Also, now I'm really mad. First I was convinced that this was all totally bogus, so I never bothered to test it out. Then I was convinced it was all totally true, so I started writing a PM to Toady, but figured I should test it out to make sure, first.
AND MY TESTS ARE COMING BACK NEGATIVE. Across multiple controlled experiments, I'm seeing no change between 1:1:5:25 and 1:2:5:25 on my own system. My well-established fortress (with no zones defined) waffles between 27 and 28 FPS regardless. It doesn't even care if I designate high everywhere on all levels at 1:2:5:25! It's not even an average--There are NO outlying points at all, it never goes lower than 27 or higher than 28 ever!
I did notice ONE way to change my FPS that could be a big deal if not controlled for. When my viewscreen is looking at the sky, or generally somewhere that dwarves aren't, my FPS magically rises up to 32. If I stare at the main gate, it is always in the 27-28 range. People who run these experiments and who designate high everywhere must remember to control for camera location, too!
In conclusion,
I hate you all, (in the most good-natured way) and running all these experiments is like taking chemistry again. Congratulations, you just shattered my illusions that I liked doing science, and reminded me that 95% of science is being bored out of your mind and getting no results. I'm going to sleep now. Wake me when you have something reproducable, instead of theories that are either wild or sensible. They all fail in the cold hard light of evidence, for me. I no longer care about theories until more evidence is shown, but I still wish I knew why Ignoro's results are so weird!
(For the record, when I was working on a game like two weeks ago, my pathfinding was horribly slow because I had my path cost set to 5 units per tile, while my heuristic was set to 10 * distance. Essentially exactly what the situation SEEMS to be here, just multiplied by five. I don't KNOW why it isn't failing horribly! Don't ask me why it isn't failing horribly when you have a path cost of 2! IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE! Toady must be using some heuristic besides Manhattan, hell, for all I know he could be using a Dijkstra search! I know he said he was using A* but still...)
Oh yeah. And you know what pisses me off more than anything else? Realizing that people are trying to give a technical analysis of this system, when they believe that
The 999999 value means that it's multiplying that large number rather a lot which is expensive.
Look, I'm sorry, I just...Ugh. I'm probably not immune to saying badly-technically-incorrect stuff, but seeing this, I no longer care what anyone thinks. It feels like talking geology with someone who thinks the earth is six thousand years old. Sure, they may have studied the grand canyon in great, great detail, more than you even, but you hit a certain point in the conversation where there's just no point anymore.
Yes, I've been a total ass in this thread.