Render times and 1.2 Support Archived · read-only

(03-20-2012, 02:42 PM)mamxan Wrote: if overviewer is faster than tectonicus, this would be the right joice. and you can exclude some zoomsteps for free maps...

I'm agreeing with mamxan and the rest, i think the mapping is a great service as it makes it easy to preview maps in detail. It might be handy to be able to upload your own renders and this may take some of the strain away from the queues. Waiting isn't really a problem for me as long as you can track your progress! This is a great site better than other comparable map download sites and deserves more users, spread the word!

I must say I'm really shocked that most people don't care about the wait times. I was quite stressed and annoyed over making people wait so long.

I'd love it if a lot more people voted but from the small sample who has it seems the preference is for the higher quality maps.

You offer premium accounts for a pretty nominal price. It seems to me that more than makes up for the process times.

I don't mind the wait. The whole reason i use this site and the premium service is for the awesome detail I get from my maps.

I would rather sacrifice some decent amounts of graphics just to have a faster, and smoother game-play, whats the use of a choppy, yet detailed game when you cannot even focus on killing monsters or running away from them? So I would defiantly go for faster speed.Wink

(03-23-2012, 12:27 AM)nicholas_84 Wrote: I would rather sacrifice some decent amounts of graphics just to have a faster, and smoother game-play, whats the use of a choppy, yet detailed game when you cannot even focus on killing monsters or running away from them? So I would defiantly go for faster speed.Wink

As I understand it this poll is for the map render that this site provides and is a discussion about how to best deal with the fact that the current system doesnt support Anvil. The question over speed refers to the time it will take for the site to generate a map of your upload. Tectonicus = slow but detailed 3d (no 1.2 support yet) mc map= fast but low resolution 2d and minecraft overviewer= faster than tectonicus detailed 3d.

This will have no effect on gameplay in game.

Which type of map would you prefer and how long would you be prepared to wait for it Nic?

I definitely prefer to the Overviewer option. I don't mind waiting longer for a new map.
For our server, I post a backup save on Google Docs every night. Players who want the latest map right away can grab the save and use a viewer like Minutor to see a map.

I submit a map to you every 2 to 3 weeks to get a detailed render. Folks can use that if they like, but they know it's only updated maybe once or twice a month.

Everybody's happy!

How about letting people choose between two detail levels on map upload? Fast might exclude some zoom levels while quality contains all (maybe with additional settings available for premium?).

Hi everyone who is following this thread.

I have been plugging away on rewriting the back end for the *upgrade* to overviewer from Tectonicus.

I've got this all figured out and working now so I am moving on to the front end changes that are required to make this work.

The render times of overviewer seem significantly faster (1/3 of the time) so I am excited to see how this plays out

I am also looking into the possibility of adding some additional options for premium members!

Thanks for the update. I'm excited to get a new map up.