Longer maps vs bigger maps

Nem · Post by **Nem** » 25 Apr 2004 08:04

Seems that in a near feature we'll have bigger maps in the official version since Korenn already do it for his own.

I'd like to know what others players think about big maps. Of course a lot of us like them, but do you prefer bigger square maps (1024x1024, 512x512) or, like me, rectangular maps (1024x512, 512x256)?

I don't know if it's possible to make rectangular maps in a easy way, I just hope so.

dominik81 · Post by **dominik81** » 25 Apr 2004 08:44

Bigger maps in the official OpenTTD tree will most likely be dynamic, so you could chose any size you like. Don't expect bigger maps too soon though.

Nem · Post by **Nem** » 25 Apr 2004 08:56

dominik81 wrote:Bigger maps in the official OpenTTD tree will most likely be dynamic, so you could chose any size you like. Don't expect bigger maps too soon though.

Great.
I'll wait for them.

MagicBuzz · Post by **MagicBuzz** » 25 Apr 2004 09:09

dominik81 wrote:Bigger maps in the official OpenTTD tree will most likely be dynamic, so you could chose any size you like. Don't expect bigger maps too soon though.

Good news, because between huge map and micro-map, we should prefer a medium personalised size

I hope it will not too long to implement in the official project

Born Acorn · Post by **Born Acorn** » 25 Apr 2004 12:08

Id prefer rectangular, since then I could pllay a UK scenario say without so much sea

Basje · Post by **Basje** » 29 Apr 2004 12:47

I think they should be dynamically. It would be so hard to programm that (I think

), if the support of bigger maps is finished. It will just be a the adjustment of a parameter I guess

This way everybody would be able to make their own size.

However, there should be a limitation, so a maximum size.

gr. Bas

VPN-User · Post by **VPN-User** » 29 Apr 2004 13:23

Basje wrote:However, there should be a limitation, so a maximum size.

Tell us why.

ChrisCF · Post by **ChrisCF** » 29 Apr 2004 13:45

I'd think that processing time and memory requirements for a map size m*n are O(m*n), so doubling one dimension doubles those requirements. A map of 1024*1024 is 16 times larger than the current 256*256, and would probably be more than enough for most mapmakers. If there is no limit, and people suddenly try creating things like 4096*4096 maps, there's just no need, unless you're modelling reality to the point where a 3-hour train journey takes 3-hours of real-time in the game.

Basje · Post by **Basje** » 29 Apr 2004 13:53

ChrisCF gave one of the reasons with respect to the gameplay.

Besides that, there is also the problem with CPU power. If the maps would indeed be 256x as big (4096x4069) this would mean, 256x as many trains/vehicule/cities etc...etc... And that needs a lot of CPU power.

Bas

mispunt · Post by **mispunt** » 29 Apr 2004 14:02

ow yes, but the cpu power of the newest cpu's is that high that it is possible to use very big maps...
beside that, people could try how far they could go with the size of maps.

ChrisCF · Post by **ChrisCF** » 29 Apr 2004 14:04

mispunt wrote:ow yes, but the cpu power of the newest cpu's is that high that it is possible to use very big maps...

But we don't all have hte latest CPUs. I've got a PII 233 pencilled in for OpenTTD duty, and I'd rather I could still get 30fps instead of 30spf.

mispunt · Post by **mispunt** » 29 Apr 2004 14:07

as I sad before, you don't have to use the largest map, do you?

VPN-User · Post by **VPN-User** » 29 Apr 2004 14:15

Play with 8 human players and we can talk again.

Your arguments are just stupid. Its the same with Bill Gates phrase "640KB will be enough for ever and everyone".

dominik81 · Post by **dominik81** » 29 Apr 2004 15:44

You're all underestimating the complexity of OTTD. Computers got better since 1995, but not as much as some of you might think. A regular game, early years, uses around 6% of my CPU power (Athlon 2100+, Radeon 9500 Pro, 1 GB RAM). Multiply that with 16 (1024x1024 map) and you start to run into problems. You start to have other drawbacks. Korenn's bigger maps e.g. took much more time to update the tiles. Another option would be to limit vehicles or decrease the recursion level for the AI.

Besides, from a developers point of view a game is supposed to be stable. And without any limits to the map size you'd certainly be able to crash it very easily.

CobraA1 · Post by **CobraA1** » 29 Apr 2004 17:21

Computers got better since 1995, but not as much as some of you might think.

Actually, they have - it's just that software is bloating so much that it's not that noticeable

. Try putting DOS and Windows 3.11 on your computer, and you'll see a vast speed difference between 3.11 and XP.

People are forgetting that doubling map size quadruples, not doubles, processing time, though

.

Our processors are easily 16+ times as fast as in 1995. Windows 95 had just come out, many of us were still running 486's! We're talking 33-100 MHZ here - My 2.5 GHz computer is 25x faster in clockspeed alone! That's not even accounting for architechtural differences between the 486 and early Pentiums compared to a modern Pentium! My computer is easily 50+ times more powerful than an 100 MHz 486.

That means that I could handle a 1792x1792 map as easily as a 100 MHZ 486 could handle a 256x256 map.

But we don't all have hte latest CPUs.

Nobody says you have to use the larger map sizes!

And without any limits to the map size you'd certainly be able to crash it very easily.

Crashing == memory leaks, not simply taking more memory. If you have Windows NT/2000/XP, it'll slow down, maybe even refuse to run OpenTTD, but I doubt it'll crash.

2048x2048 would probably be a reasonable limit for now. It would be pushing today's fastest personal computers to the limits, but it wouldn't kill them.

mispunt · Post by **mispunt** » 29 Apr 2004 17:22

dominik81 wrote:Besides, from a developers point of view a game is supposed to be stable. And without any limits to the map size you'd certainly be able to crash it very easily.

I agree with that, but I just wanted to get deeper into this discussion

CobraA1 · Post by **CobraA1** » 29 Apr 2004 17:31

An unlimited map size would be impossible - our computers are finite - you'd easily hit physical limits such as the size of an integer if you did that

. No, there must be limits.

ChrisCF · Post by **ChrisCF** » 30 Apr 2004 02:57

dominik81 wrote:Another option would be to limit vehicles or decrease the recursion level for the AI.

You mean make it even more stupid than in the original?

As for size limits, we ned to look at need as wel as ability. It's one thing to have a map of 2048x2048 tiles, but would anyone creating scenarios have time to fill that reasonably? Do you really need maps that big? Can you get your services running in such a large area before getting to the point of making billions per day?

CobraA1 · Post by **CobraA1** » 30 Apr 2004 04:10

Another option would be to limit vehicles or decrease the recursion level for the AI.

You mean make it even more stupid than in the original?

OMG, please don't tell me we're sticking with this AI!!

No way, drop the current AI and put something better in! I can think of at least a dozen ways to make networks that are better than the current algorithm!

MYOB · Post by **MYOB** » 30 Apr 2004 04:50

The CPU usage figures you lot are quoting seem to all be for Win32 GDI. Remember that the SDL builds use up to 10x the power for the graphics, so theres far less power for the game to use...

Transport Tycoon Forums