50, you wouldn't be able to do that. That's one thing to take into consideration. Another is how you want to manage the maps. Do you want to have a number of individual maps, such as a map for a cave, a map for a town, a map for a castle; or do you want them all to be on the same map without any changing between maps?

All you really need to consider is how you want your game to work.
May 4 2003, 9:38 pm
In response to DerDragon
There's apparently a bug where graphics cards will take a lot more processor power to render the map editor than the default drawing routines. Try this:

Start -> Settings -> Control Panel -> Display -> Settings -> Advanced... -> Troubleshooting -> Take it down a notch.

Full hardware accelleration slows it down. Ironic.