Skyrim - 6Gb HDD Space Explained

I don't think anyone is suggesting they're doing something "completely new" with texture compression.

Personally, I'm just saying it's possible that they're using MORE ways to compress content, including textures. Maybe they're using it in a new way for THEIR game, but I don't think they've got some kind of technical miracle up their sleeve.

Likely, they're just using a more optimal kind of texture compression - but with an existing technology. I'm no expert, but I do know that DXT can happen in several ways - and I have no idea what they used in the past.

All I know is that I've seen Skyrim in videos - and it looks like it streams much better and the textures look great as far as I can see. But we're not going to see Battlefield 3 textures or The Witcher 2 textures. At least, I don't think so.
 
All I know is that I've seen Skyrim in videos - and it looks like it streams much better and the textures look great as far as I can see. But we're not going to see Battlefield 3 textures or The Witcher 2 textures. At least, I don't think so.

I agree that it is for sure better compressed than for example oblivion. But for example The witcher 2 is twice as big it takes 12 GB on my HD.

In terms of scope and world size it is so so so much smaller than skyrim, and I think it doesn't have more voice acting or sounds or such a things compared to skyrim either.

They're probably using a lot of procedural generation for skyrim though, that can create really good quality computer generated texture for environment and such a things. But it is not going to have artistic beauty in that case.

For faces they'll probably just save the parameters and pass them in to the generator, giving the usual none artistic dreaded elder-scrolls faces. This save size in many ways, but at the cost of quality.
 
Joined
Oct 25, 2006
Messages
6,292
Whatever they're using, it works for me :)

The visuals is the last aspect I worry about in Skyrim.
 
Just a stray thought : Maybe they are simply turning on the built-in compression of the NTFS file system ?
 
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
21,908
Location
Old Europe
Why do you even comment if you don't have any knowledge? This blog explains DXT texture compression in a fairly simple and clear way: http://www.sjbrown.co.uk/2006/01/19/dxt-compression-techniques/ It is not good for normal maps but for that most games uses 3dc. Again I would be extremely impressed if they have developer a completely new texture compression algorithm which is much better than these.

Actually what I said is what is behind that link just in different terms. A very good example of how dxt works is in the two images where the top one is the original and the second one has a definite loss in quality. The loss of quality is because of the process of losing data which is what makes the file size smaller. (That is why dxt is considered a lossy format) If it didn't throw away data both images would have been the same except the file size of the second image would have been smaller. (which is a lossless format)

PS. I don't consider lossy formats compression since it violates the definition of compression which is loss of volume through an increase of density. (there is no loss of what is compressed)

I am wondering if they could have the game setup to load blocks of compressed data to memory and decompress it as needed. It would partially circumvent the bottle neck of hd speed in a computer and decompressing small amounts of data is actually really quick with modern computers and doing it in advance would remove any possible lag.

EDIT: I should explain how dxt works since I didn't before. It takes 2 shades of a color and then throws out the other shades and takes those 2 shades and extrapolates the rest of the shades. It isn't as accurate as having each individual shade which is why there is a loss in quality. They use dxt in games because of the distance you are seeing the textures from and the high resolutions that are being used minimizes the loss in visual quality while saving resources.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
1,596
Well, AFAIK, most forms of image compression do implicitly have loss to the image quality. So, I think the concept can apply even with "lossy" results.

But again, I'm no expert.
 
Just cause 2 produced a huge and beautiful world that you can traverse with aeroplanes and the file size was just 4.5GB. So probably they are using a similar technology in Skyrim.
 
Joined
Feb 2, 2011
Messages
2,818
Location
United Kingdom
I really couldn't care less about what compression method they use, as long as it doesn't turn out like Rage.

After all the talk about how extraordinary the compression system was in that game, a lot of the textures still looked like shit.
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
39,133
Location
Florida, US
Megatextures has never been about the compression method, it's a method of creating gigantic textures that arent tiling. This demo shows how great it can look: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p49vOX-_LyU
this would however not work for games, the textures would require hundreds of GB's. The only way it could be used (with same quality as above demo) is to stream the textures from a server, something ID has talked about.

