Ian Clarke wrote: > I would have expected regions close to each other to tend to have the > same subnet, with one subnet occupying one side of the location space, > and the other region occupying the other, yet I'm seeing something > like this: > > 86 95 86 60 2 1 72 89 87 91 8 5 3 39 108 91 64 6 0 7 > > There seems to be three "clusters" here, which is rather strange - any > theories?
I think it might have something to do with the number of links between the subnets (try playing with the JOINS constant), but eventually the clusters tend to coalesce if you leave the simulation running for long enough. Cheers, Michael
