New compression method: Exomizer 2
Have you compared it to pletter and/or bitbuster?
By Google
Have you compared it to pletter and/or bitbuster?
AFAIK those are faster but already have worse compression than aPLib or pucrunch.
Using the benchmarks from MegaLZ ( located at http://lvd.nm.ru/MegaLZ/ ), I get:
123609 bytes for bitbuster_extreme0.1
119475 bytes for pletter 0.4a (buffersize 3 = 8320 bytes)
118341 bytes for MegaLZ
114715 bytes for aPLib
113927 bytes for pucrunch
110121 bytes for exomizer 2 (no literal sequences)
110116 bytes for exomizer 2 (no literal sequences,optimized)
110089 bytes for exomizer 2
110085 bytes for exomizer 2 (optimized)
Try it yourself!
I tested it on some of my game data and I got somewhere around 10% off the size that pletter 0.5a gives me. Pretty decent. Haven't run any cpu time tests yet because currently that would be my main concern. Is there any data available as to how much longer decompression takes compared to bitbuster/pletter?
Metalbrain can you test it against platter 0.5a ?
117791 bytes for pletter 0.5a
still far from aPLib, pucrunch or exomizer 2
This may be a stupid question, but how do the packers/unpackers compare speed-wise?
Hardly a stupid question, speed is very often a bigger factor than compression ratio...
I compared it with RNC PRO-PACK, and RNC was better for code and especially for text, but for the rest of tests it was almost the same, if not worse a little.
Well, I get:
115547 bytes for RNC PRO-PACK
Thread necromancy! 
Antonio Villena has optimized the depackers, so they're now a bit smaller and also faster:
http://www.speccy.org/metalbrain/exo_v4.zip

By Metalbrain
Resident (51)
08-12-2007, 16:00