[UI] High-res versions of the maps

by **PoleDancer** on Thu Jul 19, 2012 8:58 am

Concise description:

Upgrade maps to higher resolution

Specifics/Details:

I think that's pretty self-explanatory

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:

It just looks nicer, and should be done pretty easily, no? Someone must have the original files used to create the map images currently in use

by **IcePack** on Thu Jul 19, 2012 9:17 am

Why can't this be an option for game settings? I know it's been mentioned lack wants everyone to be able to use the site and ensure it doesn't run slow etc.

Default can be low res and those who want as can handle higher should be able to select it.

IcePack

by **DiM** on Thu Jul 19, 2012 9:23 am

all maps are done at a much better quality but lack compresses the hell out of them.
a map is usually 1-2Mb in size at the end of its production. after lack compresses it we end up with a shitty 1-200Kb jpegg that looks like crap.

by **PoleDancer** on Thu Jul 19, 2012 9:32 am

Wait, what's lack?

by **DiM** on Thu Jul 19, 2012 10:06 am

lackattack is the owner of this site.

in the map foundry maps are made by regular people like you and me.

for example i made the All Your Base Are Belong To Us map (among others)

here;s how my map looks in its final stage of development: http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/6838/allyourbasearebelongtou.png
and here's how the map looks once lackattack compressed it and reduced its size: http://maps.conquerclub.com/All_Your_Base_Are_Belong_To_Us5.L.jpg

from a 1.44Mb png to a 255Kb jpg.
at first glance they look the same but look closer and you'll see horrible artefacts and lots of lost details.
here's some examples:
original .......................... compressed

...

by **PoleDancer** on Thu Jul 19, 2012 10:10 am

I absolutely agree - you are always logged in when playing CC, so why couldn't you have a default resolution setting for each user account?

IcePack wrote:Why can't this be an option for game settings? I know it's been mentioned lack wants everyone to be able to use the site and ensure it doesn't run slow etc.

Default can be low res and those who want as can handle higher should be able to select it.

IcePack

by **agentcom** on Thu Jul 19, 2012 6:07 pm

DiM, your maps are works of art that I enjoy very much. However, I just zoomed way in to the different versions of the All Your Base map and for the average user, I'm not sure that the extra crispness of the original file would warrant increasing the map file size (that has to be loaded every time the page loads) by a factor of 6. Just my .02

by **MeDeFe** on Fri Jul 20, 2012 8:33 pm

DiM wrote:here;s how my map looks in its final stage of development: http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/6838/allyourbasearebelongtou.png
and here's how the map looks once lackattack compressed it and reduced its size: http://maps.conquerclub.com/All_Your_Base_Are_Belong_To_Us5.L.jpg

from a 1.44Mb png to a 255Kb jpg.

Even when alt+tabbing between the two I can hardly tell the difference. Yes, it is discernible, but only when I know what to pay attention to.

by **DiM** on Sat Jul 21, 2012 2:49 pm

MeDeFe wrote:
DiM wrote:here;s how my map looks in its final stage of development: http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/6838/allyourbasearebelongtou.png
and here's how the map looks once lackattack compressed it and reduced its size: http://maps.conquerclub.com/All_Your_Base_Are_Belong_To_Us5.L.jpg

from a 1.44Mb png to a 255Kb jpg.

Even when alt+tabbing between the two I can hardly tell the difference. Yes, it is discernible, but only when I know what to pay attention to.

seriously? :shock:

to me it is so very clear that i'm often getting pissed seeing how poor actual maps look compared to what the mapmaker creates.

and it's not just about my maps.
here's king's court 2. a beautiful piece of art ruined by jpeg compression

original ............. compressed

notice how everything is blurred on the compressed image and how various artefacts and graphical aberrations appear.

in fact when we make maps we go through extensive work and sometimes do unreasonable amounts of work just to lessen the effect of lack's compression.

for example we have to make sure each line is in pristine shape, that it is sharp and crisp with no blurriness. because any blurriness in our image would be increased ten fold after lack compresses it.
so an image that looks decent when we make it is not enough because it will look like crap after the compression. hence we have to make it great so it looks at least decent in the end.

by **natty dread** on Sat Jul 21, 2012 4:42 pm

agentcom wrote:I'm not sure that the extra crispness of the original file would warrant increasing the map file size (that has to be loaded every time the page loads)

ever heard of caching

by **agentcom** on Wed Jul 25, 2012 2:39 am

natty dread wrote:
agentcom wrote:I'm not sure that the extra crispness of the original file would warrant increasing the map file size (that has to be loaded every time the page loads)

ever heard of caching

Yes, and my point remains ...

by **natty dread** on Fri Aug 17, 2012 11:01 am

agentcom wrote:
natty dread wrote:
agentcom wrote:I'm not sure that the extra crispness of the original file would warrant increasing the map file size (that has to be loaded every time the page loads)

ever heard of caching

Yes, and my point remains ...

No it doesn't...

by **greenoaks** on Fri Aug 17, 2012 7:10 pm

i opened those 2 images and i cant see any difference.

however, i am using a 10 inch screen. at home on my massive screen the extra detail could/would be appreciated - if my internet speed is decent.

the main reason i dont play at majcom is because of how long the maps took to load.