Is there still a problem with the "800" pixel width of the Photos/Screen Shot, necessitating a horizontal scroll to view the full width of the picture?

Paul ....1024 X 768 desktop resolution..... ...!

The weight limits being changed are a good thing, but I can't say I feel the same for the size limits....

I thought the increased limits were to reduce compression....but by allowing the width to be bigger it just means there's going to be more compression, plus annoyance for those who will have to scroll for anything over 800 wide ( a majority of people I believe)

just my thoughts on this

.mic

Good! But as Mic and Foz, I don't feel the same for 1024x768 limit... That's the resolution on both computers I use...

Check it out for yourselves:

One from my garden last summer..



Please post feedback about the new file size here, did you have to scroll, and your current screen res.

Cheers

Pic looks nice Rob but I had to scroll to the right to see the other 40% of the picture. 1024*768 is my desktopsize. It's way to big to be useful in these forums. But that's my opinion. The 150 kb limit is more than welcome.

Crash

Quote:

Looks fine to me on both Firefox & IE6 at 1440x900. I discovered when this problem first raised its head (last time the forum was updated) that it not only depends on your screen resolution but also which browser you're using. IE7 might well be different.

We'll see how it goes but for the time being I'll continue posting my photos at 800x600. I think some people will still have to scroll to see them properly.

finaly my wish came true.Thank you

BTW that resolution is fne by me also.

Firefox and IE

I have to scroll about 20% at 1280x960

With a bit of experimenting my lowest resolution I can view it whole as is 1360x1024....this makes everything else really small......not convenient....but at least my monitor can reach that high....

.mic

spitfire boy wrote on Jan 15^th, 2008 at 5:16pm:

Which browser?

 Works for me just fine I'm happy.

Bob

I had to scroll in firefox with 1280x1024

I'm fine with the 150kb thing tho 

It's scrolling for me at the larger size and I run 1280x960
I think I will be sticking at 800 for mine but using the increased file size to better advantage. That 50kb makes a big differance in some of my shots.

Thank you, oh great lord of Simv, we humble simviationites are thankful.  Would you like a sacrifice?

Really though, thats awsome

NickN wrote on Jan 15^th, 2008 at 8:14pm:


I agree with you that it gives people a choice in weight and size but the fact that I had to scroll through your message about 6 times just to read to text annoys the hell out of me. Keep the shots at 800 wide and scrolling is hardly needed. Don't forget that the majority of the users here don't use widescreen monitors that can handle the resolution. And I'm not going to buy one in the near future too.

For all you who said that FF or IE7 can handle the image. Don't these two browser reduce picture sizes automatically to fit the screen? So that you watch a 1024 picture reduce to 800 by 'inferiour' software?

Crash

spitfire boy wrote on Jan 15^th, 2008 at 5:16pm:


Strange, im at the same resolution and i didnt need too scroll..

pepper_airborne wrote on Jan 16^th, 2008 at 2:38am:



At 1280x1024 you should not need to scroll unless your monitor is not set up right, the browser window is not at 100%, or, you replaced your browser with some knock-off that redefines the borders.

Most modern monitors are native at 1280x1024 now.

1024x768 is old news and 800x600 is a dinosaur

Some people run 1024x768 because they do not know their monitor has the ability to run 1280x1024.

This change does not mean everyone has to use 1024, all it means is there are choices which are fair for everyone.

As Dave said, the ‘compression killed my shot’ days are over. If you shot was killed it’s because the picture quality was not good to begin with and to tell you the truth, at 800x600 100Kb is not going to kill a shot that much. Most of the shots I post are 70-85Kb and with the exception of one or two over the years I never had problems with compression.

Quote:


+1....

Nick, you tell us to get with the times, but the fact of the matter is the majority of people have monitors which can't go up to those high resolutions, and many won't be willing to upgrade them until they really need upgrading, which they dont.....1280x960 is the resolution at which things appear best on my screen and that is sufficient for almost everything. I certainly won't be buying a new monitor until this one breaks.

.mic

There could be problems I feel in the monthly contest if you have some people capable of entering a viable 1024x768 shot and others not so easily. Are the contest restrictions going to be kept at 800 wide - not sure on this one.

Upping the 'weight' of a pic is a great idea, so many 800x600 pics of mine that were over the old 100k limit were spoiled by compression, increasing this is very wise.

However, sorry SimV team but for me and everyone else (and it seems there is a fair number) who runs 1024x768 screen resolution, the increase in res' is very bad news.

What the hell is the point of a lovely uncompressed pic if we can only see 60% of it????

