Code center > Suggestions

Do bots get too small?

(1/2) > >>

EricL:
How do people feel about the range of bot sizes?  Are tiny little bots too tiny?  Should I change the radius calculation so that the minimum bot size is larger than it is currently?

How about large bots?  Should the largest bots be larger?  Should I change the radius calculation so that the maximum bot size is larger than it is currently?

Testlund:
I think it looks nice as it is.  

shvarz:
If we go by biology, then the range from smallest to largest possible cells is from 200nm for some tiny bacteria to 20cm for an ostrich egg (dinosaur eggs were even larger).  That is a 1,000,000-fold difference. So, yeah - I think we should allow a wider range than what is there now.

Numsgil:
Wider range

I'd also like a "megazoom" mode that lets me zoom in on my tiny bots on computers with slower graphics cards in a way that doesn't take a full 2 minutes.  Maybe a zoon button with a logarithmic scale.

EricL:

--- Quote from: Numsgil ---Wider range

I'd also like a "megazoom" mode that lets me zoom in on my tiny bots on computers with slower graphics cards in a way that doesn't take a full 2 minutes.  Maybe a zoon button with a logarithmic scale.
--- End quote ---
I sped up the mouse wheel zoom in 2.43m by 2.5X.    I can bump it again if you like.  Logarithmic is problematic because the places in the code where it yeilds to handle events arn't spaced evenly in execution time.  The zoom rate would jump and I fear for predictability.  I'd rather bump the speed and/or make the mouse wheel work right for in and out.

Also, I'm half done with a new magnifying lens feature that will let you have a window that displays whats under it at 10X or some settable magnification.  No more zooming the entire field if you don't want to.  Just pass the window over the interesting parts.  Not sure it will get done for awhile, but it's in the code now.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page