Anyone who cares about mods should probably care about the compression method ;) if they've changed it from .dds to something else it would mean a complete halt for graphical mods until someone creates import/export tools.
 
Joined
Apr 18, 2011
Messages
3,263
Location
The land of rape and honey
Megatextures has never been about the compression method, it's a method of creating gigantic textures that arent tiling. This demo shows how great it can look: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p49vOX-_LyU

That was supposed to be impressive?

Not trying to sound arrogant, I just didn't think it looked that great. If something other than the camera was moving then maybe I'd have a different opinion.
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
39,133
Location
Florida, US
Well, RAGE stated that the minimum system requirements as 25 GB. I don't have and would never buy it, but in reality I heard it takes up 12 GB? could anyone confirm about that.
 
Joined
Oct 25, 2006
Messages
6,292
That was supposed to be impressive?

Not trying to sound arrogant, I just didn't think it looked that great. If something other than the camera was moving then maybe I'd have a different opinion.

Why would something need to move? It's a demo to show the amount of detail that textures can have with this method. It's not supposed to show of animations or anything else that doesnt relate to it.
 
Joined
Apr 18, 2011
Messages
3,263
Location
The land of rape and honey
Well, RAGE stated that the minimum system requirements as 25 GB. I don't have and would never buy it, but in reality I heard it takes up 12 GB? could anyone confirm about that.

I just checked.. my installation is taking up 21.2 GB, and that's with only 1 saved game.


Why would something need to move? It's a demo to show the amount of detail that textures can have with this method. It's not supposed to show of animations or anything else that doesnt relate to it.

That's fine, I just didn't see anything particularly impressive to me.
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
39,133
Location
Florida, US
I just checked.. my installation is taking up 21.2 GB, and that's with only 1 saved game.

Well, I think we can rule out they have borrowed any compression from that game in that case :)
 
Joined
Oct 25, 2006
Messages
6,292
Well, RAGE stated that the minimum system requirements as 25 GB. I don't have and would never buy it, but in reality I heard it takes up 12 GB? could anyone confirm about that.

The amount of GB listed as system requirements is always the largest amount of memory that is going to be required by the game and that is usually during the setup process when large archives are first copied to the hard drive and then extracted locally. The best compression algorithms can usually reduce the size of compressible content by ~50% so it would indeed not be too unusual if a game that required 25GB as per the system reqs ended up requiring only about 12GB after installation.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
3,201
Well, I think we can rule out they have borrowed any compression from that game in that case :)

The starting size of the textures was 1TB for Rage.. getting that down to 25GB is rather strong evidence FOR compression :p
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
1,877
The starting size of the textures was 1TB for Rage.. getting that down to 25GB is rather strong evidence FOR compression :p

Well, that was not my point. Despite their "impressive" ( I don't really think it is ) compression technology the game is still 21 GB. I would also assume that skyrim has a much bigger world than rage.

The amount of GB listed as system requirements is always the largest amount of memory that is going to be required by the game and that is usually during the setup process when large archives are first copied to the hard drive and then extracted locally. The best compression algorithms can usually reduce the size of compressible content by ~50% so it would indeed not be too unusual if a game that required 25GB as per the system reqs ended up requiring only about 12GB after installation.

JDR confirmed his installation was 21 GB with just 1 save file.
 
Joined
Oct 25, 2006
Messages
6,292
You guys still talking about the size? I've seen the gameplay trailers and screenshots and everything looks "purty" to me. I haven't a clue as to why anyone is upset about it when it looks so good.

I'm glad it's only 6 GB. I'm running out of space on my hard drives. Too many loaded games and not enough time.
 
Joined
Feb 3, 2007
Messages
5,347
Location
Taiwan
Back
Top Bottom