TGA vs BMP
Author
Both VGA and BMP could be used for textures in a 2D or 3D game, but what are the main differences in each? Which is better to use?
Personally, I prefer png over both of them; IIRC tga is simpler than png, but if you use an image library to load the textures it doesn't really matter. bmp should never be used, because it's not compressed at all and takes up a huge amount of space for very little gain in quality (if any).
EDIT:
Actually, I just remembered that there's an official png library that loads png images, so the being more complex point is pretty much gone.
EDIT:
Actually, I just remembered that there's an official png library that loads png images, so the being more complex point is pretty much gone.
Yeah, my bitcrap of my background at 1024x1024 was 3mb, but a png version was under 20.5kb. I recommend PNG since, but I've never actually used TGA.
Quote:Original post by PumpkinPieman
You also don't have to worry about transparency which is a bonus.
Even though you don't have transparency, you do have color-keying which is really easy to setup (but this limits it, because the programmer then chooses the transparent color instead of the artist.)
The main difference, if I remember correctly, is that TGA supports an alpha channel while bmp doesn't. PNG is a better format for textures than BMP or TGA though.
Quote:Original post by sordid
DDS [grin]
AFAIK DDS won't work outside of DirectX (unless you build a image loader for it.)
Quote:Original post by Programmer16
(unless you build a image loader for it.)
Exactly. And it's a quite easy format too, so it's not difficult either.
Quote:Original post by Programmer16Quote:Original post by sordid
DDS [grin]
AFAIK DDS won't work outside of DirectX (unless you build a image loader for it.)
And that's somewhat wrong. DDS use DXTx, and some of the DXTx formats are in fact S3TC - which appeared as an opengl extension long before Microsft added it to its API.
Regards,
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement