| denisonh 
 
 Posts:  2194
 Joined:  12/21/2001
 From:  Upstate SC
 Status: offline
   | 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
 
 
 _____________________________
 
 
   "Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid"  -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC |