smoth wrote:no trade mark, I am saying that the compression degrades the texture and that decompressing it and restoring it to one image will result in some loss and then to run the same texture through that again will result in more loss.
so I am telling you that the texture while restored will be degraded further when you use it again.
And so what... >_> like you can see difference in game if some pixel is in wrong color... And some maps arent compressed at all.
it is my current thing, I am using this pink for now to make myself amused. I'll probably stop later on but seeing it has a nice soothing effect and I am tired and irritated right now :)
It wouldn't be on a pixel level, it would be on the level of several tiles throughout the map.
LordMatt wrote:smoth I also find your pink text annoying, which leads me not to read your posts. I assume most of the forum members are doing that at the moment.
ummm... font color... wtf... hello... use IE yourself to change it...
IT CAN DO THAT...
now, back on topic...
its not changing "pixels" but rather 16x16 blocks of image... 256 pixles are lost every time a piece of the image is repeated...
load a map with a very unique texture like a picasso map... look VERY closely... you will see the squares here and there that are repeated..
THUS, when you use it again, it'll repeat worse, the only way around it is to do NO compression, and thus, it uses identical tiles without repeating the initial one, and you get a file that is like 14 times as big. literally.
the idea of copying a map's (that is allready in map format) base texture, is fail.
utter P H A I L!...
ask the map author for the origional bmp image.. its like 400 megs yes, but even if he converted it to jpeg, and used a mild lossy compression and sent it to you at like 20 megs... it would be A HELL OF ALOT better than using the map's rendered image...