New Intel dds plugin for Photoshop.

This was posted over on discord earlier

https://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/intel-texture-works-plugin

 

very interesting will give it a try today, and run it in game.

 

Some comments from various people on discord about this;

My testing also showed that a 21MB nvidia dds file when opened in Photoshop CS6 and saved in the Intel format was 16MB, so around 24% saving in size.

 

I found a strange problem when saving in the new format a 1024 x 256 texture was saved as 1023 x 256 ?
and not only once it was most times.
I may have missed a setting.

 

Sins you brought this up I thought I'd have a look to see if there was a newer nVidia DDS plug-in. It seams the latest one I found anyway was/is 2012. https://developer.nvidia.com/nvidia-texture-tools-adobe-photoshop I would have hoped for something a little newer by now. Looks like we'll have to give this one a go. Always hated the compression results with nVidia with the edges artifacts the way it dose.

 

I've just tested about a dozen dds file conversion ie open original =>save as Intel format=>open Intel one and save as Nvidia format, all were the same size except for one which went from 2048x2048 to 1024x2048...redid it and all was fine...didn't think I changed anything so dunno if it was something I did or not.

 

Hi all.
I found this interesting for the main reason that the Intel boast cleaner edges and better compression.
Opening a already saved DDS that has already been compressed and saving it again using a different DDS converter program or plug-in and expecting to see something different didn't make any sense to me at all.
The only way to test the compression result is from using a fresh new livery template straight out of PSD or PSP that has no former compression at all.
So! I'm very used to the result from the nVidia DDS plug-in and already had a car done in devMode so I just re-saved the same car from a PSD open format template using this new Intel DDS plug-in.

I was disappointed to see that the Intel boast in my opinion is a tad overstated.

You can see the sceenshot below.

You can see there is very little difference between the two.

Please note!
Both are saved using DXT5 including Alpha. Note that in the new Intel DXT5 is known as BCn3. We'll need to get used to this naming being the new norm. DXT is out! BCn is in! Apparently..

Results do differ when using other DDS formats but we use DXT5 (BCn3) because it reduces file size more.

As for file size between the two DDS plug-ins. At 2048 full Mip Map down to 1x1 both are 5.33 MB.

My assessment, I think the result shows nVidia is slightly better, Not a lot. But that aside the difference is insignificant enough that nVidia is still the plug-in of choice because it dose Bump maps and dose a very good job of it. In many cases it's better to use a bump map instead of modelling some things using 3D.

 

with intel ,try to save in color + alpha and bc7(fine) and relook the same way you did : psd , nvidia and intel.
my test give this result :

clearly better result when saved with intel , less squarred thing

 

right mister , only limit is that working 3ds max with plugin ISI can't read intel texture

 

I really didn't think it would be necessary but is seams it is.

If your going to run a test to dispute a previous post at least you could follow the same test perimeters.

You've used the BCn7 format to dispute the results from the nVidia DXT5 and/or the INTEL BCn3. I'm aware and anyone else who knows how this works would be aware that using the BCn7 format is the same or at least similar to using the 8.8.8.8 ARGB 32 bpp | unsigned. Either give you the result you've shown here.
What you didn't do however is mention that by using either the INTEL or nVidia at this format a 2048x2048 texture is 4x larger. For example, a 2048x2048 saved DXT5, BCn3 is 5.33 MB and the alternative is 21.3 MB

I haven't tested a 4K (4096x4096) texture using the BCn7 or the nVidia equivalent because the MB size would be far to large anyway.
What we do know is is a 4K (4096x4096) saved with DXT5 or BCn3 is 21.3 MB. Using a higher format like the BCn7 (Not tested) would be at a guess 4X larger again. Textures at this size would look great and improve the visuals of a track or car but how many PC's are going to run it?

The INTEL is faster, Yes it is. The INTEL is new, today's technology when the nVidia's last release date is 2012 making it yesterdays technology. The improvements made by the New tech is at best minimal. The INTEL has 7 settings. BCn1 to BCn7. nVidia has many more. Plus it dose bump maps were the INTEL doesn't.

It still comes down to choice. Now we can use either. They install side by side and don't appear to interfere with each other.

 

from same psd ,same size, dxt5 saved with nvidia and intel in bc7 count exactly the same size at the end here.
but we can use the one you want , both plugin can be used in same time on same photoshop.

 

Intel gives options for linear or srgb gamma. Which one does rFactor want or does it not matter?

Since it's 2019 now, Intel also supports CC while nVidia does not.

 

hello, I do not remember what was the proper configuration of the intel dds in your sections, someone can tell me thanks

 

thank you