How to add a Custom Loading Screen without...

How do you add a Custom loading screen without adding 2MB to your map? It's now apparently too big to be played on Battle.net, and It seems like I must have done something wrong, since I've seen a number of maps with less than 2 MB that have custom loading screens.

Thanks for the help.

Have you tried compressing the image file?

Use the .blp method (over-ride the generic-melee loading screen with images of your own). It takes a bit of time but file-size can be cut down drastically compared to .tga (and you still maintain quality).

http://world-editor-tutorials.thehel...php?view=36757

Specifically, "A Loading Screen in ROC" (still works for tft and saves space taken by the custom loading screen model).
Only thing is don't import via an mpq program, but through the import manager.

Although I hate to be so direct, you should absolutely not follow Ammorth's advice.

Refer to this tutorial: http://www.wc3campaigns.net/showthread.php?t=56751

It explains how to use a 1024x768 .tga file for a loadscreen. That means highest quality possible.

BUT...

If you convert the .tga file from rgb color to indexed color mode before going through with the loadscreen process, you will save a massive amount of space. Indexed color is the ultimate compression with no noticeable loss in quality.

The .blp method suggested above will give you a low resolution loadscreen and thus blurry and low detail. It will cost your map around 500kb I believe. The .tga method will give you vastly superior quality at a cost of 600-700kb.

The loading screen is at the same resolution as in the method you posted. The file size is also dependant on the complexity of the image.

Unless there have been some major changes to the .tga file-type in the last couple years, .blp will produce smaller file-sizes for the "same quality" of image. This has to do with the compression of .blp and the .mpq compression.

I have made loading screens with medium complexity and have had them under 300kb with the .blp method. The quality is decent but decreasing the .blp compression can further increase the quality. Now, when I say decent I don't mean blurry, I mean the quality is acceptable for resolutions up to 1280x1024.

Well... I used .blp and I replaced the file for the regular loading screen through the Import Manager. That's what I did already, and it still takes 300kb each for the smaller parts, and 700kb each for the bigger parts (2MB total).

Although:
I did convert them from .jpg to .blp. Would switching to .tga first be better?

indexing colors produces no loss in quality. and you could index and then covert for uber compression

Sorry, but what's indexing colors? How do I do that? (Sorry for failing at computers >_>)

@Ammorth: To be honest I doubt you could get a .blp loadscreen under 400 kb without it looking like utter shit. To get decent quality you need at least 500 kb, and uncompressed it is quite large (as Burning_Rose discovered).

With .tga you can get the best quality (i.e. superior to uncompressed .blp) for only ~600 kb.

Don't really see much of an argument here, unless your map is right at the 4 MB limit...

@Burning_Rose: I'm a bit surprised you doubted my judgment. You should use photoshop (or a program like it). I recommend remaking your loadscreen from scratch in .tga format originally for highest quality. Then go through options in menus until you find a way to change from rgb to indexed color (or search in help). You shall be quite pleased with the results.

down load gimp http://gimp.org/downloads/, load the image in gimp, go to image>mode>indexed. or if you've already downloaded PS then figure out how to do it in that.

Attached is a map with a loading screen which I believe has rather decent quality. The entire map is 350 kb so the loading screen is well under the 400 kb mark you stated.

Method:
I used Photoshop to scale base image to 1024x768 and then chop into 4 images (as stated in a previous post). I then saved them as 32-bit .tga with a blank alpha channel. I then usedWarcraft3Viewer (found on this site) to convert each .tga file to .blp with 75% compression (I use this for everything. In my opinion it is the best compression for quality ratio.) and then imported into my map.

I would predict the fluctuation in file-size to be between 100 to 500kb depending on the details of the image in question.

edit: I attached base image incase anyone wants to try.

I'll give you credit, that isn't a horseshit looking loadscreen for 350 kb. However, for 600 kb I can offer you no blur or visual artifacts at all.

In my opinion unless you need to be ultra conservative about map space, you should invest the extra 250 kb into the loadscreen. The loadscreen should not be underestimated as a crucial element of polish for any reputable project.

Of course, the rest of your map needs to be up to par as well, otherwise you are just wasting space...

I agree to an extent. The investment of around 50% more space to increase the quality by a mer margin (that some people may not even notice) is not a very wise decision. Although in today's world, as data-size seems unlimited, it is best to be conservative and save space where possible.

The loading screen also isn't a crucial element of polish. Sure, it helps provide a uniqueness to your map and it is one of the first impressions of your map, I would have to argue that it is not the most important. A good map with a bad loading screen is exactly that: a good map with a bad loading screen. A bad map with a good loading screen follow the exact same classification: a bad map with a good loading screen. Now, what are you more likely to remember after playing a 30-50 minute map, the bad loading screen or the bad map? Lets face it, the loading screen lasts anywhere between 10 to 60 seconds while a map lasts from 1800 to 3000 seconds. On average, the loading screen lasts for less than 1.5% of the entire time spent playing a map. Therefore, it would only make sense to give it a "worth" of 1.5% of the total project. Relate that to the size of a map (max of 4000kb) and the loading screen should only involve 60kb (by definition).

Of course, this is a rather extreme exaggeration of size-allocation, but as the figure show, the loading screen isn't as important as it's all cracked up to be. Many games I've played online that were well done and polished, didn't have a custom loading screen (except for the text which is specified in the editor).

The map was never rated by its loading screen and I seriously doubt it ever will. The loading screen is just the icing on the cake; it's the cake I'm much more worried about.

I think you missed the point. Notice the last sentence of the quote...

I'm a firm believer in aiming for the highest quality in all aspects of the game. I think for any long term and reputable project you need to leave no stone unturned.

It really comes down to what you are trying to accomplish. If this is a casual project, or the early phase of a more serious one, then you should not concern yourself so much about the loading screen.

In fact you will want to minimize mapsize to ensure your map spreads as quickly as possible. I would recommend Ammorth's method for this.

If your project is established, then 250kb for very noticeable quality difference is quite an easy decision.

It looks good everytime you play the game, and people definitely notice it. It should be quite reasonable to keep your map within 1-2mb, even with this higher quality loadscreen. That is a very reasonable size range for any established map.

I'll probably go with the smaller size, but for now, I still have absolutely no idea HOW to do it. From what I could tell, saving it as a .tga took up 3x the space of a Jpeg. I'm assuming I'm doing something wrong, and while I don't want to ask to be held by the hand through the process (Because asking that is lame), I'm completely lost on this.