[Ghostavo]

I think you have it right there for objects Nuke, but environments will always be more difficult to procedurally model, and probably onl worth the effort for large (1000 sq. miles plus) outdoor environments.

It works for Oblivion and it has much less than 1000 sq. miles

[S-99]

Default quality/compression setting is 80.

So this means your still adding extra compression
Default settings are culprits too

[jr2]

Nope, that's the default value set by the program.  Unless you want to say you're only going to allow Windows Bitmap. 
EDIT: IIRC, anything above 80 increases file size out of proportion to the quality gained.

[S-99]

Perhaps i am saying that. The whole lossy compression mumbo jumbo got my panties in a twist you see. Hell the reason i save in my images in png's or sometimes jpg's is because they're appropriate of which i know everyone here understands this. I also do a whole bunch of photo imaging so umm my final picture to be saved as a png or jpg with lossy compression? Get out of here with that notion plz   You guessed it, colossuses downtime has no extra compression added besides the fact that it was saved as a png(i make that compression statusbar go down to 0 for no compression at all). People throw images around on the internet like they're nothing and throw them around with no thought either, low compression this, high compression this, at least the **** i'm going to have is no extra compression added besides being saved as a png. And you can save lossless compression jpg's and png's (pretty much that just adds no compression besides the image being in a new format).

And then on audio formats. I like flac because it's not lossy, but it's also not as small as mp3's. Also i will stay away from flac in the time being unless i owned music cd's to rip them into flac. The next thing i need to do is download some flac from somebody converted his entire mp3 collection into flac. No extra quality gained by converting mp3's to flac, in fact i'd say ****ing retarded. The next thing any of us needs to do is download the end product of some guy converting all of his wma's to mp3's (most wma's are encoded at 64kbps offering near cd quality sound and half the size of a 128kbps mp3) and hear something that sounds like a low quality retard trying to say some serious ****(the day my friend converted his eminem wma's to mp3....WHY not just rip that same cd again but this time as mp3!!). This just reminds me of when people rip cd's with windows media player 9(wmp9 only offered wma ripping). And then that same person wonders why those ripped files wont play on their mp3 player...oblivious people. I hate it when people don't do **** properly. Ogg versus mp3, both very similar but ogg uses more processing power so when you're using a mobile audio device, you should stick to mp3 for longer battery life. Wma versus mp3, wma can be encoded at the same bitrate of an mp3 (offering the same audio quality) or half the size of an mp3 (offering what is almost the same audio quality), you can also fit more than twice the music on a mobile audio player with wma. While fitting 2x the songs on a mobile audio player with just under cd quality sound, wma takes more processing power so yet again to have longer battery life stick with mp3 (mp3 still has the low power usage reign). Anyway what's clear here is that ogg is nice and so is mp3, wma (i dare you to convert one of your mp3's to 64kbps wma, and you might be suprised how cool wma's are) is even nicer, but mp3 is just that lower power usage bastard. I don't care if wma is made by mikeysoft they're great, and overall more useful than mp3's and ogg's, and even offering smaller sizes at better quality than realplayer format. You want to stream audio or video off the internet with lower bandwidth with higher quality content, wma does that for you. Ever since windows media formats came out they've been giving realplayer a serious run for its money, and wma is doing great in the mobile audio market as well...all i expect from a perfectly great format.

Anyway you can see why my panties are in a twist all i get to use that has benefits right now is lossy compression formats, and more than that, i deal with people who are being stupid about them. Just use what is appropriate for the situation with some basic research

[Nuke]

i go buy a general rule of thumb: it is bad to convert from one lossy format to another. i really don't care about noise so much as efficiency. noise only makes stuff sound trookvltgr1mnekro, which i like anyway. i like as much quality, for as little size as possible. converting something in a lossy format, which is full of fuzz (zoom in real close on a jpeg if you dont believe me, and the same goes for audio). fuzz is just of random noise added on top of the original data. this randomness breaks down the redundant patterns which compression uses to make things smaller.  this fuzz adds complexity to the image/audio/whatever. this extra complexity causes all kinds of havok for the compression algorithms, making them less efficient. as a result you get files with more noise, and theyre bigger because its hard to compress noisy data. lossless formats are nice. and maybe one day when a few hundred xb of data can fit into a small glass cube, we can actually avoid lossy formats all together. for now just use the formats that are called for.

[Cyker]

Well I hope games companies start using stuff like this or Carmack and his stupid Mega Textures will mean we're installing games of 16 DVDs.

What we need is a shift. I'm sure by now we should have the tech to build a RealTime Raytracer... then you won't need so many textures! Just have a metric arseloads of polys

[haloboy100]

and to ever think ut2004 is 5.5 GB...

[Nuke]

Well I hope games companies start using stuff like this or Carmack and his stupid Mega Textures will mean we're installing games of 16 DVDs.

What we need is a shift. I'm sure by now we should have the tech to build a RealTime Raytracer... then you won't need so many textures! Just have a metric arseloads of polys

those megatextures just seems like theyre doing subdivision on the things, it cuts em up as much as it needs to in order to have as much surface rendered in one pass as possible. normally yuoud have to do a set number of maps to cover that area. problem with that is the max size a texture can be varies from card to card. only thing that carmack is really doing is automating the subdivision process so that the subdivision size is as big as possible, thuis optimizing performance and making sure the video card is utilizing its full capability. this is good news when your video card supports textures up to 8192^2. its just another cool way to get every ounce of speed out of htl.