Started by DrSuperGood, February 21, 2018, 06:44:26 AM
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: Vladki on March 03, 2018, 04:05:55 PMI think, that for now it would be best to make the gradient for both half and full slope configurable, and also to remove the code that makes consecutive gradients steeper. This would allow for more experimenting and balancing.
Quote from: ACarlotti on March 03, 2018, 09:12:50 PMUnder my proposed system, setting the smothing distance equal to (or less than) the tile distance would effectively disable it.James: In terms of actually implementing this, I would be hesitant to deal with the configuration settings, but could probably manage the rest of the changes fine. So if you were to make a branch and add a gradient smoothing distance and a height per level setting to the configuration (and tell me how to access that setting), then that would be helpful for me.
Quote from: Vladki on March 03, 2018, 09:06:12 PMNah, I can't come up with something tha would work equally well for both long distance (>10 km), and short distance - i.e. bridge over road/river.
QuoteDrSuperGood: I think there is an error in your calculation. You assume that one (half height) tile is 62.5m, but for the physics engine I believe that is incorrect. As we discussed earlier in the thread, the current code uses a gradient of 4% for a half-height (non-road) uphill slope, and 8% for a full height slope, which corresponds to an increase in height over 125m of 5m. This would suggest around 2.5 minutes for a horse to climb a hill, but this is less than is observed without the temporary reduction in resistance for road vehicles.