View source for Talk:PIF/Interpolating PIF
- [View source↑]
- [History↑]
Contents
Thread title | Replies | Last modified |
---|---|---|
DCBot | 10 | 16:01, 17 November 2011 |
Maybe i do not understand translating algorithm. How many iterations do translating algorithm for bullet, which will hit after 30 turns (according to my tests it's avarage bullet flight time for Tomcat)?
I do not remeber exactly, but interpolating algorithm do about 4-7 iterations. And if translating algorithm does 30 iterations, i'm sure, that interpolating is faster:)
And indeed, both of algorithm needs for more clear description:)
Also, which open source bot is implement translating PIF? May be code will be more clear for me
My Samekh definitely did, though my code is messy. Shadow's translating PIF version is available at oldwiki:DrussGT/HelpRequests. Glacier probably using this too.
The reason translating version is faster because in each iteration it doesn't have to do any trig, just simple addition. Trig only involve in battlefield rotation (at the beginning and at the end). This is the reason this version is faster.
Hmm, it looks like both methods can be used together to implement hyper fast PIF:)
But i'm pretty sure, that methods have comparable performance, because count of iterations and possibility to quick discard paths, which going out of battle field
And any way, PIF is not that thing, which eats significant part of CPU time:) In my case, at least:)
You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reasons:
You can view and copy the source of this page.
Return to Thread:Talk:PIF/Gradient PIF/DCBot/reply (7).
How you measure a performance?
You're welcome to rename this page, i can not find out better name:)
I had both methods running at the same time in the same bot, and put "System.nanoTime()" calls around each method. I then summed up the time taken in each and found the average time used by each method during a battle.
Maybe i will try same approach later and look self, which is faster:)