Ok.. time to redo the OTA textures. - Page 2

Ok.. time to redo the OTA textures.

Share and discuss visual creations and creation practices like texturing, modelling and musing on the meaning of life.

Moderators: MR.D, Moderators

Doomweaver
Posts: 704
Joined: 30 Oct 2004, 14:14

Post by Doomweaver » 07 Jun 2005, 05:35

Guys, no lossy compression. Seriously, it shows.
0 x

User avatar
zwzsg
Kernel Panic Co-Developer
Posts: 7017
Joined: 16 Nov 2004, 13:08

Post by zwzsg » 08 Jun 2005, 11:55

Is it SO HARD to get over the fact that JPEG ISN'T THE BEST FORMAT for every purpose?

Jpeg is good for large photo. Jpeg is BAD for small textures.

Random TA texture:

PNG: 2.3 kb
Image

Jpeg 1%: 4.1 kb
Image

Jpeg 10%: 2.3 kb
Image

Jpeg 50%: 1.3 kb
Image

Jpeg 99%: 0.5 kb
Image

For the same filesize of precisely 2.33kb, here is PNG (left) and JPG (right):
ImageImage
With a x5 zoom:
Image

That clearly show the superiority of png over jpg: Same filesize, better quality.

PNG>JPG
0 x

User avatar
Ace07
Posts: 348
Joined: 21 Apr 2005, 20:46

Post by Ace07 » 08 Jun 2005, 18:18

Very good zwzsg.....

PNG rox....I love it.
0 x

Liam
Posts: 93
Joined: 02 Nov 2004, 22:43

Post by Liam » 08 Jun 2005, 19:13

i wouldn't call png 'better' quality, that somehow implies that it loses any quality at all, but yes it's great for smaller images, or larger images with the same amount of colour, and should always... always be used instead of bmp.
0 x

User avatar
Ace07
Posts: 348
Joined: 21 Apr 2005, 20:46

Post by Ace07 » 08 Jun 2005, 19:46

PNG is always better if disk space isn't a concern, so in this case, PNG > JPG.
0 x

Tangaroa
Posts: 77
Joined: 17 Aug 2004, 04:50

Post by Tangaroa » 08 Jun 2005, 22:19

PNG provides reasonable lossless compression and transparency, transparency could come in very handy later.
0 x

User avatar
Dragon45
Posts: 2883
Joined: 16 Aug 2004, 04:36

Post by Dragon45 » 09 Jun 2005, 00:47

But zwzsg, you neglected the 1.3 KB jpg file, which is nearly half the size as the PNG but isn't significantly worse. ANd since we are talking about TA texxes here, they dont NEED to be superly detailed.
0 x

User avatar
Ace07
Posts: 348
Joined: 21 Apr 2005, 20:46

Post by Ace07 » 09 Jun 2005, 05:31

You realize we are arguing over <1kb here?

How far has the computer age come again? Maybe using an extra kb was bad... 10 years ago....now its just accepted as part of the times. Use PNG for better quality please.
0 x

User avatar
Redfish
Posts: 289
Joined: 27 Feb 2005, 16:12

Post by Redfish » 09 Jun 2005, 10:32

the reason PNG beats JPG here is that the image is very small. It is therefore not reasonable to use jpg because if you start to compress something really small you lose too much. However I'd like to see you pull of the same quality / size thing with a 2 MP image. JPG versus PNG. We both know that JPG 0 compression delivers about 1/10th the size of the png in that case, without decernable quality issues.
0 x

Durandal
Posts: 126
Joined: 05 May 2005, 16:27

Post by Durandal » 09 Jun 2005, 10:53

Redfish, we aren't talking about using 2 Mb files - we're talking about 2 kb, on average.
Last edited by Durandal on 09 Jun 2005, 13:53, edited 1 time in total.
0 x

User avatar
RightField
Posts: 110
Joined: 11 Nov 2004, 21:29

Post by RightField » 09 Jun 2005, 12:27

No game designers use jpg as their image format. Another reason to use png here is that it supports alpha channels, which we might require in the future, so I see no reason in not using png in the first place.
0 x

User avatar
Dragon45
Posts: 2883
Joined: 16 Aug 2004, 04:36

Post by Dragon45 » 09 Jun 2005, 21:22

Another pro-jpg reason: Scale. You are looking at hundreds, maybe thousands, of textures. It adds up.
0 x

efbie
Posts: 6
Joined: 07 Jun 2005, 01:37

Post by efbie » 09 Jun 2005, 23:04

there is no pro-jpg thing. For small files, png is always better than jpeg both in terms of quality than file size.

there is tools to optimize png files : pngcrush on unix, and PNGOptimizer on windows. You can also remove headers informations in gimp for small files.

and the size argument is quite dull since when the textures are loaded in memory they are decompressed so jpgs won't make the game require less RAM. (Anyway they are heavier than png :) )

there is no reason at all to use jpg in game textures.
0 x

User avatar
[K.B.] Napalm Cobra
Posts: 1222
Joined: 16 Aug 2004, 06:15

Post by [K.B.] Napalm Cobra » 10 Jun 2005, 00:30

I think consensus has been reached and it is safe to announce the community's choice for the new texture format to be .PNG.
0 x

User avatar
smoth
Posts: 22298
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 00:46

Post by smoth » 18 Jun 2005, 00:59

bah.

Thanks for waisting a perfectly good motion with some asinine conversation that has probably already happened in 2-1999942359346-90346 places on the net.
0 x

Icedragon
Posts: 20
Joined: 16 Jun 2005, 06:07

Post by Icedragon » 19 Jun 2005, 09:28

I'd love to help if I knew what needed to be done. Can anyone link me to how to dump a GAF to PNG or describe it, so I can produce some textures roughly based on those needing to be replaced?

This is all of course assuming I'm not kicking a dead horse, in that this little project has been either completed, or completely abandoned.
0 x

Gnomre
Imperial Winter Developer
Posts: 1754
Joined: 06 Feb 2005, 13:42

Post by Gnomre » 19 Jun 2005, 09:57

Well, you don't really need to dump any GAFs. Just open up the taenheter.ccx file in HPIView and poke around in the "Unittextures" subdirectory. They're all just bitmaps. Though to edit them, you need to extract the .ccx file to your hard drive somewhere, modify, then repack the .ccx file using HPIPack.
0 x

User avatar
Ace07
Posts: 348
Joined: 21 Apr 2005, 20:46

Post by Ace07 » 20 Jun 2005, 21:20

smoth wrote:bah.

Thanks for waisting a perfectly good motion with some asinine conversation that has probably already happened in 2-1999942359346-90346 places on the net.
Yes, we are very sorry. Please continue redoing textures plz? 8)

I hope that something can come of this...we really need non-infringing material in this game.
0 x

Icedragon
Posts: 20
Joined: 16 Jun 2005, 06:07

Post by Icedragon » 21 Jun 2005, 07:52

Okay, as a test I made this texture

Image

roughly based on this one

Image

Is this the kind of stuff that needs to be done?
0 x

User avatar
aGorm
Posts: 2928
Joined: 12 Jan 2005, 10:25

Post by aGorm » 21 Jun 2005, 23:19

Its the sort of thing... but if tghats thye one u plan to replace... dont you think it should look a bit more like it?? Plus the textures should all be made BIG, and then they can just be shrunk down to whatever size latter. That way they will look better, and if the texture turns out to be used on lots of large faces it can be resized bigger.

aGorm
0 x

Post Reply

Return to “Art & Modelling”