The International Simutrans Forum

 

Author Topic: What about pak.256??  (Read 6062 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline eddielexx

  • *
  • Posts: 46
What about pak.256??
« on: August 15, 2010, 08:32:43 AM »
What we will gain if someone develop pak.256?
More detailed models?

Offline Zeno

  • ENASSA Designer
  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 1997
    • Zeno's Simutrans Creations
  • Languages: ES, EN, CAT
Re: What about pak.256??
« Reply #1 on: August 15, 2010, 09:49:31 AM »
Sure we gain much more detailed models, I've been making some tests, and results are simply awful. Problem is size must be <= 255 at the moment. Also we gain lot of work to redraw stuff :P

This is a simple test I did a couple of days ago; it is a railcar compiled with "pak254" switch for makeobj, and put into pak128 game:
http://files.simutrans.us/image/show/hGGUofMFLO/big-cph.png

Another problem will be planes/ships size. For pak128 is being used 192px for planes and 250px for ships... These should be also increased, but makeobj won't allow anything more than 255 by now.

Offline eddielexx

  • *
  • Posts: 46
Re: What about pak.256??
« Reply #2 on: August 15, 2010, 12:20:47 PM »
WOW!

Can we make makeobj without that limit?

Offline Zeno

  • ENASSA Designer
  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 1997
    • Zeno's Simutrans Creations
  • Languages: ES, EN, CAT
Re: What about pak.256??
« Reply #3 on: August 15, 2010, 01:48:58 PM »
I'm not sure, but I guess it would be hell. Anyway, it's true that 256 is a more "beautiful" number (programatically), but I wouldn't mind at all for having 1 or 2 pixels less... 254 isn't such an ugly number, is it? ;D

Offline eddielexx

  • *
  • Posts: 46
Re: What about pak.256??
« Reply #4 on: August 15, 2010, 02:15:14 PM »
I'm not sure, but I guess it would be hell. Anyway, it's true that 256 is a more "beautiful" number (programatically), but I wouldn't mind at all for having 1 or 2 pixels less... 254 isn't such an ugly number, is it? ;D

Well, We can name it as pak256 again, who will even check that xD
I am asking because this is the natural way of developing Simutrans. So, Is there any posibility of crating pak154/6 xD

Offline prissi

  • Developer
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 9584
  • Languages: De,EN,JP
Re: What about pak.256??
« Reply #5 on: August 15, 2010, 07:19:33 PM »
recent makeobj has no limit concerning size of images. But for vehicle in curves, 256 is very very much the sensible limit.

Offline Zeno

  • ENASSA Designer
  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 1997
    • Zeno's Simutrans Creations
  • Languages: ES, EN, CAT
Re: What about pak.256??
« Reply #6 on: August 15, 2010, 11:26:24 PM »
What do you mean by "sensible limit"? Is it a problem of alignment or a technical (programming) problem?

@prissi: Btw, I've noticed that latest version under development doesn't work like the current stable (50) when working with over-sized images. I have compiled some ships with the "pak250" switch with both versions, and with 50 it is playable under pak128, but with 51 looks completely moved away. May I recieve some information about that (here, pm or new post)? At the moment all planes and ships in pak128 (and are quite a lot) are compiled with pak192 and pak250; I would like to know if this could be affected in a future and how should I fix it. Thank you. Admins, feel free to move this comments to a new/other thread if you feel it shouldn't be asked here.

Offline kierongreen

  • Dev Team, Coder/patcher
  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 2269
Re: What about pak.256??
« Reply #7 on: August 16, 2010, 09:49:50 AM »
to do with curves, the larger the image tge more glaring the jump in images as a vehicle enters or leaves a curve

Offline Zeno

  • ENASSA Designer
  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 1997
    • Zeno's Simutrans Creations
  • Languages: ES, EN, CAT
Re: What about pak.256??
« Reply #8 on: August 16, 2010, 10:20:23 AM »
Thanks kierongreen. Actually it would be the same problem than now, but bigger ;)


recent makeobj has no limit concerning size of images. But for vehicle in curves, 256 is very very much the sensible limit.
I use a recent v51 version, and still doesn't allow me to use PAK256 switch. It seems PAK255 limit is still activated. Maybe my makeobj is already obsolete... Could you confirm this, please?
« Last Edit: August 16, 2010, 10:42:26 AM by Zeno »

Offline prissi

  • Developer
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 9584
  • Languages: De,EN,JP
Re: What about pak.256??
« Reply #9 on: August 16, 2010, 01:38:00 PM »
With the new version a new version of makeobj will be released, that will not have limits to be reached soon, including the limit of 65514 bytes for images maximum size. Images can be up to 32767 pixels with an offest in the same range. This required to step up the pak version to 1.3, since in 1.2 all objects are only 65kB size at largest (this was one of the reasons, why pak was not used for samples.)

