| |
Bitbreaker
Registered: Oct 2002
Posts: 508 |
Doynamite 1.x
Hi Folx,
after doynamite was used in some recent productions and people often stumbled over the .prg/.bin pitfall i decided to make some improvements to the packer, it can now spit out a sfx, level-packed data including a valid load-address and depack-address, as well as forward literals to keep the safety margin low. Raw data can still be loaded and output without any bytes added. Also the optimal bitlengths can be iterated now and the optimal table be glued to the output file.
I also happend to make a leaner version that lets the files get slightly bigger, but shrinks the depacker to $e0 bytes and makes depacking 5-10% faster. This might be of good use for demo systems where size matters a lot.
Any more things one could wish? |
|
... 31 posts hidden. Click here to view all posts....
|
| |
WVL
Registered: Mar 2002
Posts: 902 |
the last table is missing the pu column.(didnt waste time testing pu, since we all know it is slow depacking and byteboozer and doynax had better or equal compression on all the files anyway).
So for the last file (file 9), rle takes 9 frames to depack, lzwvl takes 9 (fast mode) or 12 (slow mode), byteboozer takes 73 and doynax took 32 frames.
Anyway, based on the old version : compression was always better than byteboozer and always faster to decompress than byteboozer.
-> when you need small files, go for doynamite or exomizer (but be prepared for really slow decrunch). You can forget about pu or byteboozer.
-> if you need faster depack than doynamite, then go for LZWVL in slow mode or fast mode. |
| |
Oswald
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 5094 |
this all should be examined combined with loading speed, wether the faster depack worths the bigger file or not ;) |
| |
Testa
Account closed
Registered: Oct 2004
Posts: 197 |
thanks wvl!!!, very informative.. |
| |
QuasaR
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 145 |
Thanx WVL for all the work. What I'm missing is Exomizer or is it even more slower than Pucrunch? In my testings it was nearly as good as Pucrunch at compressing but much faster. |
| |
Burglar
Registered: Dec 2004
Posts: 1101 |
exomizer will beat all in compression (except maybe on tiny files), it will also beat all depacking time, it's the slowest of all. |
| |
Urban Space Cowboy
Registered: Nov 2004
Posts: 45 |
At least with Exomizer you can set custom decrunch effects to help pass the time. Cruncher AB nostalgists try this: -s"lsr $d011" -x"and #$05 sta $d020" -f"rol $d011"
Here's WVL's results table again, this time readable:
filesizes
# bin rle wvl-f wvl-s bb pu doyna
- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
1 11008 8020 4529 4151 3383 3410 3265
2 4973 4314 3532 3309 2648 2687 2512
3 3949 3498 2991 2617 2187 2226 2108
4 7016 6456 4242 4085 3681 3595 3617
5 34760 27647 25781 24895 21306 20887 20405
6 31605 12511 11283 10923 9194 8877 8904
7 20392 17295 12108 11285 9627 9460 9289
8 5713 5407 4179 3916 3251 3314 3132
9 8960 7986 6914 6896 5586 5651 5430
filesize in %
# bin rle wvl-f wvl-s bb pu doyna
- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
1 100% 73% 41% 38% 31% 31% 30%
2 100% 87% 71% 67% 53% 54% 51%
3 100% 89% 76% 66% 55% 56% 53%
4 100% 92% 60% 58% 52% 51% 52%
5 100% 80% 74% 72% 61% 60% 59%
6 100% 40% 36% 35% 29% 28% 28%
7 100% 85% 59% 55% 47% 46% 46%
8 100% 95% 73% 69% 57% 58% 55%
9 100% 89% 77% 77% 62% 63% 61%
number of frames to depack
# bin rle wvl-f wvl-s bb pu doyna
- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
1 11 13 14 58 27
2 5 7 7 38 17
3 4 6 6 28 12
4 8 9 9 43 20
5 36 39 42 300 119
6 20 25 25 126 49
7 22 25 26 138 60
8 6 8 8 43 18
9 9 12 12 73 32 |
| |
ChristopherJam
Registered: Aug 2004
Posts: 1409 |
Is the Pearls for Pigs corpus downloadable anywhere?
I'd quite like to see how the simplistic packer I put together for Jam Ball 2 fares with it. Compression factor's not the best, but the depacker's less than $80 bytes long; no idea how speed compares. |
| |
WVL
Registered: Mar 2002
Posts: 902 |
I'll try to dig up the files I used and upload them. They're not really what you would call normal testfiles, but I think they're a pretty good average of stuff you'd find in a demo (graphics, tables, code, etc..) |
| |
HCL
Registered: Feb 2003
Posts: 728 |
Hmm.. are you guys saying that byte-boozer decrunching is slow? Perhaps i could do something about it. I assume these values are already using the "optimized" version of the decruncher that has inlined getter of the code-bytes..
Apart from that, i think you guys should spend a minute or two on linking instead. It's quite easy to make 5-10 seconds of black empty screen feel like nothing if you just have something on the screen moving or doing some kind of easy effect. |
| |
Bitbreaker
Registered: Oct 2002
Posts: 508 |
Doynamite 1.1
Here you can go with new tests. I'd be interested in suggestions on the simple/ folder. Any further ideas on how to make this smaller and faster? The shifting shit is still eating so much cycles :-( |
| Previous - 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 - Next |
