YoHoJo
2011-12-06 18:40:28
Currently MSI uses the set tolerance in sps.simba and set paths/tiles per location.
1) We all know that in some places SPS works fine, in other higher tolerance is good, in others lower tolerance is good. I say each location/script record should define it's own SPS tolerance best suited for that area.
(SPS 2.0 might 'fix' this by being more accurate and better overall though)
2) Some places (Rimmington and Varrock West mine for example) are very long/wide/large and just having one tile as the endpoint is not always good. Ex: Endpoint for VWM is the center of the mine, this is very bad if mining iron because out of the ~4-5 iron rocks there only ONE is visible from this spot. Even if I manually move my character to a better spot where the rocks are, the script re-calibrates to the middle again!
So I say we have custom tolerances per location, and different tile depending on what rock/tree etc you wish to auto on, it would be a lot better.
1) We all know that in some places SPS works fine, in other higher tolerance is good, in others lower tolerance is good. I say each location/script record should define it's own SPS tolerance best suited for that area.
(SPS 2.0 might 'fix' this by being more accurate and better overall though)
2) Some places (Rimmington and Varrock West mine for example) are very long/wide/large and just having one tile as the endpoint is not always good. Ex: Endpoint for VWM is the center of the mine, this is very bad if mining iron because out of the ~4-5 iron rocks there only ONE is visible from this spot. Even if I manually move my character to a better spot where the rocks are, the script re-calibrates to the middle again!
So I say we have custom tolerances per location, and different tile depending on what rock/tree etc you wish to auto on, it would be a lot better.