Accepted Solutions
The problem with octagons is that the grid of octagons has gaps:
If you cost raster is has little variation than you will notice the effect of the square grid cells, if it has high variation you will not notice it.
The other aspect to consider is the accuracy of the result. is your input and methodology this precise to require the hexagonal grid cells? In other words, will the effort you will have to invest in using a different shape of cell really yield a better result?
Hi, sorry about the delay I was on leave.
Hex based movement over a terrain is more realistic than square based as it allows for increased directionality. I suspect that is why the gaming industry uses it. I was hoping that we might move beyond simple square cost distance movement. Ultimately I would like to see if we could integrate an octagon rather than hexagon as the eight sides would be a far better approximation of real movement in terrain cost distance.
Square (N, S, E, W) (four core movement directions)
Hex (NW, NE, E, W, SW, SE) (six core movement directions)
Octagon (N, S, E, W, NW, NE, SW, SE) (eight core movement directions)
Does that help explain my thinking? 
Jeff
The problem with octagons is that the grid of octagons has gaps:
If you cost raster is has little variation than you will notice the effect of the square grid cells, if it has high variation you will not notice it.
The other aspect to consider is the accuracy of the result. is your input and methodology this precise to require the hexagonal grid cells? In other words, will the effort you will have to invest in using a different shape of cell really yield a better result?
