Crossfire Archive
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: CF: Crossfires future.



On Fri, 9 May 1997, Jan Echternach wrote:
> >  They are needed so that when the map is saved, it knows the actual location of
> > the wall.  I imagine that you could do away with this, but you are now getting
> > into changing how the map is internally stored.
> 
> So x and y are only needed when the map is in a file stored on disk?

Well, please dont do away with that. The x and y are rather practical 
when writing external programs dealing with maps :).

> >  I think that one thing that needs to be thought about is how important are the
> > memory savings (and is cpu efficiency more or less important than memory
> > costs?)  As was said, the memory use for crossfire isn't especially large,
> > especially with the current prices of ram.  granted, this is not a great
> > argument for ineffiency, but at some point there is little reason to try and
> > squeeze ever last byte for efficiency.

Well, as someone who always runs deep into swap, I'd appreciate memory 
efficiency, but personally I feel functionality should come much higher 
up on the priority list. Compared to the other stuff I usually have 
running, like XEmacs, Netscape and X, crossfire looks lean. 
 
> I never had problems with memory use (Linux on P5-133 system, 48 MB).
> I don't remember any swapping when playing crossfire. However, sometimes
> the game was slowed down. But I haven't played crossfire for weeks and
> don't remember any concrete examples.

Well, for me any hiccups usually come when loading maps or doing other 
disk access. Which is to be expected. 

/David
[to unsubscribe etc., send mail to crossfire-request@ifi.uio.no]


Follow-Ups: References: