Jump to content


Photo

Ufo2000 Wiki @ Ufopaedia.org


  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1 Hobbes

Hobbes

    UFO2000 Staff

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 719 posts

Posted 07 June 2006 - 05:09 PM

Hey all,

A section for UFO2000 has been created on the X-COM Wiki, UFOPaedia. The link for it is here.

Right now there isn't much content added but that will change soon. The objective is to compilate all information regarding the game there, being a guide for newbies, weaponset information, strategies, modding and all related to UFO2000.

If you wish to add new pages or to edit the existing ones feel free to do so. :)

See ya

Edited by Hobbes, 12 June 2006 - 09:00 AM.


#2 Jezulkim

Jezulkim

    Captain

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 194 posts

Posted 10 June 2006 - 02:13 PM

I have been waiting for this since the old wiki is lost. One bad thing though, whose idea was to use jpg for pixel art images? png suits them better: smaller file size and better quality.
That's my team in my avatar!

#3 Hobbes

Hobbes

    UFO2000 Staff

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 719 posts

Posted 10 June 2006 - 03:49 PM

I have been waiting for this since the old wiki is lost. One bad thing though, whose idea was to use jpg for pixel art images? png suits them better: smaller file size and better quality.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Errr....my idea. I didn't knew about the difference, I'll switch to .png from now on.

#4 Robotrek

Robotrek

    Sergeant

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 12 posts

Posted 12 June 2006 - 08:15 AM

The current link takes you to a blank page. This should take you to the index of the UFO 2000 Wiki:
http://www.ufopaedia...p?title=UFO2000

The Wiki is great, but it will be much better when we have more people who can contribute.
<a href="http://www.sloganizer.net/en/" target="_blank" title="Sloganizer - the slogan generator"><img src="http://www.sloganize...O-spc-2000.png" border="0" alt="generated by sloganizer.net" title="This slogan was generated by sloganizer.net"/></a>

#5 Hobbes

Hobbes

    UFO2000 Staff

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 719 posts

Posted 12 June 2006 - 09:02 AM

Link fixed, thanks.

I don't have much time right now but I'll try to keep adding something every day, especially formatting what already exists.

#6 Kratos

Kratos

    UFO2000 Staff

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,113 posts

Posted 27 June 2006 - 07:06 PM

Jpg files are for larger pictures, they are much smaller than Png files, however, they have lower quality. You cannot have both highest quality and lowest size.

Edited by Kratos, 27 June 2006 - 07:06 PM.


#7 Sporb

Sporb

    UFO2000 Staff

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 739 posts

Posted 27 June 2006 - 10:00 PM

Photoshop has good Jpeg compression. on a scale, you choose how much degredation you want in the image, high = hardly any loss of image data to the naked eye while low = MSpaint jpeg compression quality (Yuck!)

as Kratos said, larger images are huge in png format while they can be rather small in jpeg

#8 Oldtype

Oldtype

    Sergeant

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 67 posts

Posted 28 June 2006 - 07:23 AM

jpeg is lossy and good for photos, but for pixel art it sucks.
png has lossless compression that is why it is big in some cases, better than bmp or gif anyway. Sometimes you can reduce png filesize by a fair amount using programms like png crush.

#9 Hobbes

Hobbes

    UFO2000 Staff

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 719 posts

Posted 28 June 2006 - 07:52 AM

Interesting discussion, however this is getting....

:OffTopic:

#10 Sporb

Sporb

    UFO2000 Staff

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 739 posts

Posted 28 June 2006 - 08:41 AM

not really that far off topic imo - the size of images is very important in the running of the wiki chunk. Say the bit on weapons - there is _alot_ of images going in and if they remain as BMP's it gonna take years to load and thats not efficient use of bandwidth and such. In the lower resolution images PNG might be the best bet but when an image is that small it might be just as easy to use highly compressed Jpegs instead.

Edited by Sporb, 28 June 2006 - 08:45 AM.


#11 nachtwolf

nachtwolf

    UFO2000 Staff: Leader

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 310 posts

Posted 28 June 2006 - 08:52 AM

not really - the size of images is important in the running of the wiki chunk. Say the bit on weapons - there is _alot_ of images going in and if they remain as BMP's it gonna take years to load. In the lower resolution images PNG might be the best bet but when an image is that small it might be just as easy to use highly compressed Jpegs instead.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Jpeg is lossy compression, that means you will loose quality no matter what.
Jpeg is good for photographs.

Gif is the only one that can be animated, it can only be in 256 colors so it suits the simple graphics better. Gif can also have simple 1bit transparency.

Png is lossless so it results in larger file sizes. It can however compress in either 256 colors like gif or millions like jpeg, it also supports smooth 8bit transparency. However Internet explorer doesn't support that, but IMHO screw broken browsers.

The best for the pixel art is Gif, since those are small and won't loose much quality if you reduce em to 256 colors (custom palette) also, the 1 bit transparency doesn't do much when the edges are rough such as in pixel art.

Finally, don't even think of compressing with MsPaint.
Posted Image

#12 Hobbes

Hobbes

    UFO2000 Staff

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 719 posts

Posted 28 June 2006 - 12:42 PM

not really that far off topic imo - the size of images is very important in the running of the wiki chunk.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


This thread is meant merely to announce that a wiki exists. Discussion regarding the best type of file to use in pictures would be more adequate if done on the Talk:UFO2000 - UFOPaedia page since it matters more to users of the wiki, not of this forum.

#13 Hobbes

Hobbes

    UFO2000 Staff

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 719 posts

Posted 27 April 2007 - 09:07 PM

*bump*

Would it be possible by one of the moderators to make this a sticky topic?