I was browsing the ship textures and realized that several are unnecessarily large in terms of pixel dimensions, such as the DeathStriker.jpg which comes in at 1024x1024. Also, in terms of filesize, the original filesize is ~215kb, whereas both my modified texture with 0% quality loss as a .jpg(as seen here:
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=48486&p=592290#p592290 ) is a bit smaller(159kb), and my png version comes in at 136kb.
I use a compression plugin for .png files called pngout, which basically "rebuilds" the image on export as efficiently as possible, often resulting in smaller filesizes than .jpg, while being able to retain an alpha channel (we could knock out the backgrounds on the textures resulting in an extremely easy method for modifying textures).
After having said all that, i'm just curious if there is a system in place to keep track of the most efficient texture size to model size ratio.
_________________
Sodomy wrote:
I will kill what I created.
anilv wrote:
Try again when you have a doctorate in mathematics, grasshopper. I'll be pulling rank until then.
Bonecrusher wrote:
I'm a professional whiner.