denisonh -> RE: Curious if the "hex" will ever be retired. (8/4/2004 5:10:46 PM)
|
I do not think it is strictly the movement, but the calculations for "interactions" with associated ranges (planes, other ships, submarines, mines, land objects, etc..). Having "discrete" places on a map makes it much easier to manage these interactions. These actions multiply quickly in a game of this magnitude and scale, and would quickly become a serious computational burden for even a higher level processor. Distances have to be consistent and make sense with respect to the discrete time periods as well. The problem gets complicated quickly and requires a certain level of abstraction to make it all "work" in a fashion that makes sense and is computationaly feasible. quote:
ORIGINAL: Tige I'm showing my ignorance here but the 3-D space thing is throwing me a bit. I understand if you attempt to use a full satellite map includling 3-D elevation would be a nightmare at this scale, but, I don't see the difference the cpu calculating a TF moving from one hex to another vs. moving it from one lat/long fix to another. Just as the cpu looks at hex 01,02 and knows the terrain for that hex is jungle can it not know that 02N-167W is jungle? If I look at a TF, or an island for that matter, no matter what scale the chart is the object will be at the same location. -Tige
|
|
|
|