Since this requres more memory on the disk, makeobj will use the old pak format, if it can.

Offline Zeno

  • ENASSA Designer
  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 1997
    • Zeno's Simutrans Creations
  • Languages: ES, EN, CAT
Re: What about pak.256??
« Reply #10 on: August 16, 2010, 01:50:24 PM »
Ok, I think I understand (almost) everything. I will patiently wait for the new stable makeobj version. Thank you for explaining, prissi.

Offline Fabio

  • Devotee
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2898
  • The Pak128 Guy
    • Visit me on Facebook
  • Languages: EN, IT, RO, FR
What about pak.32767 ??
« Reply #11 on: August 16, 2010, 01:55:29 PM »
What we will gain if someone develop pak.32767?
Real size models?


































:biggrin: :airborn:

The more you give, the more people will ask,  8)

Offline Combuijs

  • Web Team
  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 1392
  • Maintainer of maps.simutrans.com
    • Combuijs
  • Languages: EN, NL
Re: What about pak.256??
« Reply #12 on: August 16, 2010, 02:01:31 PM »
Quote
What we will gain if someone develop pak.32767?

We will gain an awful lot of pixels !  :D

And we could handle a serious decrease in dots per inch on monitors of course...

Offline Zeno

  • ENASSA Designer
  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 1997
    • Zeno's Simutrans Creations
  • Languages: ES, EN, CAT
Re: What about pak.256??
« Reply #13 on: August 16, 2010, 02:10:38 PM »
We will gain an awful lot of pixels !  :D
Yes, and loose a lot of painters! Well... I mean the few active ones :P

Getting 128 pixel images trhough 3d modelling is quite affordable... 256 pixel images becomes really hard; real pro 3D skills are a must with those sizes; to say nothing about pixel art... with such number of pixels I guess it would be simply mad.

Moreover, anything over 256 is absolutely impossible for an amateur 3d modeler like me, so I would become a translator or something else 8)

Offline ӔO

  • Devotees (Inactive)
  • *
  • Posts: 2345
  • Hopefully helpful
  • Languages: en, jp
Re: What about pak.256??
« Reply #14 on: August 16, 2010, 07:57:19 PM »
256 pak size should be pretty good for painting in special pixels on 3D renders.

Offline stmaker

  • *
  • Posts: 215
  • am lost noaw.
Re: What about pak.256??
« Reply #15 on: August 20, 2010, 08:11:12 AM »
What we will gain if someone develop pak.32767?
Real size models?

Wow... world record XP

Offline ӔO

  • Devotees (Inactive)
  • *
  • Posts: 2345
  • Hopefully helpful
  • Languages: en, jp
Re: What about pak.256??
« Reply #16 on: August 21, 2010, 07:46:00 AM »
it occurred to me that you can also use large images for bridges too.
It would be a lot of work trying to align everything, but it should be possible to paint arches or wires that span over multiple tiles.

The only down side, is that it will only look proper at a specific length.
This one needs to be constrained to an 8 tile length.
http://i199.photobucket.com/albums/aa131/AEObikes/simutrans/256_bridge_demo.png

with a larger tile size, it should be possible to paint in a full sized suspension bridge.
« Last Edit: August 21, 2010, 07:51:16 AM by AEO »

Offline Václav

  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 3269
  • formerly VaclavMacurek
  • Languages: CZ, EN
Re: What about pak.256??
« Reply #17 on: June 03, 2011, 02:09:13 PM »
I think (and it was discussed also in Czech language board some time ago) that size 256 would mean mostly very drastic consumption of CPU power. Size 192 is made as comic to decrease usage of CPU. So any large sets should be done as comic.

Offline prissi

  • Developer
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 9584
  • Languages: De,EN,JP
Re: What about pak.256??
« Reply #18 on: June 03, 2011, 02:37:25 PM »
The color on the images does nothing to decrease or increase the CPU power. Actually large image sets require less computer power, as less tiles have to be displayed ...

Offline Spartanis

  • *
  • Posts: 169
  • Aussie Simutrans addict!! :D
Re: What about pak.256??
« Reply #19 on: October 08, 2011, 11:35:08 AM »
I agree with Prissi. What really slows your computer down, are two simple things: The size of the simutrans world map (the bigger the map is, the more memory is used) as well as the number of fleet you put out into the game (The number of lines, vehicles per lines etc etc)