[Garnu Thorn]

Yes, it is somewhat about a debate on the small avatar limit to the image size.  I had this problem on another board, namely from an RSPS I won't mention.  Whatever the final decision of how large our avatars will show as, so be it.  I know of issues surrounding linking an obnoxiously large avatar for usage while it still gets shrunk down to size, though, but in order for the browser to show it there is CPU lag spike everytime you look at the large shrunk avatar.  Not eveyone has a 2GB video card with a decent GPU clock.  Most preorder computers new just have onboard graphics that tax the CPU.  The fanbase alone probably has computers with build creations stretching back to 2002 when Windows XP could be used on those computers made to run it at the time of release.

So, this leaves us with a few options to avoid lag on the forums.  One way is to build in to the forum for it to create a thumbnail resized to the avatar limit.  This will require some programming and to a database for singular personal avatars as they are changed and used.  Another way, more blunt to enforcing the avatar limits rather than enabling a feature for the fanbase, is for the forum to check the file for pixel dimension, and if the image on hand is too large, it is denied.  With this method, I can also see a measure of coding, but at least it isn't as much as writing or adding a module to the code, more so just with something to detect dimensions.  Maybe this could blossom part of the graphics forum for requests to resize images, but that is a pretty easy thing to do already.  As for pixel size limits, I could see 720 by 720 an allowable size, but the forum developer could answer that better than I.  Size on disc is also notable, for those with gifs.

Already, the direct link to anyone's avatar is accessible, and with that anyone can check how big some people's avatars don't need to be.  Every image we see is added to our cache bins no matter how small we see it as on the forums.

At least I haven't seen a humongous pixel dimension on a long and big gif, I'm talking 3 MB.  Kudos on the fanbase for that.

[High]

...... What?

[Wolf]

We already have a topic about this do we not?

[Garnu Thorn]

We do have a topic on how small the avatars are, not with issues of how large of images we could use that the end user has to put up with the browser constantly resizing a large avatar.  Besides, I'm no expert with forums and direct linked images, but if this forum has to exhaust bandwidth just to show each avatar, wouldn't it make sense to limit even the size of the image used?

[JT]

Yes, it is somewhat about a debate on the small avatar limit to the image size.  I had this problem on another board, namely from an RSPS I won't mention.  Whatever the final decision of how large our avatars will show as, so be it.  I know of issues surrounding linking an obnoxiously large avatar for usage while it still gets shrunk down to size, though, but in order for the browser to show it there is CPU lag spike everytime you look at the large shrunk avatar.  Not eveyone has a 2GB video card with a decent GPU clock.  Most preorder computers new just have onboard graphics that tax the CPU.  The fanbase alone probably has computers with build creations stretching back to 2002 when Windows XP could be used on those computers made to run it at the time of release.

So, this leaves us with a few options to avoid lag on the forums.  One way is to build in to the forum for it to create a thumbnail resized to the avatar limit.  This will require some programming and to a database for singular personal avatars as they are changed and used.  Another way, more blunt to enforcing the avatar limits rather than enabling a feature for the fanbase, is for the forum to check the file for pixel dimension, and if the image on hand is too large, it is denied.  With this method, I can also see a measure of coding, but at least it isn't as much as writing or adding a module to the code, more so just with something to detect dimensions.  Maybe this could blossom part of the graphics forum for requests to resize images, but that is a pretty easy thing to do already.  As for pixel size limits, I could see 720 by 720 an allowable size, but the forum developer could answer that better than I.  Size on disc is also notable, for those with gifs.

Already, the direct link to anyone's avatar is accessible, and with that anyone can check how big some people's avatars don't need to be.  Every image we see is added to our cache bins no matter how small we see it as on the forums.

At least I haven't seen a humongous pixel dimension on a long and big gif, I'm talking 3 MB.  Kudos on the fanbase for that.

It's nearly 4am, but i know exactly what you're talking about, we'll look into it.

[Garnu Thorn]

Yes, it is somewhat about a debate on the small avatar limit to the image size.  I had this problem on another board, namely from an RSPS I won't mention.  Whatever the final decision of how large our avatars will show as, so be it.  I know of issues surrounding linking an obnoxiously large avatar for usage while it still gets shrunk down to size, though, but in order for the browser to show it there is CPU lag spike everytime you look at the large shrunk avatar.  Not eveyone has a 2GB video card with a decent GPU clock.  Most preorder computers new just have onboard graphics that tax the CPU.  The fanbase alone probably has computers with build creations stretching back to 2002 when Windows XP could be used on those computers made to run it at the time of release.

