Advertisement
ijontichy

retarded.log

Oct 14th, 2013
142
0
Never
Not a member of Pastebin yet? Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!
text 2.45 KB | None | 0 0
  1. 03:03 < ijon> I'd be more interested in 64-bit map coordinates
  2. 03:04 < ijon> cyberrunner actually ran into problems where the largest map possible was still too small
  3. 03:08 -!- Justin_See [~chatzilla@ool-45762b2c.dyn.optonline.net] has quit [Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.90.1 [Firefox 22.0/20130618035212]]
  4. 03:30 <@Kate> uhm, map coordinates are fixed values in-engine, so technically they're 16-bit, since they use the other 16 bits for precision values. Just moving to floats would increase the limits to pretty absurd values if you were prepared to deal with all of the endless complications of moving all of the doom engine physics to work with them.
  5. 03:31 <@Kate> so they aren't even really 32-bit, let alone 64
  6. 03:34 <@Kate> then there's worrying about increasing the size of the blocklist for the blockmap...
  7. 03:38 < ijon> they're stored with 32 bits
  8. 03:38 < ijon> that's what's meant here
  9. 03:39 < ijon> saying it's only sixteen bits because the integral part is 16 bits, thereby completely ignoring the fractional part, is silly
  10. 03:39 < ijon> it'd definitely need a new blockmap format
  11. 03:39 < ijon> whcih regulates this to 'make your own damn engine'
  12. 03:41 < ijon> I'm thinking a format which allocates and deallocates blocks as actors move in and out of them, storing the coordinates in the block itself
  13. 03:41 <@Kate> I didn't -ignore- the fractional part, I'm just saying they're -technically- 16 bits in that the max values are still that OF a 16-bit integer, ie you can only have map things within the bounds of -32768 - 32767.
  14. 03:41 < ijon> obviously that's a very un-fleshed out prototypr
  15. 03:42 < ijon> they're not technically 16 bits simply because their integral value is 16 bits; but that's a stupid debate
  16. 03:42 < ijon> new blockmap format is much more interesting
  17. 03:44 < ijon> hm, doing block lookups with a sparse blockmap or w/e would be a hash lookup rather than a random access
  18. 03:44 < ijon> that would slow things down some, but noticably so?
  19. 03:44 < ijon> ... this sounds more like an interesting progrmaming exercise
  20. 03:45 < ijon> I should do it
  21. 03:45 <@Kate> You know, there's very few people that I know that can wear my patience so thin so quickly.
  22. 03:45 <@Kate> You're one of those.
  23. 03:45 < ijon> ok
  24. 03:46 < ijon> so ban me if you pleae
  25. 03:46 < ijon> please*
  26. 03:46 < ijon> if I'm that unwelcome
  27. 03:53 <@Kate> No, it's just impossible to agree with you, so I'm going to go do other things. Sorry for interrupting your blockmap discussion, please continue.
  28. 03:53 < ijon> if you say so.
Advertisement
Add Comment
Please, Sign In to add comment
Advertisement