Page 1 of 2
7z vs Zip (Love launcher Compression Method)
Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2011 5:14 pm
by ZacharySciApps
Zip just slightly compresses files but 7z can save up to half the amount of memory you would use for a zip file for example one of the demos took 22kbs I extracted it and compressed it it with 7Zip and now its 14kbs! imagine if a game was 22mbs and you compressed it with 7Zip and it was only 11mbs making it much much more portable! Start using 7Zip!
Re: 7z vs Zip (Love launcher Compression Method)
Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2011 5:23 pm
by Taehl
7zip can make .zip files pretty small too. Just select "Ultra" level compression. (I'd suggest against changing it to LZMA, though)
In the forums, we use .zip loves as a matter of courtesy and uniformity. Though I agree, I can't see why anyone would want to use WinRar or whatever instead of 7zip.
Re: 7z vs Zip (Love launcher Compression Method)
Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2011 5:34 pm
by ZacharySciApps
I respect that also the compression could impair the game but I recommend using 7Zip if size is a concern and I just tried your method and 7z is still incredibly lighter
zip is a standard format as well most company's use like Microsoft, gadgets are normally compressed into a zip format.
Re: 7z vs Zip (Love launcher Compression Method)
Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2011 5:45 pm
by thelinx
As far as I know, PhysFs (the library LÖVE uses to read zip files) can infact open LZMA .love files on some platforms.
Re: 7z vs Zip (Love launcher Compression Method)
Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2011 5:50 pm
by Robin
And .love files usually aren't that large anyway, so it's better to play safe and use zip compression.
Re: 7z vs Zip (Love launcher Compression Method)
Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2011 6:01 pm
by bartbes
More importantly, them opening is an implementation detail rather than a specification, really. So don't count on this to work everywhere indefinitely.
Re: 7z vs Zip (Love launcher Compression Method)
Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2011 6:34 pm
by slime
ZacharySciApps wrote:imagine if a game was 22mbs and you compressed it with 7Zip and it was only 11mbs making it much much more portable! Start using 7Zip!
22MB is 0.000021 terabytes, 11MB is 0.0000105 terabytes. HD space will only go up, and terabyte drives are very common these days. Getting a little bit of extra space by using a compression method that is not universally supported isn't always a good idea.
Also, much of the space taken up by games is used by already-compressed media and images - ogg sounds, png images, etc. Using 7zip on those won't have as much of an impact as you might think.
Re: 7z vs Zip (Love launcher Compression Method)
Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2011 7:51 pm
by Taehl
slime wrote:Also, much of the space taken up by games is used by already-compressed media and images - ogg sounds, png images, etc. Using 7zip on those won't have as much of an impact as you might think.
That's a very good point, come to think of it.
Re: 7z vs Zip (Love launcher Compression Method)
Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:43 pm
by tentus
slime wrote:
Also, much of the space taken up by games is used by already-compressed media and images - ogg sounds, png images, etc. Using 7zip on those won't have as much of an impact as you might think.
This. There's a clear hierarchy of file size in most video games, and a perfectly inverse hierarchy of compression for each of them, because the larger the file type, the more effort was put into making them as efficient as possible. There's very little left you can do to make an ogg file smaller, while there's a lot you can do to make text files smaller.
A 22 kb .love will contain code, maybe some map files, and probably a few textures. Most of that is highly compressible. On the other hand, a 22 mb .love will probably contain several tracks of music, lots of textures, and a comparatively small amount of code, map files, etc. I'd be surprised if switching compression formats gives you even 1% reduction in final size.
Re: 7z vs Zip (Love launcher Compression Method)
Posted: Sun Nov 13, 2011 7:19 am
by Robin
tentus wrote:I'd be surprised if switching compression formats gives you even 1% reduction in final size.
That's a bit overstated. Each megafile might be optimally compressed, but when you .zip a lot of files, there's bound to be some sort of repetition across files compression formats can take advantage of, like tar.gz files. (Come to think of it, I don't think ZIP actually does that, but it could.)