-
With a 2x2 fortress and 7 dwarves on a forest-mountain-lake biome, I get regularly about 180 fps, compared to about 70-80 on the previous version in a 3x3. Whee!
-
Good for you :-) Although you might want to cap it at 150 FPS or so - things become a little chaotic when the game is too fast.
By the way, what made me post here was a little mathematical thing I noticed...
2x2 = 4, while 3x3 = 9, and 9/4 = 2.25.
A 2x2 map is 1/2.25 as a big as 3x3 map, but 2.25 times as fast.(since 80 FPS x 2.25 = 180). I didn't think the area size/FPS correlation was that accurate :-) Although I guess there are many other factors which affect FPS, unrelated to map size...It's fairly well-known flows(especially magma!)slow down a map...[ December 22, 2007: Message edited by: Zonk ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by Zonk:
<STRONG>Good for you :-) Although you might want to cap it at 150 FPS or so - things become a little chaotic when the game is too fast.
By the way, what made me post here was a little mathematical thing I noticed...
2x2 = 4, while 3x3 = 9, and 9/4 = 2.25.
A 2x2 map is 1/2.25 as a big as 3x3 map, but 2.25 times as fast.(since 80 FPS x 2.25 = 180). I didn't think the area size/FPS correlation was that accurate :-) Although I guess there are many other factors which affect FPS, unrelated to map size.</STRONG>
I'm 90% certain FPS doesn't work that way.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Mr.Person:
<STRONG>I'm 90% certain FPS doesn't work that way.</STRONG>
I know. It was just a weird coincidence. I think the FPS is mainly based on the number of creatures - with smart ones with thought and tasks slowing down the game more, on the map size and on flows. A bigger map probably gets you more animals, which I think is the main factor in slowing down.
-
Have you seen the movie 23, with Jim Carrey?
Anyway, if animals play a role, I would assume that a glacier map would be best for FPS.
-
Haven't seen that movie, reading about it on wiki just out of curiosity...are you suggesting I'm a number-obsessed guy :D ?
I was just noticing an interesting coincidence. By the way, yes, glaciers maps would be faster. Marshes and swamps also have few animals, at least in the unmodded game. The slowest possible map would be one that has magma and lots of animals.