Transport Tycoon Forums

I read recently that someone, don't remember who, changed the limit to the dimension size of an image being posted but it didn't say what the new size is. I posted images before from my widescreen but now they show up as links and not the image. So can someone tell me what the dimension size limit is now? Thanks...

800 x 600

Thanks Night Owl. I'll try it and see.

Nite Owl is correct with regards to the dimensions. 800x600 has always been the limit (well, for the past few years anyway), but for a while larger images were scaled down. However, with screenshots this often resulted in a much larger filesize, so this feature was disabled.

Oh ok. Thanks, orudge. I'll just have to resize them before I post em now.

They will still show as links, of course, if they're larger than the permitted dimensions.

since 1024 x 768 is much more normal nowadays (and 800 x 600 is much rarer), how about an increase?

Lord Aro wrote:since 1024 x 768 is much more normal nowadays (and 800 x 600 is much rarer), how about an increase?

Please not. I dislike websites that require me to basically full-screen my browser to normally read a thread.
The main problem with that is that it becomes 1900 pixels wide and everything scales with that, so I've got lines of text of like 1700 pixels which becomes really hard to read; try reading normally printed text spread over the width of a page of A3 instead of the normal book B5/A5 or at least multiple columns on A4.

Lord Aro wrote:since 1024 x 768 is much more normal nowadays (and 800 x 600 is much rarer), how about an increase?

This was considered relatively recently, but so far I've decided against it.

Lord Aro wrote:since 1024 x 768 is much more normal nowadays (and 800 x 600 is much rarer), how about an increase?

Rubidium wrote:Please not. I dislike websites that require me to basically full-screen my browser to normally read a thread.
The main problem with that is that it becomes 1900 pixels wide and everything scales with that, so I've got lines of text of like 1700 pixels which becomes really hard to read; try reading normally printed text spread over the width of a page of A3 instead of the normal book B5/A5 or at least multiple columns on A4.

orudge wrote: This was considered relatively recently, but so far I've decided against it.

ok then, ignore me

orudge wrote:They will still show as links, of course, if they're larger than the permitted dimensions.

Yes, I understand but I have a 24" widescreen so I'll have to crop and resize either way if I want them to show up without a link. I like how it was before where the image was resized by the forum but I guess I'll make do with how it is now. Thanks...

Tattoo wrote:Yes, I understand but I have a 24" widescreen so I'll have to crop and resize either way if I want them to show up without a link. I like how it was before where the image was resized by the forum but I guess I'll make do with how it is now. