*foams at the mouth*
I can't argue with experimental evidence!
I have to question some of the results though.
On a 3x3 with 1:2:10:25, you got 75 fps.
On a 3x3 with 10:10:10:10, you got 90 fps. I don't see any explanation for this behavior, and the difference between these two (15 fps) IS statistically very significant.
Also, I'm very confused why
3x3 1:2:10:25 (80 FPS)
3x3 1:99:999:9999 (125 FPS)
have any difference at all. They both use a path cost of '1' designated everywhere, and I don't see any explanation in the current theory (high numbers = slower) for why this would happen.
The current theory says that if everything is designated with path cost 2, it will be slower than everything designated with path cost 1. The current theory says nothing at all about assigning any other meaning to high/medium/low/restricted, and says nothing about the costs for things that aren't used.
Until we get a theory that does include those, I think I have to say our biggest margin of error in that experiment is 56.25% (two experiments that shouldn't have any difference), while the best 'signal' (a change from 2 to 1 that showed an improvement) is just 20%.
Also it doesn't say why increasing the cost of 'normal' from 2 to 10 gave a speedup of 15 FPS.
Ignoro, I do like your methodologies a lot, they are just giving weird answers! Would you mind running multiple passes on each test? Your methodology seems pretty sound but we need more data.
Control for all variables except for the cost of 'normal' designated everywhere...or, if you prefer, all variables except for 'high' vs 'normal' zoning. Try running five with cost 1 and five with cost 2...but interlace them, so if your CPU is chugging harder at the end, it doesn't bias one scenario more than the other.
You will be my new best friend. <3 And if we get statistically significant results we'll actually have a good reason to go to Toady about it.
EDIT, Eagleon responded while I was writing: Eh, there is harm caused by people believing there's a bug when there isn't one. It means more player effort for no reason, and it means development time spend looking for a bug that might not exist. However, if we can prove the bug exists, then that is a great thing. We just have to be diligent, and give good evidence! Besides, it's a personal curiosity, and I want to know for sure now...The plural of 'anecdote' may not be 'data', but the plural of 'experiment' is!