Slower and more memory.
Tag requests
- Thread starter AIAndy
- Start date
Slower and more memory.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
Ok. Will respect that then and keep things to ints.
God-Emperor
Deity
I don't think it's true that it takes up more memory since a single precision float is the size of a 32-bit integer, unless you would use 16-bit "short" integers instead. It also seems to me that throwing in the occasional floating point calculation could be faster rather than slower. Any CPU made in the last several years (newer being better at it) has a good chance of being able to process some integer instructions simultaneously with the floating point instructions which could, in an ideal situation, get you a few floating point operations essentially for free - they might actually add near 0 processing time if the operation is pretty simple since they are using the otherwise unused floating point units in the core as the integer units keep processing any available independent integer instructions.
Interestingly, on any recent Intel CPU it looks like a 32-bit floating point divide is actually faster than a 32-bit integer divide (this info is seems to be hard to come by - I looked at the "Intel® 64 and IA-32 Architectures Optimization Reference Manual", in appendix C); on any Intel processor back at least a couple of generations doing one divide for a pair of 32-bit integers (assuming they are already in registers) generally takes somewhere in the 14-25 clock cycle range (with a series of them you might get them through as fast as 8 cycles each) but it is apparently only about 6 clock cycles for 32-bit floating point numbers (or one every 5 cycles for a series of them) - it used to be slower for a floating point divide but it looks like that is no longer the case (apparently since the "Enhanced Core Architecture", Family 6 Model 17h, which may or may not be the "Core 2" CPU generation; before that it was 32 cycles rather than 6 for the floating point divide), although there may be latencies in other stages of the processing that this does not account for. Floating point adds are 3 clock cycles (and you can push another one into the multiplier every clock cycle) and multiplies are 5 (a series of them gets one started every 2 clock cycles), but with integers it is 1 for an add (and you can apparently start 3 at a time) and a multiply is 3 clock cycles (and you can start 1 per cycle). So in general the integer math is not all that much faster than the floating point math, especially if there is much division involved. And, of course, the CPU can do both at the same time.
All assuming there really is nothing else going on at the time that is already using the floating point units.
Interestingly, on any recent Intel CPU it looks like a 32-bit floating point divide is actually faster than a 32-bit integer divide (this info is seems to be hard to come by - I looked at the "Intel® 64 and IA-32 Architectures Optimization Reference Manual", in appendix C); on any Intel processor back at least a couple of generations doing one divide for a pair of 32-bit integers (assuming they are already in registers) generally takes somewhere in the 14-25 clock cycle range (with a series of them you might get them through as fast as 8 cycles each) but it is apparently only about 6 clock cycles for 32-bit floating point numbers (or one every 5 cycles for a series of them) - it used to be slower for a floating point divide but it looks like that is no longer the case (apparently since the "Enhanced Core Architecture", Family 6 Model 17h, which may or may not be the "Core 2" CPU generation; before that it was 32 cycles rather than 6 for the floating point divide), although there may be latencies in other stages of the processing that this does not account for. Floating point adds are 3 clock cycles (and you can push another one into the multiplier every clock cycle) and multiplies are 5 (a series of them gets one started every 2 clock cycles), but with integers it is 1 for an add (and you can apparently start 3 at a time) and a multiply is 3 clock cycles (and you can start 1 per cycle). So in general the integer math is not all that much faster than the floating point math, especially if there is much division involved. And, of course, the CPU can do both at the same time.
All assuming there really is nothing else going on at the time that is already using the floating point units.
Depends on the context somewhat, and also on compiler optimizations and how the compiler uses registers (bear in mind we're compiling with a complier from 2003). You're right on size though - I was thinking of double precision. I'd still stick with ints unless you NEED more range though, or you'll start finding you're hiding rounding errors that the use of floats causes you to not notice (things like where values get multiplied by various modifiers and then divided by powers of 100 to renormalize - the coding can be easier [aka sloppier] with floats, but really that's only because it hides the fact that you're effectively truncating things via rounding errors - in some ways an obvious overflow is better because it makes a bug easier to spot). There are always exceptions of course, and to some extent it's a matter of taste I guess.
Dancing Hoskuld
Deity
Could I have an ObsoleteTech tag on the buildsinfos in the unit folder. There is at least one urgent one, the plant new forest is a poor cousin to the terraform builds.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
Shouldn't be too tough. I'll see what I can do when I catch a moment.
Hydromancerx
C2C Modder
@Thunderbrd
Could you make a Building tag that can heal specific unit types. Such as a Siege Weapon Repair Workshop that only heals Siege Weapons in the city? Or a Repair Dock that only heals Boats in the city?
Also could you make a unit tag that works the same way? Meaning they can only heal specific unit types. Thus we could make Mechanics that heal only siege weapons, tanks, robots, etc. While the existing healers could heal melee, recon, mounted, etc.
