Re: A85: Re: LaserSquad-Z

To: assembly-85@lists.ticalc.org
Subject: Re: A85: Re: LaserSquad-Z
From: Johannes <porkkanamies@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 04:57:50 -0700 (PDT)
Delivered-To: assembly-85-outgoing@towerguard.unix.edu.sollentuna.se
Delivered-To: assembly-85@lists.ticalc.org
Reply-To: assembly-85@lists.ticalc.org

Thanks! I did also find the algorithm from some
webpages... And then I'll add that A-star thing(it
searches the shortest points first). Now what would
you suggest for storing the checked points? Should I
have always growing list of all the points? It would
end up huge I guess... any ideas? Or maybe it wouldn't
be too big if I'd only store the furthest points of
the search area...

t333.....
.322222..
.321112..
..21s1...
..2111...
.........

txxx.....
.x2xxxx..
.xx11xx..
..x1sx...
..xxxx...
.........

x-these would be stored.

Well, thanks again!
/Johannes

--- David Whittaker <tubadave@sonet.net> wrote:
> I thought the algorithm you are using could use a
> little optimization, so I did some research.  It
> turns out that if you plan your path from the start
> and finish simultaneously, you cut the number of
> tiles you have to search in half (usually).  For
> example:
>  
> Your method:
>  
> 444444444.
> 433333334t
> 432222234.
> 432111234.
> 4321s1234.      81 searches
> 432111234.
> 432222234.
> 433333334.
> 444444444.
> 
> My method:
>  
> ......22222
> ......21112
> ......21t12
> .2222221112     50 searches.
> .2111222222
> .21s12.....
> .21112.....
> .22222.....
>  
> Granted, there will need to be a few more searches
> on each on to find the collision point, but you get
> the idea.

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

Follow-Ups:

Re: A85: Re: LaserSquad-Z

From: David Whittaker <tubadave@sonet.net>