Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago
Part of the problem here was storing some number of terrains.
From the paper, in the worst case each node is only required to store only
annotations for capabilities
involving the node's terrain type. In the worst case, this is [number of
capabilities]/2 annotations per node.
A possible implementation is to store annotations in a data structure such as:
map<capability, clearance>
This will return 0 for invalid capabilities which is correct.
This issue is related to [http://code.google.com/p/ahastar/issues/detail?id=5
issue 5]. Once that is
implemented, storing annotations is only useful for pre-processing convenience
and they can be discarded.
It might thus be better to keep a temporary data structure of clearances
instead of extending the base "node"
class (like now) to add extra attributes.
Original comment by dhara...@gmail.com
on 15 Nov 2008 at 1:32
Original comment by dhara...@gmail.com
on 16 Nov 2008 at 11:29
This will probably never get done.
The code demonstrates how; extending it to be completely general is pointless
at the moment and no new research into this area is planned.
Original comment by dhara...@gmail.com
on 19 Aug 2010 at 1:48
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
dhara...@gmail.com
on 7 Aug 2008 at 5:04