It is quite simply not fair to penalise people who don't have the resources to buy a large screen when it is the SimV forum's choice of forum software that blocks us from being able to see full size pics over 700 wide. Remember, this is a worldwide forum and not all of us are lucky enough to live in wealthy areas and can afford such luxurys.

Actualy, my screen will go up to 1280x1024 but I choose not to as things will get far too fiddly and difficult to use. I find this res' quite comfortable on my 17" screen. But I have reasonable eyesight, have you not considered those who are unlucky enough to have poor eyesight? Why are you discriminating against them?

EVERY other internet forum i'm a member of (and there are quite a few, four FS sites, two train sim sites and a couple of classic car forums, one of which i'm an administrator on) can display 1024x768 pics whole, never mind 800x600.

As i've said before in two other recent threads, thanks to the monthly comps' and the exccellent additional forums like StudioV, screenshots are a major part of this site. To actualy restrict their availability further just for 'the sake of progress' just doesn't make sence.

It looks like this is the end for posting and looking at screenshots on SimV for myself and maybe many others like me who will not be able to actively participate anymore. A great shame.

Come on SimV, take a moment to pause and think this through. Get the forum software sorted first before trying to blindly leap into the future and leaving half of us behind. PLEASE!

Yay bigger sizes... and longer uplaods times... who cares(not me!)

And i'm cool with res.

YMMB Running 1024*768

Going bigger with new card soon

Thanks for all the feedback. Actually we did this in response to a post in the forums -

It is an OPTION

It is 'keeping up with the times'

I fully appreciate not everyone will have the screens to view the wide shots without scrolling. On one of my main PC's I don't either - however the Yabb software is an evolutionary thing that we have been using - generally with few problems - for years.

The great thing about this forum software is that - like FS - it is open source & worked on by dozens of enthusiasts worldwide.

I am sure that the view window can be widened. I have had a priority list to work through as well as real world demands but as soon as I can I will look into this & improve whatever is possible.

Quote:

Wish I could believe that but I'm not confident it will make any difference. That silly statement has become a tradition when posting images on this forum. If I see it once more it will be too many.

I'm running at 1280, and have to scroll.

But, my resolution's not the problem. The problem lies within the forum software. Many other forums will just increase the size of the box in which the image is placed, so no scrolling is necessary (with 1024 at 1280 in mind). However on here, it confines any image to the preset size of the box, so anything that exceeds the size gets chopped off. Thus, you have to scroll.

If this can be removed somehow, then the scrolling issue, for many people will be eradicated. You may still have to scroll across the screen a bit, given that avatars and names take up the left hand side of the screen, but you'll still be able to see the whole shot in view.

If nothing can be done about it, then I won't be wasting my time going through threads scrolling on each picture. Simple.

Before everyone get their panties in a ruffle and start taking their ball and going home, do me a favor and check out this link:

http://www.simforums.com/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=24627

Do you have to scroll to see those?

If not, 1280x1024 shows a 1024x768 image without the need to scroll, if you do, then something is out of sorts, what I have no idea.


So if the issue is the forum software give Pete a chance to look into it before starting to threaten you are leaving which is not going to fix things and at the same time it does nothing to allow for positive changes.


No one has to post anything they do not wish to. many will remain at 800x600 simply because it allows them to hide more and I dont care what anyone says, 100K is enough to produce a 800x600 screenshot without any compression issues assuming you know how to use the software to do the job and have the right software installed.

150Kb is more than enough for 1024x768 or 1024x640



Lets let Pete look into the forum software before posting protests and rants. I think that would be a much better direction to take.

...I give up on the Screen Shot, etc, Forum... ...!

With a "normal" Desktop resolution, ie; easy to read, of 1024 X 768, I can no longer view the Pictures in the Latest Forum when they are anything larger than 700 Pixels wide without scrolling every picture back and forth!

On the previous Forum(s) if I am not mistaken, it was possible to view the whole of an 800 pixel wide Picture without horizontal scrolling, with a desktop resolution of 1024 X 768.

Whenever I post a Screen Shot or Photograph now, on the new Forum, I have to make sure that it is less than 700 pixels wide (default 640 X 480) to avoid other viewers having to scroll horizontally to view the whole Picture!

Something is "different" with the new Forum Layout...much wider Borders?... ...!

Paul... ...!

...any screen resolution greater than 1024 X 768 makes the Text too small to read comfortably, and magnifying the Text distorts it!

MrJake2002 wrote on Jan 19^th, 2008 at 6:57pm:


Well you shouldn't have, as UKAR have an 800 pixel limit.

