Assidragon on 17/11/2007 at 06:07
But Dark already supports jpegs. :erg:
Mercurius on 17/11/2007 at 10:46
Say what now?
Assidragon on 17/11/2007 at 15:04
Crud. Okay, it doesn't. :sweat: Yep, jpg supports would be nice indeed.
ZylonBane on 17/11/2007 at 16:35
I'm struggling to comprehend why anyone would want game textures covered with compression artifacts.
Mercurius on 17/11/2007 at 17:11
I'm struggling to comprehend how a texture princess like yourself can't figure out that anything better than a 256 color gif would be heaven.
Besides, a little bit of artifacting gives a texture some character ;)
Eldron on 17/11/2007 at 23:40
zylonbane, DXT compression, which EVERY game nowdays uses.
ZylonBane on 18/11/2007 at 01:10
Quote Posted by Mercurius
I'm struggling to comprehend how a texture princess like yourself can't figure out that anything better than a 256 color gif would be heaven.
That's what TGA and PNG are for.
Also, I can't stand DXTC compression artifacts. It gives anything with fine detail a jumbled, pixelated look.
Mercurius on 18/11/2007 at 05:21
TGA is used when you desperately need embedded alpha channels. I'm not even familiar with an engine that uses PNG as it's about as efficient as using BMPs for textures unless you're using a grand total of like 4 colors.
Both formats are frightfully bloated and the quality difference between properly compressed jpegs and lossless compression formats is negligible unless you have some dickhead going over the textures zoomed to 300% looking for faint signs of artifacting so that they can make a big deal about it.
On the other hand, the size difference is significant and anyone involved in game art assets should be constantly comparing quality to performance; waste not want not. I used jpegs quite a bit during the days of Q3A as did most of the skinning community. No problems with artifacting because we knew what we were doing.
If this project can get DXT support going, that'd be great. As if jumbled, pixelated looks can even survive standard texture filtering :p
But I'd be happy with just jpeg.
Eldron on 18/11/2007 at 20:01
zylonbane, it's a tradeoff worth it, graphics memory is still rare these days, and all hardware has this magical support for DXT, which makes it very convenient.
and btw, graphics is about overall'ness, not the individual piece, dxt compression artifacts is a small thing to whine about.
mercurius, the thing with dxt versus all other compressed image formats is that the hardware itself supports the compression, but with just a jpg, all you save is download and harddrive space, since it puts it on the hardware as raw format.
and a 1 to 4 compression ratio, it's quite some memory you save there, to be able to fill the graphicsmemory with four times the content before you have to start swapping.
ZylonBane on 18/11/2007 at 20:41
I know all that, but still, it's funny to be playing a Thief or SS2 FM and see sharper textures than some modern games.