So, this leaves us with a few options to avoid lag on the forums.  One way is to build in to the forum for it to create a thumbnail resized to the avatar limit.  This will require some programming and to a database for singular personal avatars as they are changed and used.  Another way, more blunt to enforcing the avatar limits rather than enabling a feature for the fanbase, is for the forum to check the file for pixel dimension, and if the image on hand is too large, it is denied.  With this method, I can also see a measure of coding, but at least it isn't as much as writing or adding a module to the code, more so just with something to detect dimensions.  Maybe this could blossom part of the graphics forum for requests to resize images, but that is a pretty easy thing to do already.  As for pixel size limits, I could see 720 by 720 an allowable size, but the forum developer could answer that better than I.  Size on disc is also notable, for those with gifs.

Already, the direct link to anyone's avatar is accessible, and with that anyone can check how big some people's avatars don't need to be.  Every image we see is added to our cache bins no matter how small we see it as on the forums.

At least I haven't seen a humongous pixel dimension on a long and big gif, I'm talking 3 MB.  Kudos on the fanbase for that.

It's nearly 4am, but i know exactly what you're talking about, we'll look into it.

Good to know we have correspondence levels to an admin from a batty mage.

[JT]

Yes, it is somewhat about a debate on the small avatar limit to the image size.  I had this problem on another board, namely from an RSPS I won't mention.  Whatever the final decision of how large our avatars will show as, so be it.  I know of issues surrounding linking an obnoxiously large avatar for usage while it still gets shrunk down to size, though, but in order for the browser to show it there is CPU lag spike everytime you look at the large shrunk avatar.  Not eveyone has a 2GB video card with a decent GPU clock.  Most preorder computers new just have onboard graphics that tax the CPU.  The fanbase alone probably has computers with build creations stretching back to 2002 when Windows XP could be used on those computers made to run it at the time of release.

So, this leaves us with a few options to avoid lag on the forums.  One way is to build in to the forum for it to create a thumbnail resized to the avatar limit.  This will require some programming and to a database for singular personal avatars as they are changed and used.  Another way, more blunt to enforcing the avatar limits rather than enabling a feature for the fanbase, is for the forum to check the file for pixel dimension, and if the image on hand is too large, it is denied.  With this method, I can also see a measure of coding, but at least it isn't as much as writing or adding a module to the code, more so just with something to detect dimensions.  Maybe this could blossom part of the graphics forum for requests to resize images, but that is a pretty easy thing to do already.  As for pixel size limits, I could see 720 by 720 an allowable size, but the forum developer could answer that better than I.  Size on disc is also notable, for those with gifs.

Already, the direct link to anyone's avatar is accessible, and with that anyone can check how big some people's avatars don't need to be.  Every image we see is added to our cache bins no matter how small we see it as on the forums.

At least I haven't seen a humongous pixel dimension on a long and big gif, I'm talking 3 MB.  Kudos on the fanbase for that.

It's nearly 4am, but i know exactly what you're talking about, we'll look into it.

Good to know we have correspondence levels to an admin from a batty mage.

Alright i changed the maximum size back to 100x100 and made it refuse avatars bigger than that, until we get the GD module installed

[Garnu Thorn]

Alright i changed the maximum size back to 100x100 and made it refuse avatars bigger than that, until we get the GD module installed

Forum link

I think this just caused a problem.

[JT]

Those are the actual sizes of the images, which is a good thing we caught this before it got too out of hand.

[Stuart]

Hate this.

[Garnu Thorn]

Riipiin, other boards have this as well, especially when bandwidth is a concern.  Every time you have to cache the images, if you clean your browser cache weekly, all those large avatars eat up bandwidth being downloaded every time the browser caches them.  And it comes out of server costs, so.  I think that even if they are linked remotely, the forums pull the image, resize it, and it comes out of the server's bandwidth.

Who doesn't clean their cache every so often anyways?  Now compound that with each new player caching every avatar they see, and you'll understand why this is important.

[Stuart]

Riipiin, other boards have this as well, especially when bandwidth is a concern.  Every time you have to cache the images, if you clean your browser cache weekly, all those large avatars eat up bandwidth being downloaded every time the browser caches them.  And it comes out of server costs, so.  I think that even if they are linked remotely, the forums pull the image, resize it, and it comes out of the server's bandwidth.

Who doesn't clean their cache every so often anyways?  Now compound that with each new player caching every avatar they see, and you'll understand why this is important.

Thought the forums glitched, but the avatars that were over 100 before update weren't resizing anymore and I was having a few issues before JT reset mine and I had to resize another picture. All good now. I know the reason why, just had an issue on my side.

[JT]

Just so you know, its client sided computing and bandwidth that this was eating, better this way in the long run.