I tested the Jump point search algorithm(http://harablog.wordpress.com/2011/09/07/jump-point-search/) and the classic AStar, and found that JPS is slow than classic AStar. The paper said jps is 2-30 times faster than classic AStar, I don't know why. The biggest comsumption is jump function, because it need visit so many tiles to find jump point, I highlight all the visited tiles in jump function.

The dashed lines are the horizontal and vertical lines that are checked while checking the diagonal.

Actually, JPS algorithm IS faster than classic A*, this can be proven by mathematics.

the implementation of the algorithm is another story :)

Actually, JPS algorithm IS faster than classic A*, this can be proven by mathematics.

the implementation of the algorithm is another story

o, you did write some code to test JPS and find out is is slower than ASTAR or you just think it is slower?

Yes, I wrote a demo to test the two algorithms, refer to the open source:

https://github.com/arirahikkala/astar-jps

I found a thread here that people discuss jps performance:

http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=92732.0