bmp, png or both?

[Lobster]

Will we again have two formats available or will it be one again? It's kinda important to know since a lot of people have modified files but not in both formats.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Will we again have two formats available or will it be one again? It's kinda important to know since a lot of people have modified files but not in both formats.

The new graphics will be png. I expect the bmp graphics to be an option, but I don't actually know that. It's a work in progress.

[geozero]

Hope it's png. Better resolution and ease of use in PS.

[sPzAbt653]

Respectfully, Mr. Zero, I fail to see any better resolution between the two and 'ease of use in Photo Shop' is no excuse to use such poor looking graphics. No offense to whoever did the png's, but the attention to detail and differences in terrain features don't match up to the bmp's, by far.

Some may like png's because they are easy to use, but there is a reason for that ease. Wanna do something worthwhile ? Convert the bmp's or something comparable into png's, then we can have something that looks professional AND is easy to use.

[geozero]

png is compressed yet lossless so superior in many ways but for gaming means smaller file sizes, as well as png has transparency options. I could go on and on...

[sPzAbt653]

Nice positive aspects ... shame they look like garbage.

[geozero]

I think if you compare existing files which were probably done as 8 bit waaaay back, then yes garbage... in fact POS. But we have better resolution. If we can get new artwork done with new programs and not crappy 25 year old software then we stand the chance of having really great graphics. Yet png format still gives you compression for smaller files (and smaller install for a game) with lossless resolution.

[Meyer1]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Respectfully, Mr. Zero, I fail to see any better resolution between the two and 'ease of use in Photo Shop' is no excuse to use such poor looking graphics. No offense to whoever did the png's, but the attention to detail and differences in terrain features don't match up to the bmp's, by far.

Call me crazy, but I like the left one better..., also the counters looks so much better with the png files, specially in "huge" view. I guess the higher the resolution, the worse the bmp files look.

ORIGINAL: geozero

I think if you compare existing files which were probably done as 8 bit waaaay back, then yes garbage... in fact POS. But we have better resolution. But, hey, it's all subjective.

PNG graphics came with TOAW 3.4 patch, so they are relatively new.

[Fred98]

In post 4 above, the screen on the left is obviously better than the one on the right.

So which of them is BMP format?

.

[Meyer1]

ORIGINAL: Joe 98

In post 4 above, the screen on the left is obviously better than the one on the right.

So which of them is BMP format?

.

The right one.

[Lobster]

Left has less detail. I like the urban in the right. Left terrain is less busy but looks less professional. Each has good points and bad points. But we have a very good artist doing the new stuff so it should be much better.

It is all subjective. The problem with the current png files is that they were done with freeware. Big mistake.

What you can count on in TOAW4 maps will look different simply because it's a new artist.

[Meyer1]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Left has less detail. I like the urban in the right. Left terrain is less busy but looks less professional. Each has good points and bad points. But we have a very good artist doing the new stuff so it should be much better.

It is all subjective. The problem with the current png files is that they were done with freeware. Big mistake.

Well, I can't put it in words, but the bmp graphics, I don't know, they look.. old.

What you can count on in TOAW4 maps will look different simply because it's a new artist.

Yep. Would be nice a preview screenshot for a little tease [:'(]

[Lobster]

Amen. [;)]