Increased default overmap search radius #36816
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
To keep the format exactly as it was before, if that was the source of the error.
|
Those with weaker computers: What do you think? Do the overmap search currently already takes too long for you? |
ifreund
added
[C++]
Ker-Nes
changed the title
|
I'm at i7-8550U laptop and searching the overmap doesn't take an appreciable amount of time (~200ms? probably urxvt's redraw itself is slower). |
ZhilkinSerg
reviewed
Apr 7, 2020
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
SUMMARY: Interface "Increased overmap search radius"Purpose of change
As mentioned in #36789 ,an outright map search radius increase to temporarily fit the gap until a better search algorithm is created that can handle the entire map without causing trouble.
Describe the solution
Duplicating the map radius from OMAPX / 2 to OMAPX, for a 4 times larger area. Most computers at the current time should be able to handle this much without too much trouble, although depending on the end results, this might need to get reverted.
Describe alternatives you've considered
Just using a number for the arbitrary default instead of something derived from OMAPX. As an arbitrary radius anyway, there's little reason why OMAPX needs to be the number used, and a number does allow for greater granularity without looking clunky.
Testing
None, but unless I deleted more than I should or if the code decides that OMAPX isn't a number anymore now that it isn't being divided it shouldn't be necessary.
Additional context
None.