GargantuanFieldsOfIsis map

sort

Angellus

11 years ago

Doesn't this give gargantuan lag due to size?

I'd love to play on one of those elongated maps, but I already lag on smaller maps.

+0 / -0

norm0616

11 years ago
(edited 11 years ago)

Most maps like this actually crash before they finish loading. I'm guessing if you already lag on small maps than this will be literally unplayable for you. Feel free to try though, I might be wrong.

+0 / -0

Histidine

11 years ago
(edited 11 years ago)

It's a 112x8 map. Asking whether you'll lag on it is like asking whether cyanide is cheap enough to put in your coffee.

+4 / -0

DeinFreund

11 years ago
(edited 11 years ago)

Now play 64v64 on this map.
(If spring would support it)

+0 / -0

Angellus

11 years ago

How much does spring support then? I thought there was no limit beyond CPU of host(s).

+0 / -0

Kyubey

11 years ago

quote:
cyanide is cheap enough to put in your coffee.

http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/product/sial/380970?lang=en®ion=GB

only 60GBP/kg reasonable enough :D

+2 / -0

TheEloIsALie

11 years ago

The only thing the "host" (the spring server) does is distributing packets. The CPUs of the players are the crucial point here.

+0 / -0

TheMooseIsLoose

11 years ago
(edited 11 years ago)

Spring supports maps up to 64x64 without problems, beyond that labels don't work properly. The greater challenge is having enough memory to compile maps of this size. At 22x22 I begin to encounter problems with mapconv

+0 / -0

Forever

11 years ago

I suggest we make garg field of isis 10X wider just to test springiee:P

+0 / -0

Rafalpluk

9 years ago
(edited 9 years ago)

It is perfectly playable. We just had a big game on it:
http://zero-k.info/Battles/Detail/371866

There wasn't much noticable lag, but we had an unit limit of 75 per player which certainly helped.

+1 / -0

Forever

9 years ago

Automatic system that adds 75 unit limit per player on each big map will be interesting.

+0 / -0

GargantuanFieldsOfIsis

PLAY ON THIS MAP

Last battles