Friday 29 of August 2008 23:18:39 Vincent Verhoeven napisał(a): > 2008/8/29 Krzysztof Sobolewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Well then, it looks like the planet values are not calculated propery. Or > > the fixed value assigned to them is from a completely different reality. > > What's the typical size of the universe (or rather map bounds) in Risk? > > Let's see... Correct me if I'm wrong. Some outside planet locations: > -2399968326000, 1119431722500, 0 > 7234116540000, 889698663000, 0 > 6608869260000, -3654547470000, 0 > > Thus 9 634 084 866 000 x 4 773 979 192 500. > > For RFTS, I have > > 210000000, 2992500000, 0 > 3612000000, 157500000, 0 > > which yields 3 402 000 000 x 2 835 000 000, or essentially a factor > 3000x2000 smaller. Hmm. :)
I guess that explains a lot... The value I used is tuned for minisec, actually, but the dimensions I saw there seem to be about the same as in RFTS. There's an option in TPDataModel that can be used to tweak the planet values: model.tparsec.value-modifier=<float> But there's a catch: for sufficiently large values Starmapper hits overflow (of longs!) and you get, well, interesting results :) Unfortunately it's already on the edge in minisec and RFTS so I'd expect that you won't get far with that... I guess I'll have to use BigIntegers to calculate distances. I wonder how much it'll destroy the performace... :) [Or does someone know an overflow-resistant way to calculate a distance?] -- Ecce Jezuch "She's going to change the world But she can't change me" - C. Cornell
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ tp-devel mailing list [email protected] http://www.thousandparsec.net/tp/mailman.php/listinfo/tp-devel
