22-05-2003 18:18									#31
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by bobbo008 exactly. thats why i hate when they will take options out like that, not saying they did do it for this particular game. i just hate will people want their personal preference to be the standard for everyone, once again not saying anyone here said that

hi ,

well if there would be support for it and we could show that its for a good reason they might agree , .....

Firaxis

have a nice day

	23-05-2003 06:20									#32
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

would that really make a difference?

	23-05-2003 21:23									#33
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by bobbo008 would that really make a difference?

hi ,

take the huge map for example , i asked them , begged them for it , most people declared me insane for doing so , ...

after a chat with Mike and Soren , ....

surprise , surprise , it was there (!)

and if it was up to me i would ask for an even bigger one , say 400 X 400

have a nice day

	23-05-2003 21:43									#34
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

as a programmer myself, i dislike hard coded limits - any kind.

but somewhere it has to stop i only once tried a large (180x180) map and gave up after the medieval ages when i was micromanaging each turn for nearly an hour (my first and only pangea ultra REXing game)... it just wasn't fun for me anymore

panag, 400x400 means 80'000 tiles! each tile uses in game approx. 160bytes (IIRC) ... that's 12.2 MB! the pure map, no player data, no units, no rules, no nothing... :-o

	24-05-2003 01:04									#35
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

"but somewhere it has to stop i only once tried a large (180x180) map and gave up after the medieval ages when i was micromanaging each turn for nearly an hour (my first and only pangea ultra REXing game)... it just wasn't fun for me anymore "

exactly, thats why there should be the option (keyword: option) to have it as big as you want, and not hardcoding, like you said. there doesnt really need to be a limit, since a person can choose that for themselves. for me, 180x180 is smaller than i ever play, i like mine big, preferably really damn big, at least bigger than 516 cities. i dont see why they hardcoded 516 anyways...

	24-05-2003 03:14									#36
	Get a bigger avatar today!

bobbo:
well, 512 is a common limit (2 power 9) ... it divides nicely by the original 16 civs

as for the "why"... there are plenty of possible answers:
- programmers and beta testers thought "no one will ever want to play a level THAT big" (wrong, :lol
- if you don't set a limit at all, you run in the risk of getting some kind of data overflow. e.g. some OSs or environments or compilers might treat integers different than others. it would need a lot more hard core play testing (e.g. some games on a 1000x1000 map ...)
- it will function on the "minimal required hardware" machines. as soon as you let people have too large levels, the slower computers might make problems... which means you have to put up the requirements... which means the maximal number of potential buyers gets reduced.
- ...

of these reasons, only no. 2 is critical. but i think we're still far away of any environment based limits...

	24-05-2003 03:49									#37
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by bobbo008 for me, 180x180 is smaller than i ever play, i like mine big, preferably really damn big, at least bigger than 516 cities. i dont see why they hardcoded 516 anyways...

The limit is 512.

	24-05-2003 20:49									#38
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by sabrewolf as a programmer myself, i dislike hard coded limits - any kind. but somewhere it has to stop i only once tried a large (180x180) map and gave up after the medieval ages when i was micromanaging each turn for nearly an hour (my first and only pangea ultra REXing game)... it just wasn't fun for me anymore panag, 400x400 means 80'000 tiles! each tile uses in game approx. 160bytes (IIRC) ... that's 12.2 MB! the pure map, no player data, no units, no rules, no nothing... :-o

hi ,

still peanuts on a 80gb drive , ....

computer specs are getting higher with the month , so why not look into the future , ....

if people want it they can play it , if they dont want it they should not play it , .....

whats 12.2 mb on a game that needs a gig , ....

if they can put that extra large in , then those extra 50 tiles should be no problem

have a nice day

	24-05-2003 20:56									#39
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

i'm not talking about hard drive space. i mean RAM. 256MB may be standard today, but there are a lot out there with 64 or 96MB...

and as i wrote, 12MB just for the map data. the game needs around 80 anyway, and you still need the other data.

	24-05-2003 21:23									#40
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by sabrewolf i'm not talking about hard drive space. i mean RAM. 256MB may be standard today, but there are a lot out there with 64 or 96MB... and as i wrote, 12MB just for the map data. the game needs around 80 anyway, and you still need the other data.

hi ,

ram , seen them cheap prices around , .....

winxp needs at least 256 , so if you are a player you need more ram , simple , wheter its for civ , doom , or any other game , ..

12mb's is really nothing

and if you have an older system or just want to let your game go faster , close what you dont need , .....

have a nice day

	25-05-2003 02:03									#41
	Got spare money?

i dont see why the option cant be in there... or at least a higher number than a playable 512 cities (for me at least)

	25-05-2003 03:09									#42
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by bobbo008 i dont see why the option cant be in there... or at least a higher number than a playable 512 cities (for me at least)

hi ,

who knows , maybe Soren is in a good mood with his birthday and he shall grant us our request , .....

512 is abit low indeed , 756 seems a better number , 1024 with 32 civs would be the best

have a nice day

	25-05-2003 03:35									#43
	Remove this text

yeah, i'm saying that the fact that having a limit is OK, its just the limit shouldnt be so low as many computers today can still handle a higher amount.