Ok.. time to redo the OTA textures.

Doomweaver · Post by **Doomweaver** » 07 Jun 2005, 05:35

Guys, no lossy compression. Seriously, it shows.

zwzsg · 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

Jpeg 1%: 4.1 kb

Jpeg 10%: 2.3 kb

Jpeg 50%: 1.3 kb

Jpeg 99%: 0.5 kb

For the same filesize of precisely 2.33kb, here is PNG (left) and JPG (right):

With a x5 zoom:

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

PNG>JPG

Ace07 · Post by **Ace07** » 08 Jun 2005, 18:18

Very good zwzsg.....

PNG rox....I love it.

Liam · 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.

Ace07 · 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.

Tangaroa · Post by **Tangaroa** » 08 Jun 2005, 22:19

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

Dragon45 · 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.

Ace07 · 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.

Redfish · 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.

Durandal · 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.

RightField · 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.

Dragon45 · 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.

efbie · 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.

[K.B.] Napalm Cobra · 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.

smoth · 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.

Icedragon · 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.

Gnomre · 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.

Ace07 · 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?

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

Icedragon · Post by **Icedragon** » 21 Jun 2005, 07:52

Okay, as a test I made this texture

roughly based on this one

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

aGorm · 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

Spring RTS Engine

Ok.. time to redo the OTA textures.