{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
12/16/2014 2:43:44 AM
1
Because there's no real need to unless it hast to fit on a limited disc space. And yes, I did read your initial post. I also read the part where you kind of admit you don't know much about this stuff. Yet here you are, arguing it.
English
-
Edited by S7Oracle: 12/16/2014 4:34:13 AMThey would most likely compress it, because not everyone can download heaps of bytes, if they can, by lowering the download size without reducing quality, then why wouldn't they? You're arguing about it with no proof but your word, so the same goes for you, as well. I should also say, that's it's the DLC itself I don't know much about, I don't work for Bungie (neither do you), so I have no idea whether they would make the decision to compress it or not (but again, why wouldn't they?). Also, being that the raid itself is all new content, what you're saying would not fit alongside that and the new multiplayer maps. You started this debate, you must have known that there's no way for us to know what is, and what isn't, that's why I don't say that I'm completely accurate with the sizes, but from what I do know of content, they would have most likely compressed it to make it easier for the masses downloading it.
-
Files can be compressed and uncompressed through packet filtering, so no need to compress the video itself. You don't have to work for Bungie to understand how these things work, because Bungie isn't the only company in the world and file management is the same wherever you are. Bytes are bytes. Art takes up more room than code. Most of the new art is gear, everything else is the same art from the base game (already stored locally). All the new gear is out and up on websites. Have you bothered to look that up? Tons of new armor, gun, and ship models. The three new areas are mostly the same art that already exists, but scaled or placed differently. Most of the space from this DLC is from the video and gear (art). Whats left is code and the some of the new areas. I didn't start the debate. I made a simple statement of fact, something anyone who knows anything about database management knows. You chose to argue with me based off things you have no clue about.
-
Edited by S7Oracle: 12/17/2014 3:59:09 AMI don't think you know me well enough to say what I do and don't have a clue about. I know that items we have yet to receive were put in the update, but as far as I'm aware, it's a few raid sets and a couple of exotics, the missions for this DLC and the next, I know were already on the disk, but that is only the missions, Crota's End was never found, and the House of Wolves raid has yet to be found either, as far as I'm aware. All I know about video compressing is that it's a simple process that is very easy to do, once done, you can put it anywhere and it will be the same size after you compressed it, this should be no different when put in to an update. If I can compress files, and upload them to nexus for everyone to download, and they can put it on their game, at the same quality, at the size after I compressed it (it can even be an intro cinematic, there are plenty on the Skyrim nexus which amount to near of that of the The Dark Below cinematic size that I estimated, yet they are similar quality and length), I see no reason why Bungie can't practice this as well, it's simple enough for a modder like me to do, so tell me why they can't? Look, I'm not a fan of arguments, I'm not all knowing, and I don't claim to be, but I disagree with your facts until you can find conclusive proof for the actual size of The Dark Below cinematic, until then, we're just arguing with no conclusion in sight.
-
Never said Bungie can't practice it. I Said there's no need to unless you're putting it on physical media that requires a large file size to be smaller. You don't need to compress a file itself if you are sending it through packet filtering (downloading). You compress the whole packet which will then be uncompressed after the download is done. We've been doing this since the 70s. I don't need to know you well to know you don't really understand this stuff, your "facts" are evidence enough of that. You not accepting what I say just solidifies your nativity and continues to bring forth the question of "why are you arguing about something you don't really know". How can you say I'm wrong when you don't fully know anything about this subject? I mean, if I had time to give you a sixteen week lecture in computer information 101 I would. But I don't.
-
Edited by S7Oracle: 12/17/2014 4:52:48 AMI'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying that from my knowledge alone, I disagree with you (it's my opinion, I never claimed it as more than that), I don't claim to know all the subject has to offer as you are. I've been an avid modder for a long time now, and I've always seen it done the way I'm explaining it to you, we compress files, people download the file shown on the website at the size they see it as (it can be anything, from weapons and armor to bugfixes and land expansions), and when they have downloaded the file it is the size from before it was uploaded, as it should be. For me at least, this makes things far easier for those that are downloading, but of course, things can be done differently, as you say, but just because from what you have experienced might be the way for some, does not mean that it's the way for all. Edit: Also, you're the one calling facts, not me, I never did. Edit 2: I won't be adding more to this, I'm afraid, I feel I've put an adequate amount of time in to this debate, and I don't think it can go any further than it is right now. (Please don't take this as me admitting defeat, I just feel that continuing this wouldn't yield much.)
