So, if you create a 256x256 'Epic' map does this also means only 'high-end' systems can play it due the bad engine we always get standard with awesome Blizzard games ?
The map will have several different sections, arena's you may call them. Units would be 99% trigger based, so the wouldn't be loaded initially.
Arena's will be 'cutted' out by using forced camera's like most maps do.
But my question is, should we always aim for the 'smallest' map suiting your needs. Or doesn't it matter all that much ?
Basically : Is a 256x256 map with Terrain/Cliff/Doodads a pain for lower systems. Or shouldn't this be a concern and the engine surprises us ?
Well, the question is also if a big map with some unused empty space (1 ground texture, no cliffs/doodads/units) which can be used later to add more content is worth having or a smaller map without any unused space would be better from a performance viewpoint. Wanting to add more things later but not having space would be terribly annoying, so as long as the performance tradeoff is small it's a viable option. Knowing how performance is affected by map size would help in deciding.
That said - it depends. I know a lot of stuff is pre-loaded, so in that sense making a larger map only increases your loading time (aside from map size, obviously). On the other hand, there's also a bunch of doodads and props (water as the main culprit) that have animations that reduce performance majorly - these attributes tend to only have impact when actually looking at them. Meaning that if you made a 256x256 map but forced people to focus on one piece of terrain at a time, they wouldn't have consistant horrible FPS simply because you've got a lot of rivers in another part of your map.
That said; yes, you should always aim for the 'smallest' map suiting your needs, even if it's simply for the loading time and size you save on. Is a 256x256 map a pain for lower systems? It depends heavily on what's in it and the settings of the player. I'll opt to simply say "no" because simply making a map 256X256 instead of 96X96 without considering doodads or water will not really make much of a difference.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So, if you create a 256x256 'Epic' map does this also means only 'high-end' systems can play it due the bad engine we always get standard with awesome Blizzard games ?
The map will have several different sections, arena's you may call them. Units would be 99% trigger based, so the wouldn't be loaded initially. Arena's will be 'cutted' out by using forced camera's like most maps do.
But my question is, should we always aim for the 'smallest' map suiting your needs. Or doesn't it matter all that much ? Basically : Is a 256x256 map with Terrain/Cliff/Doodads a pain for lower systems. Or shouldn't this be a concern and the engine surprises us ?
Thanks in advance.
Dresnia|Zyff
Well, the question is also if a big map with some unused empty space (1 ground texture, no cliffs/doodads/units) which can be used later to add more content is worth having or a smaller map without any unused space would be better from a performance viewpoint. Wanting to add more things later but not having space would be terribly annoying, so as long as the performance tradeoff is small it's a viable option. Knowing how performance is affected by map size would help in deciding.
Bad engine? Lolwut?
That said - it depends. I know a lot of stuff is pre-loaded, so in that sense making a larger map only increases your loading time (aside from map size, obviously). On the other hand, there's also a bunch of doodads and props (water as the main culprit) that have animations that reduce performance majorly - these attributes tend to only have impact when actually looking at them. Meaning that if you made a 256x256 map but forced people to focus on one piece of terrain at a time, they wouldn't have consistant horrible FPS simply because you've got a lot of rivers in another part of your map.
That said; yes, you should always aim for the 'smallest' map suiting your needs, even if it's simply for the loading time and size you save on. Is a 256x256 map a pain for lower systems? It depends heavily on what's in it and the settings of the player. I'll opt to simply say "no" because simply making a map 256X256 instead of 96X96 without considering doodads or water will not really make much of a difference.