Thanks!
Could you make a Building tag that can heal specific unit types. Such as a Siege Weapon Repair Workshop that only heals Siege Weapons in the city? Or a Repair Dock that only heals Boats in the city?
Also could you make a unit tag that works the same way? Meaning they can only heal specific unit types. Thus we could make Mechanics that heal only siege weapons, tanks, robots, etc. While the existing healers could heal melee, recon, mounted, etc.
Thanks!
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
You'll want that for promos as well of course. I'll try to fit that one in soon. We've talked about it for a while now.
Dancing Hoskuld
Deity
Do we have a tag on buildings that lets us change the happiness by religion eg -1 for Zoro and +1 for both Druid and MesoAmenrian? I thought we did but I can't see it in the building schema
Hydromancerx
C2C Modder
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
hmm... not sure. I'd have to dig a bit. I take it none of our current buildings are using one eh?
Hydromancerx
C2C Modder
Could someone make a building tag that combines these 3 types of tags into a new tag?
So it would give say produce 3 Alcohol at Assembly Line Tech.
Code:
<FreeBonus>BONUS_ALCOHOL</FreeBonus>
<iNumFreeBonuses>1</iNumFreeBonuses>
<TechCommerceChanges>
<TechCommerceChange>
<PrereqTech>TECH_ASSEMBLY_LINE</PrereqTech>
<TechCommerce>
<iCommerce>3</iCommerce>
<iCommerce>0</iCommerce>
<iCommerce>0</iCommerce>
<iCommerce>0</iCommerce>
</TechCommerce>
</TechCommerceChange>
</TechCommerceChanges>So it would give say produce 3 Alcohol at Assembly Line Tech.
strategyonly
C2C Supreme Commander
Still need a dll person to look into this and see if this is feasible, thx.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=12519982&postcount=206
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=12519982&postcount=206
I finally found this, about 6 pages back, anyways i need a NEW tag for FeaturesInfos:
Code:<[U]FeatureUpgrade[/U]>FEATURE_FOREST_NEW</[U]FeatureUpgrade[/U]>
Schema info:
Code:<ElementType name="FeatureUpgrade" content="textOnly"/> <element type="FeatureUpgrade"/> <element type="FeatureUpgrade"/>
FeatureUpgrade- If this improvement has a chance to turn into a feature.
Source Code in FfH2 from Kael here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=5817028&postcount=1 (about 1/3 of the page down)
(This is what was proposed?)from DH ???
The only solution I thought of was having a burnt forests (burnt_forest_n ... burnt_forest_0) where n was the number of turns on the slowest speed. Then put the correct burnt_forest_k for the game speed on the plot. Then every turn go throw every plot and if it has burnt_forest_i on it change it to burnt_forest_(i-1) and replace it with forest if it was burnt_forest_0.
Way to complicated for me, sorry, its better to have just 1 tag. . .
It's certainly feasible, but if the improvement is on a plot that ALREADY has a feature what should happen? I assume just replace the existing feature? It could add a second one I guess, if the multi-feature stuff is active, but I don't think it is by default (is it?)
strategyonly
C2C Supreme Commander
No we have the coding possible for it NOT to have 2 features on the same plot, ie" Great Farmer. This code above is needed for CHOPPING of the forest(burnt) and to have that area then be re-placed by a NEW forest. (At least in theory)
Dancing Hoskuld
Deity
We are asking for a feature upgrade similar to an improvement upgrade but not worked versions. Ie the upgrade happens only if the plot is not being worked and does not have an improvement on it. I think - I am only just having my first coffee at the moment.
For example: volcano burns down a forest leaving burnt forest feature on the plot. After a while this regenerates into new forest which becomes normal forest. Note I doubt we want it to become ancient forest.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
The great farmer plants Bonuses, not features. At the moment we can only have one Bonus (resource) on a plot but Koshling had some great ideas about bonus groups and being able to have the ability to swap a bonus for another. Anyhow, just wanted to point out the difference as a Forest is a feature rather than a Bonus.
RidetheSpiral23
C2C Map Team
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2012
- Messages
- 389
Anyone willing to add a tag to techs for yield changes to types of terrain?
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
That's usually handled through improvements. If you could justify how this should NOT be handled with an adjustment to or further development on improvements, I'd be interested in hearing what you have in mind.
RidetheSpiral23
C2C Map Team
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2012
- Messages
- 389
You're right that improvements handle that pretty well already and I will probably be doing some enhancements to improvements soon as well.
Basically my need for yield changes on tech is to better simulate certain technologies like gathering, fishing, etc. Basically terrain yields would begin lower than they do now. You research gathering, grasslands get +1 food. You research hand fishing, you get +1 food on water tiles.
Not sure if I am explaining well enough. The base purpose is to get away from early extreme unhealthiness to simulate difficulty of maintaining food supplies.
Similar threads
