From: Erik V. <eri...@xs...> - 2010-03-21 21:42:45
|
-----Original Message----- From: alexti [mailto:al...@sh...] > - From your description I conjecture that you already maintain a > dictionary > that maps tile ids to your vertix/edge defintions. In that case that > would > easy to add, if the data format is used can be converted to xml. Rails > maintains a similar definition file in tiles/tiles.xml. Unfortunately, I don't have such dictionary, because I was entering all tiles in the definition (connectivity) form. However from your description it seems that the tiles in Rails are maintained in a very similar form so the conversion algorithm will be very similar to what I use right now. [EV] That is also my conclusion. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- From: John A. Tamplin [mailto:ja...@ja...] Obviously if some new construct is invented for a game the algorithm will have to be extended to support it. I just don't see much point in implementing something where the basic algorithm can't support the various things we already know exist (it doesn't need to be implemented at first, but it needs to be extensible without rewriting the basic algorithm). [EV] On the other hand, I doubt if we can reasonably expect anyone to predict what that extendable-to-all-cases algorithm will be. Neither could we predict, for instance, the right basic structure of the Rails core code when we started this project - it has already gone through fairly extensive refactoring efforts. So, as long as route handling and revenue calculation remain as pluggable as possible, I would see no problem in starting with the simple cases and then improve. Erik. |