Hi-Res textures

[i-NoD]

I guess this should go to dev forum but i'm just too lazy to create a new topic

So, how about making terrain textures for new renderer smaller in size without quality degradation: maybe all those pngs should be converted to 8-bit custom color palette ones? They are tiles which means that there aren't much unique colors in them (water tiles is the exception, since they are gradient like) and they aren't using transparency, so there is no restrictions for pages 40-58. I've used XnView to convert them to 256-color custom palette (without dithering) and I don't see any perceptible difference between in and out, beside the file size of course:
page-40-ground-plants.png 2 724 537 bytes http://developer.wz2100.net/browser/tru ... plants.png
page-40-ground-plants_8bit.png 841 711 bytes

page-40-ground-plants_8bit.png

page-55-grass.png 9 511 522 bytes http://developer.wz2100.net/browser/tru ... -grass.png
page-55-grass_8bit.png 2 792 384 bytes
page-56-gravel.png 10 446 590 bytes http://developer.wz2100.net/browser/tru ... gravel.png
page-56-gravel_8bit.png 2 762 969 bytes

page-56-gravel_8bit.png

If we convert those 18 tiles we will get only 22 MB instead of 68 MB - nearly half of wz trunk package size.
I've tested them with the latest build from trunk and is working just fine.

[EvilGuru]

Don't worry, before long 'someone' (and I am not naming names) will have an obsessive compulsive spout to run pngcrush on all of the textures. It happens from time to time. It also annoys anyone who follows the development version as it results in a very long 'svn up'.

Regards, Freddie.

[Zarel]

Oh, good idea! Thanks for the suggestion.

EG: I don't think pngcrush will help much, since iirc pngcrush is lossless. Going from truecolor to 8-bit indexed results in an unnoticeable reduction in quality.

[Firechkn34]

i see flying trucks and i think that is epic

[lav_coyote25]

flying trucks you say?? hmmmm ... perhaps you should book an appointment with optometrist or ... xD xD xD xD xD just kidding...

[i-NoD]

flying trucks you say?? hmmmm ... perhaps you should book an appointment with optometrist or ... xD xD xD xD xD just kidding...

Nice joke But no kidding this time... look on a previous page - the last screenshot is from whippersnapper's "War School" map-mod wip viewtopic.php?f=10&t=2996 and there are a flying trucks in upper right corner... or maybe i'm blind too

[lav_coyote25]

no no - i also have used the flying trucks... long long long time ago - 1.11 original wz2100...... as i stated at end of the sentence - j/k = just kidding. yes i am a smart ass.... cant always be serious - if you do you turn into = :mad; and then go all postal over everybody... so have a happy. xD

[Zarel]

Nice joke But no kidding this time... look on a previous page - the last screenshot is from whippersnapper's "War School" map-mod wip viewtopic.php?f=10&t=2996 and there are a flying trucks in upper right corner... or maybe i'm blind too

Yeah. But keep in mind they're not a part of normal Warzone, and will never be. :/

[i-NoD]

Yeah. But keep in mind they're not a part of normal Warzone, and will never be. :/

Your statement has nothing to do with whippersnapper's mod - it already contain flying trucks. I someone want to add them - he/she can and probably will do it in some mod. What is 'normal' Warzone anyway? Many people here are adding new functionality or creating mods because they are tired of 'normal' WZ or because they want to try some new ideas to old gameplay. From that point of view there are no flying trucks in 'old' Warzone...
Personally I don't want to see flying trucks in-game under human control, they can be used in some new campaign or scenario under AI-only command (maybe as some new supreme enemy).

[Zarel]

Your statement has nothing to do with whippersnapper's mod - it already contain flying trucks. I someone want to add them - he/she can and probably will do it in some mod. What is 'normal' Warzone anyway? Many people here are adding new functionality or creating mods because they are tired of 'normal' WZ or because they want to try some new ideas to old gameplay. From that point of view there are no flying trucks in 'old' Warzone...
Personally I don't want to see flying trucks in-game under human control, they can be used in some new campaign or scenario under AI-only command (maybe as some new supreme enemy).

