More maps VS bigger maps

[Pedro071]

Hello again.

If I want to have a bigger world wich would more preferable, putting more maps, or making them bigger? What effect will have either? longer loading time?, more memory usage?

Or, Do you think the world size is ok as it is?

And the most important: Can I start mapping with ten max map and map size as they are and change later?

Thanks in advance

[Alster]

Bigger maps may result in longer loading times - it all depends on the server hosts specs and the users specs. Bigger maps will increase your games file size.

There is no "ok" size for world maps, it all depends on what you want. I personally think they're ok as they are.

You can change the maximum maps later but not the map size - to change the size you've got to delete all your existing maps.

[StingRay200]

I would say have smaller maps.
It's usually easier to map that way.
Just my personal opinion.

[Robin]

Gigantic maps rendered properly. Have all the map packets cached, or the data stored client-side.

Personal preference.

[Drummerpete]

@Robin:

> Gigantic maps rendered properly. Have all the map packets cached, or the data stored client-side.
>
> Personal preference.

That sounds like the best way, but the problem with that is it's only possible in Eclipse if you're handy with VB6.

[Robin]

That's pretty much the problem with everything programming related. You need to be able to program to edit a program. :P

[Drummerpete]

<.<
Very good point.

[Baron]

@Pedro071:

> If I want to have a bigger world wich would more preferable, putting more maps, or making them bigger? What effect will have either? longer loading time?, more memory usage?

More maps will result in a longer server loading time and additional memory usage as well as slightly slower server due to the program looping through the entire map array at times.

Larger maps result in much higher load times clientside because map packets increase in size exponentially which means they take longer to receive and interpret.

[Admiral Refuge]

@▣▣▣BARON▣▣▣:

> More maps will result in a longer server loading time and additional memory usage as well as slightly slower server due to the program looping through the entire map array at times.
>
> Larger maps result in much higher load times clientside because map packets increase in size exponentially which means they take longer to receive and interpret.

So in other words, more maps effect the server most, larger maps effect the client most.  Right?

[Baron]

@Admiral:

> So in other words, more maps effect the server most, larger maps effect the client most.  Right?

Well, not really.

More maps would probably be the better route to go in my opinion because the engine has been using huge  numbers of maps for some time and there have been numerous improvements to speed for servers with large map arrays, and the client never has to wait as a result, minimising user frustration.

Whereas even with scrolling maps you still have several seconds of delay while it receives and draws the maps.

[jdf318]

Personally, I prefer large scrolling maps. However, it depends what you mean by large. Having your game just one big scrolling map… Intresting, but no, I don't think it is that good.A map that's 100x100, maybe, but still a bit to big in my eyes. I would go with large scrolling maps, but not too large.

[Sowtis]

I would say larger maps.

[Zawk]

hmm heard you could throw away timers and add it in loops making a few + on performance and if you use timers to use QueryPerformance or whatever… (forgot the string) so it will not only be more accurate but a little quicker too...

just note to never store anything in memory thats being used as bitblt, bitbltfx you store in the memory though heh...  (just future tip...)

[Lenton]

In my opinion waiting a while for a massive map (which could contain an area i.e. island) to load is better than having lots of small maps that take a little time to switch too. I find scrolling much better also. With scrolling you don't have to worry about having block attributes on the sides of maps. It looks much better and gives you a better gaming experience.

To deal with the loading times of the large maps you could just cut it down in sections and the sections of the maps around you load while you play.

**I feel that this is a must for custom map sizes in 3.0!**

[jdf318]

@Lenton:

> To deal with the loading times of the large maps you could just cut it down in sections and the sections of the map around you load while you play
> **I feel that this is a must for custom map sizes in 3.0!**

Wait, wait, wait, wait…. wait.(a reference to unforgotten realms)  I thought 2.7 already had something like this?