Cost vs return - aka worthiness debate

[78372]

May I ask, why are you looking for internal compression methods while we can use srep+lzma which is better. For me, I just use srep:m3f+lzma which us actually good who wants to spend less time and resources while compressing. You want good difference between mx/m5 vs srep+lzma, then you can try compressing a big game without compressed streams like far cry 4

[elit]

Originally Posted by 78372

May I ask, why are you looking for internal compression methods while we can use srep+lzma which is better. For me, I just use srep:m3f+lzma which us actually good who wants to spend less time and resources while compressing. You want good difference between mx/m5 vs srep+lzma, then you can try compressing a big game without compressed streams like far cry 4

But lzma is also internal compression of FreeArc. What I was questioning is people going extra efforts to replacing internal LZMA with external LZMA's which, at least in my limited tests did not proved to be any significantly better and in fact were pretty much always(significantly) slower.

Now, in case you meant why to use freearc at all and not just piped external command tools(like srep+xz in command like for example), I was thinking about it in the past and really like the idea of own, clean tool chain on cmd, but freearc still offer other things, like groups, arc universal format regardless of replaced tools, sorting, UI, specific optimizations like exe, bmp and wav, skipping of compressed data and so on. Would really simple srep+lzma be better than srep+freearc with its many other advantages? Or am I missing here something?