Darkplaces runs better with textures

[foq]

How often do you get a png that's NOT at least 3x smaller than a tga?

[Bank]

PNGs are bigger...

[Baker]

But a TGA will still load 3 times faster than a PNG of the same size...

That was tested with these sets. The PNG and TGA load times didn't take different amounts on time on the timer.

In fact, based on some libpng.dll tests I did, the evidence strongly supports that the PNG sets I have built load faster than the TGA version of the identical sets I made.

I did these tests around November of last year

Test #1 - Full size PNG
Test using C:\build\trinca\p3a\orig\rtex081.png
83805.89
83824.17
1000 Loads, time elapsed = 18.28125 seconds

Test # 2 - Full size TGA
Test using C:\textures\trinca\p3a\rtex081.tga
83824.17
83870.14
1000 Loads, time elapsed = 45.96875 seconds

Test #3 - Baker's Processed PNG
Test using C:\build\textures\trinca\p3a\rtex081.png
83870.14
83871.5
1000 Loads, time elapsed = 1.359375 seconds

Test #1 - Full size PNG
Test using C:\build\trinca\p3a\orig\rock0_2.png
84762.22
84767.06
1000 Loads, time elapsed = 4.84375 seconds

Test #2 - Full size TGA
Test using C:\textures\trinca\p3a\rock0_2.tga
84767.06
84788.14
1000 Loads, time elapsed = 21.07813 seconds

Test #3 - Baker's Processed PNG
Test using C:\build\textures\trinca\p3a\rock0_2.png
84788.14
84791.95
1000 Loads, time elapsed = 3.8125 seconds

[Baker]

PNGs are bigger...

PNG files are smaller than TGA most of the time. Like FOQ-A observes, a PNG being 1/3 of the size of a TGA is pretty common. Only in rare circumstances are TGAs smaller than PNG typically.

Maybe there is some way to make TGAs as smaller as PNGs, but I have never seen this. Your default GLQuake TGA screenshot is usually 901 KB (about 1 MB) vs. 300 to 400 KB for your typical PNG screenshot at the same resolution.

There may be more technical caveats to this, who knows, but I've not seen TGAs smaller than PNG except in very rare circumstances.

[Lardarse]

Baker - I dont think Lardarse is addressing the retexture projects with that statement, merely Quake itself (which shy of Kedhrin and Randy's work, looks a LOT better than any of these texture packs Ive seen. Im also not a fan of using other games textures as a replacement). I could be wrong though, I guess I could ask Lardarse.

I haven't really been following Quake10Year, or any of the other retexturing projects out there, mainly because I don't feel a need to make quake look any different to the way it is now. I'm happy to look at a pale brown wall, with a brown grunt and a brown enforcer standing next to it, and then seeing the dark red blood fly out of them as they feel the wrath of my shotgun...

The reason that it looks good after all of these years is because it is consistent with itself. It uses a simple palette of 15 colour fades, and a few extras for special occasaions. Just 256 colours to make it look the way that it does. It doesn't need any 24-bit textures to make it look good...

I'm one of those weird people that chooses games based on gameplay, rather than looks. One of those weird people that, according to the games industry, doesn't exist. I don't need 24-bit textures to make this game playable. I don't need the walls to distract me from the monsters standing right next to them. I don't need Quake to look any different than it already is. All I need is Quake; and it's right here waiting for me...

[Bank]

PNG files are smaller than TGA most of the time. Like FOQ-A observes, a PNG being 1/3 of the size of a TGA is pretty common. Only in rare circumstances are TGAs smaller than PNG typically.

Maybe there is some way to make TGAs as smaller as PNGs, but I have never seen this. Your default GLQuake TGA screenshot is usually 901 KB (about 1 MB) vs. 300 to 400 KB for your typical PNG screenshot at the same resolution.

There may be more technical caveats to this, who knows, but I've not seen TGAs smaller than PNG except in very rare circumstances.

Not when you strive for the quality that I expect in most work I produce. It's a rare sight for me to save any of my outrageously detailed stuff in anything less than PNG.

[Monster]

You guys have to admit though, those textures are pretty badass...

[Canadian*Sniper]

You do realise you're trying to reason with Bank who's a complete Doom fan. Doom is everything BUT awesome graphics. I don't care for textures as well.

[Bank]

Reasoning with me is like offering a Grizzly a smoke. Dont count on it.

[foq]

Im just saying, DP loads faster with textures that look better.
MOST people would appriciate this ^^

[Bank]

Im just saying, DP loads faster with textures that look better.
MOST people would appriciate this ^^

Except that it doesnt.

[foq]

Yes it does.

[Monster]

Oh blah here we go again, another endless bank and foqer argument. It will never end because noone can defeat Bank's opinions.

[Bank]

Actually, I dont entend to reply to him directly. I already saw it'd end up as a "Yes it does, no it doesnt you fool, yes it does, no seriously, it doesnt"

[Baker]

As annoying as it is, Bank is actually right. Even a broke clock is right twice a day so I guess it had to happen eventually.

DarkPlaces loads faster without any textures. As fast as the elite texture set loads that FOQ-A refers to, I compared and contrasted and it does take 3 or 4 extra seconds, at least on my machine.