0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.
Hey,I haven't read the thread. Just wanted to say that we agreed with EnEsCe to release 1.5.1 as quickly as possible with disabled Portal functionality cause that isn't finished and was lagging the development significantly. As far as I know just the dedicated server needs to be compiled on linux. After 1.5.1 is out I will make further announcments for Soldat's future.
i have a question regarding MM's statement from 2 months agoQuote from: Michal Marcinkowski on October 14, 2010, 11:25:03 pmHey,I haven't read the thread. Just wanted to say that we agreed with EnEsCe to release 1.5.1 as quickly as possible with disabled Portal functionality cause that isn't finished and was lagging the development significantly. As far as I know just the dedicated server needs to be compiled on linux. After 1.5.1 is out I will make further announcments for Soldat's future.could you just finish that compiling and release the version as it is (obviously as long as it hasn't got some critical bugs)? It has some useful stuff (for example DM bug fix) and i think people are dying to get it already. You could release next versions with other fixes later.
indexing most of the default textures or converting them to uber-compressed png's (obviously without any transparency) would greatly increase fps. Same goes for default sceneries.
Also, looking into creating a soldat tutorial would be recommended, but further discussion of this should be left for the suggestions thread.
Quote from: Horve on December 17, 2010, 09:19:21 amindexing most of the default textures or converting them to uber-compressed png's (obviously without any transparency) would greatly increase fps. Same goes for default sceneries.This would only increase loading times... Pngs need to be unpacked in memory before they can be used for rendering.
Quote from: VirtualTT on December 17, 2010, 09:21:33 amQuote from: Horve on December 17, 2010, 09:19:21 amindexing most of the default textures or converting them to uber-compressed png's (obviously without any transparency) would greatly increase fps. Same goes for default sceneries.This would only increase loading times... Pngs need to be unpacked in memory before they can be used for rendering.That is most unfortunate, however I remember you mentioning something regarding a completely different file format for game graphics: dds, was it?
Quote from: Horve on December 17, 2010, 09:38:04 amQuote from: VirtualTT on December 17, 2010, 09:21:33 amQuote from: Horve on December 17, 2010, 09:19:21 amindexing most of the default textures or converting them to uber-compressed png's (obviously without any transparency) would greatly increase fps. Same goes for default sceneries.This would only increase loading times... Pngs need to be unpacked in memory before they can be used for rendering.That is most unfortunate, however I remember you mentioning something regarding a completely different file format for game graphics: dds, was it?Well what about converting the bigass bmp's to single-frame non-animated gif's? That'd totally lessen the filesize but I'm not sure about performance.
Quote from: jrgp on December 17, 2010, 09:38:51 amQuote from: Horve on December 17, 2010, 09:38:04 amQuote from: VirtualTT on December 17, 2010, 09:21:33 amQuote from: Horve on December 17, 2010, 09:19:21 amindexing most of the default textures or converting them to uber-compressed png's (obviously without any transparency) would greatly increase fps. Same goes for default sceneries.This would only increase loading times... Pngs need to be unpacked in memory before they can be used for rendering.That is most unfortunate, however I remember you mentioning something regarding a completely different file format for game graphics: dds, was it?Well what about converting the bigass bmp's to single-frame non-animated gif's? That'd totally lessen the filesize but I'm not sure about performance.Using animated gifs wasn't a good idea from the begging. Using simple non-animated gifs is even worse. Not even speaking that gifs aren't suitable for full-colored images. And they don't even support alpha channel.Compared with plain bmp, gifs and pngs reduce file sizes greatly. However they need to be programmatically unpacked (this step is resource-consuming since good compression requires a lot of resources to decompress) and only then sent to video memory so they can be used for rendering. Plain bmps don't require any decompression so they can be sent to video memory with minimum transformations (e.g. properly byte-aligned). Unlike all those previous file formats, dds stores images in the way they will be represented in video memory. So image can be loaded into video memory directly from HDD. Moreover de/compression methods dds supports are hardware accelerated so such textures can be present in video memory in compressed state while GPU unpacks them on the fly without performance penalties. Actually this approach saves a lot of memory. That why dds and / or similar formats are used in majority of games.However i think that various soldat performance issues aren't related to texture formats (except for gif). So i don't see any point in converting everything into png of dds.
...However i think that various soldat performance issues aren't related to texture formats (except for gif). So i don't see any point in converting everything into png of dds.
Was tga considered at any point?
I am so for hardwareIDs! If I ban someone, I don't want him to come back in 5 minutes.
<evhO> I think qb is trying to kill soldat
full-HD support.