MrJake2002 wrote on Jan 19^th, 2008 at 7:55pm:


I was tempted to view Jake's Pics here....>>>

http://www.simviation.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1200746920

But rapidly gave up after noting that they were 1024 pixels wide and required considerable scrolling backwards and forwards to view bits of them...!

...never again!... ...!

Even 800 pixel wide Pics require horizontal scrolling to view them now!

(Fat Borders!)......!

Paul...1024 X 768.... ...!

Standard 640 X 480, high quality Photo's and Screen Shots is the only way it seems to work reliably for everyone......!

There is a flip side Simon... those with really big monitors (as sizeable a number as those that do not) can't see much detail at all when the pics are only 800 wide. A compromise has to be found.

Anyway, I have this scroll problem at present, but it should be solved eventually, since I will soon be taking posession, if all goes well, of a brand spanking new gaming PC with a new 20" widescreen monitor...

Souichiro wrote on Jan 17^th, 2008 at 5:28pm:


I don't know about you, but 70% seems to suffice, and the difference between 90% and 95% is very minute. I'm saying, just because it can get bigger, it doesn't have to. don't forget some people who are still on dial-up and such.

Ramos - perfectly content with the old rules.

From now on I'm only going to post 800x600 and link to the 1024x768 ones. 

Tom... wrote on Jan 21^st, 2008 at 10:37am:


I have to start scrolling when the Pic is 800 or more Pixels wide.

I have to post shots 700 Pixels wide, or less, (Standard 640 X 480), to avoid scrolling in the new Forum.

Paul...1024 X 768 Desktop...Firefox......!

I might try reverting back to the "Old " Forum for a while, and see what happens with the Screen Shots, Photos, etc.......!
I still reckon the Borders are wider in the new Forum..(and the overall page width may also be "thinner" narrower.. ...)...!

P.S. I love the New Forum... ....its just that for some reason, the available page width seems to have decreased.... ....!

.......or I am getting Fatter!..... ...!

& remember : this isn't a rule - it's an option.


& remember 2 : The view area will be widened on yabb - it's on the list of things to do.

& remember 3 : Whatever we do here, there will be people who don't like it for their own personal reasons. However we do GENUINELY try to feed into the majority wish list as well as try to feed out that 'feel good factor'.

1024 is the standard screen size from years ago - Once the forum screen has been widened, at worst some people may have to side scroll a little or right click - view image .

& for those complaining that the choice of forum software  -- c'mon -- you KNOW the screen size can & will be changed as soon as I get a chance .. 

My thought is since this sight is designed to be friendly to as many people as it can that the size should be as it was for almost everyones happiness.  If it's a good shot then I think you should post a link to the large uncompressed version....personally

The 150kb is PERFECT though...

Can anyone else envision this thread marching purposefully in the direction of an argument?

C'mon guys...when push comes to shove, it's only some screenshots, and shouldn't be enough to produce seemingly angered results...

Anyway I'm getting a big new monitor + computer soon, so

Quote:


From what I remember the comp rules state max width 1024 but don't mention height.

Ok, that's enough now, or it'll be time for the group hug picture again....it is within 800px so everyone will be able to see it, barf bags at the ready! 

Hagar wrote on Jan 24^th, 2008 at 5:10am:


Hello Doug...

What I generally do, (with my default Desktop size of 1024 X 786), is to Preview my Photo/Screenshot first, and if I need to scroll it to view it in total, then I reduce its width so that I don't need to scroll it....

....BEFORE finally Posting it!.... ...!

Paul... ...!

Fly2e wrote on Jan 24^th, 2008 at 9:02am:
I'mkindofpartialtothisone,eventhoughthecornerisjustatadblurred...[img]http://www.simviation.com/yabbuploads/2008-1-24_3-21-56-45.jpg


I was doing just over Mach1 when I nailed that one and it was an unexpected surprise. I was trying out a screen snag software that grabs multiple shots at once and that one was in the mix


by the way, thats 92.5kb on that image 

Funny thing about that dave.. i have been checking areas by randomly moving the aircraft on the map without really looking so I can spot check things quickly.

Sort of a blindfold QC check

In that one I know I was just on the other side of the beginning of the Rockies and I do believe I entered right about mid to just below mid USA and headed west over the peaks and got into that valley but I do not know the exact location.

By bouncing around like that I can hit more places quicker to try and find issues and fix them.

pete wrote on Jan 24^th, 2008 at 3:34pm:


LOL.... ...!

Paul...Expanding Waist Line... ...!