Just as a side note DirectPlay can be troublesome if you are going to be running the game behind proxy/NAT/firewall devices.
Paul -----Original Message----- From: Thomas Tomiczek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 30 April 2002 15:10 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [DOTNET] Big map for games Sorry to join in here so late - the new topic called me :-) Have you thought of using DirectPlay for synchronising the map? Also, I am not so sure whether you are not wasting TONS ot space. Your field (hex) currently consists of one byte plus a pointer. Now, this limits you in two ways: (a) you can not have more than one object on a hex (rules may change, what about minefields?) (b) the pointer is pretty huge compared to the byte. At the same time, most hexes will not contain a unit. My idea would be to store the position of a unit either in the unit class or in a helper class. Use hashtables on various grids to find all units in a given sector fast. Save memory :-) This also is better because the map will change VERY seldom (i.e. Be static), if you take the objet on top of it out :-) Regards Thomas Tomiczek THONA Consulting Ltd. (Microsoft MVP C#/.NET) -----Original Message----- From: Peter Laan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Dienstag, 30. April 2002 15:58 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [DOTNET] Big map for games (changed the subject) Right now each hex only contains one byte (terrain, resource and control), and one pointer to a unit (null if there's no unit in the hex). I'll probably need a few more bytes for rivers, roads and railroads. There will surely be more action in specific parts of the map (the game is a simple online multiplayer simulation of operation Barbarossa), so splitting the map into smaller parts is something I have been thinking about. And I don't want to send the complete map to every client either. I had hopes that I could rely on windows doing the swapping for me here. Or should I do it myself? What's a sparse array? I need to do some kind of sampling to show an overview map (the map is a simple civ-like 2d map). Is mipmapping good for this? Peter From: "Chris Anderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > But do you need all of them at the same time, and are all the elements > populated? > > There are many more data structures you can use that will streamline > this, and allow yourself to have even bigger maps > > Sparse arrays can be massive as long as they contain information about only > a relatively few elements > > Breaking the map into pages will allow you to only load the areas > being used > > A form of MipMapping will allow you to pan out and see the entire map > by selectively "losing" data that is irrelevant when viewed at the > higher scale > (eg precise tree placements will be irrelevant when viewing a map of > the Earth..tree placements can be "promoted" to blocks or even pages > with more than 1000 trees (so you know to paint these green as they > are forest areas)) > > Merak You can read messages from the DOTNET archive, unsubscribe from DOTNET, or subscribe to other DevelopMentor lists at http://discuss.develop.com. You can read messages from the DOTNET archive, unsubscribe from DOTNET, or subscribe to other DevelopMentor lists at http://discuss.develop.com. You can read messages from the DOTNET archive, unsubscribe from DOTNET, or subscribe to other DevelopMentor lists at http://discuss.develop.com.
