Creo haber leído un artículo que contradecía esto.
Verás, si no me falla la memoria aclaraba que dependiendo de la velocidad de acceso y lectura, y del potencial procesador disponible, puede ser más rápido leer un archivo comprimido y descomprimirlo que no leerlo sin comprimir.
He consultado con San Google y en el propio foro "
PS3Forums" hay uno que dice esto:
"Compressed textures are a good thing. If a lossless compression then nothing visually is lost.
In fact it could mean quicker loading, because the loading and decompression is quicker on the PS2 than just loading the uncompressed version."
Sólo es un post, mañana veo si encuentro el artículo.
Y otro post que viene a decir lo mismo:
"you're actually quite wrong.
compression is actually essential, especially with the limited memory available on the PS3. you see textures in particular will need to be compressed in memory anyway, all graphics solutions today work with compressed textures in memory.
By putting uncompressed textures on the disk they do several things
- increase load time on an allready slow media
- cost cpu/cpu cycles on compressing the textures as they are put into memory
- loose control of the texture compression, while pre compressed DDS textures, you have full control of the compression and quality when you make the files.
So basically by using non compressed textures on the disk, you take extra long to load the files, you use CPU cycles to comrpess them and you get less quality. YAY awesoem solution.
Much the same is also true for audio files. as for the 3D models themselves, the cpu cycles it costs to extract them is far less than the time it takes to read non compressed 3D files off the disk. remember that 3D files can be compressed far ore than both audio and textures. more than 10/1"
No siempre las texturas sin comprimir son la mejor solución, parece. Que en absoluto quiere decir que más espacio no sea mejor
