I’ve got a finished map that’s about 2.6megs for 2200x3400 pixels. I really can’t get it any lower than that without trashing the quality.
Is this too big for memory considerations? What’s the general cut-off point for switching to multiple pieces?
I have yet to find a cut off. However, you have to keep an eye on your Java heap and non-heap allocation. Take a look at the preferences for that.
I’ve done maps much bigger than this with 512 MB in both heap and non-heap memory. However, the default is 256 MB in each. Try it out.
- M.
On 18/03/2008, Shad <messages@forums.vassalengine.org (messages@forums.vassalengine.org)> wrote:
Post generated using Mail2Forum (mail2forum.com)
Thus spake “Michael Kiefte”:
NB: Setting heap from the Preferences is something new in 3.1.
–
J.
Messages mailing list
Messages@forums.vassalengine.org
forums.vassalengine.org/mailman/ … engine.org
Post generated using Mail2Forum (mail2forum.com)
Thus spake “Shad”:
At 2200x3400, it will occupy 28.5MB in memory. (That’s length x width x 4
bytes per pixel. File size is irrelevant.) That’s not an especially large
map image. It shouldn’t put much stress on VASSAL 3.1. You’ll consume a
lot of memory zooming on VASSAL 3.0, though.
If I had a map twice this size, I would probably split it, of for no other
reason that than maps which are much larger become cumbersome to work with
in image editors.
What the optimal cutoff is (and whether this varies from machine to machine)
isn’t well explored yet for 3.1 (the first beta for which we’ll release
later this week, knock on wood).
–
J.
Messages mailing list
Messages@forums.vassalengine.org
forums.vassalengine.org/mailman/ … engine.org
Post generated using Mail2Forum (mail2forum.com)
In 3.1, the largest map image I’ve used is 6895x2765. It’s noticeably slower, but it works fine.
It wont’ work if your heap and stack size is only 256 M each. I’ve only had experience with 3.1 unfortunately, so I don’t know how to change that in 3.0. However, since yours is less than half that size, you should be fine.
- M.
On 18/03/2008, Joel Uckelman <uckelman@nomic.net (uckelman@nomic.net)> wrote:
Post generated using Mail2Forum (mail2forum.com)
Thank you for the quick replies. None of my PCs run less than 2GB of memory so the concern wasn’t personal - I just want to make sure others can play it on more… elderly setups. 