Meh, I was just pointing out it was part of a mod and not core Warzone, in case anyone got the wrong idea...

[whippersnapper]

.

Here's my "official" posted position on "Flying Trucks" vis-a-vis what I'm doing in "War School":

ALSO: I have yet to finalize the method(s) I will use to balance Flying-Trucks as I am trying to avoid the game play devolving into "Flying-Truck Rush" which is a novelty that wears thin pretty quick, IMHO. It's the only way to go for me and if I don't come-up with a suitable solution I will simply remove them - as much as I like 'em.

......................

I someone want to add them - he/she can and probably will do it in some mod. What is 'normal' Warzone anyway? Many people here are adding new functionality or creating mods because they are tired of 'normal' WZ or because they want to try some new ideas to old gameplay. From that point of view there are no flying trucks in 'old' Warzone...

Personally I don't want to see flying trucks in-game under human control, they can be used in some new campaign or scenario under AI-only command (maybe as some new supreme enemy).

I share those sentiments. And your last comment is one of the ways I'm entertaining using "Flying Trucks"... That is restricting their use to the 5th Player Custom A.I. I'm scripting (on a 4 player Map.... those 4 controlled by human or Become Prey) that will control the "Center Citadel" in WS at the start of the game which is a Campaign technique applied to what is in fact Skirmish Mode.

BTW, me and my partner on the project, Laws245, first introduced "Flying Trucks" in "Citadel Elite" Map-Mod a full year+ before they were incorporated into v.1.11 Mod (and quite a few mods after that). They were given a special name other than "Flying Trucks" in the .PDF that came with their initial release but it never caught-on.

Sorry i-Nod for this "Fly Truck" deal high-jacking your thread.. I wasn't thinking about 'em showing when I posted the screen cap.

Regards, whip
.

[nobby]

Short licensing nitpicking: Since the original textures are under the GPL, any modified versions are automatically GPL as well.

Not necessarily. You can say "This is GPL, but the modifications are public domain", which is what I often do. Keeps in the spirit of "as free as possible".

Not so sure about that. The GPL is called 'viral' for a reason - the conditions still apply to derivative works if you redistribute the derivative works. If you could re-licence GPL work as 'Public Domain' you could get around the 'must make source available' clause by re-releasing a 'public domain' version of (say) the Linux kernel with a trivial modification and then taking it proprietary. If that were possible someone would have done it by now.

In practice, 'Derivative works' effectively means anything that is dependent on the original. If you use (for example) a GPL database driver on an application then the application becomes a derivative work for the purposes of the GPL (MySQL use this to drive sales of commercially licensed versions). You can sort of get away with a proprietary program that can use a GPL driver but might work with other database management systems if you don't redistribute the GPL driver with the application. However, it would be difficult to argue that a mod specifically for Warzone was not dependent on the game.

If it is solely distributed as a patch and never redistributed with WZ2100 itself you could licence it any way you want (unless it started out as a modification of actual GPL licenced code, in which case it becomes a derivative work). However if you wanted to included it in a GPL WZ2100 distribution you would have to license it under a 'GPL compatible' license; if the license was not compatible with the GPL it could never be distributed as a part of the core system.

This does cause problems from time to time. For example, GPL incompatibility bit the Python development team at one point and they had to change the licence to make it compatible with the GPL so that people could distribute GPL applications with embedded Python runtimes. Another famous example was the incompatibility of the GPL and BSD licenses.

Having said that, I don't think that 'public domain' is incompatible with the GPL per se. However, if the item was redistributed with a GPL code base or met the definition of 'derivative work' the GPL would probably trump the 'Public Domain' license.

[Zarel]

Not so sure about that. The GPL is called 'viral' for a reason - the conditions still apply to derivative works if you redistribute the derivative works. If you could re-licence GPL work as 'Public Domain' you could get around the 'must make source available' clause by re-releasing a 'public domain' version of (say) the Linux kernel with a trivial modification and then taking it proprietary. If that were possible someone would have done it by now.

What I mean, is that you can distribute your diff to the original work under public domain. The derivative work itself is infected with the GPL, but the diff is not.