Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[thedryness]

yup, as far as i can tell, the FPS in my base was either unaffected or only affected slightly. i did have a bit of a decrease (70ish -> 60ish) but i think that mostly happened because i fought off two forces of darkness without cleaning up the mess afterward.

[Urist Da Vinci]

...The way I see it, this is highly efficient for walking distance but extremely inefficient for the pathfinding algorithm as every direction possible now needs to be explored in the calculations.

Not exactly true, see below.

My understanding is that DF uses A* for it's pathfinding, and thus an increase in the number of available paths does not affect fps, while false paths that go directly towards the destination and than dead end are murderous, so staircases would be very good for fps.  I haven't tested it, though.

Correct, there was a quote from Toady once that confirmed the use of a modified A*. Also correct that dead end tunnels kill fps - walling off old mining tunnels will save fps.

However, in d_init.txt there is this line:

Code: [Select]

[PATH_COST:1:2:5:25]The normal pathing cost is 2, so A* will check in the "wrong" directions normally. If you make a staircase fort, either change that line to:

Code: [Select]

[PATH_COST:1:1:5:25]or paint your entire staircase zone as a high-traffic area. It will save fps if you have a large number of pathfinders.

If the pathing cost is 1, the pathfinding algorithm first looks only at the straight-line path, regardless of the number of optional paths. The reason the default normal path cost is 2 is so you can designate high-traffic paths for your dwarves.

EDIT:path cost value

[kotekzot]

Your two PATH_COST strings are the same. I assume you meant to write [PATH_COST:1:1:5:25]?