Elysian Shadows

• A 3-Dimensional vector
  A 1-Dimensional vector with an algorithm that finds the appropriate index for any particular tile
  A 1-Dimensional vector storing a Layer class object for each layer, each of which contains a 1D (with index algorithm) vector storing tile data.

//declaration
vector<vector<vector<Tile*>>> mapData;

//accessing contents
mapData[layer][x][y]->getTileType();

//declaration
vector<Tile*> mapData;

//accessing contents
int tempTileNumber = GetTileNumber(layer, x, y);
mapData[tempTileNumber]->getTileType();

//Index finding function
int GetTileNumber(int layer, int x, int y)
{
    int tempa = x / tileWidth;
    int tempb = y / tileHeight;

    //Note: first layer is 0
    int tilenum = layer * tilesPerLayer + tempa + tempb * tilesPerRow;
    return tilenum;
}

//declaration
vector<Layer*> layerData;

//accessing contents
mapData[layer]->layerGetTileType(x, y);

//declaration
vector<Tile*> tileData;

//Index finding function
int GetTileNumber(int layer, int x, int y)
{
    int tempa = x / tileWidth;
    int tempb = y / tileHeight;

    //Note: first layer is 0
    int tilenum = layer * tilesPerLayer + tempa + tempb * tilesPerRow;
    return tilenum;
}

//returns tile type
int layerGetTileType(int x, int y)
{
    int tempTileNumber = GetTileNumber( x, y);
    return tileData[tempTileNumber]->getTileType();
}

wtetzner wrote:I like the 1-Dimensional vector storing Layers. It is easily resizable, easy to use, and I don't really see any performance problems it would have that the other ways wouldn't have, since you're just storing pointers in the vector.

-Walter

GyroVorbis wrote:I disagree. You are going to have a large performance drop with the 1D approach (so large that you won't even notice it, probably. But it's still way less efficient. ). Think about it, every time that you are looping through your vectors to render, or even fetch an index from an array, you are doing a calculation rather than just indexing straight up.

dandymcgee wrote:Well if multi-dimensional arrays use an algorithm to find my data anyways, then it would probably be best to use them. I mean if you think about it the chance that I'm going to write a faster or more efficient indexing algorithm than the one that C++ uses for vectors with my current knowledge is pretty damn slim.

anothrguitarist wrote:There's a bigger problem with vectors that nobody mentioned: they have a small maximum size. If you want to have large maps with more than one layer, I don't think vectors will work for you.

GyroVorbis wrote:No? The limit to a vector size is your RAM.

PixelP wrote:

GyroVorbis wrote:No? The limit to a vector size is your RAM.

as i thought.

GyroVorbis wrote: anothrguitarist, you sure that you aren't just talking about the default vector size on Dreamcast being pretty small? (I know that you're active in the DC scene, like me)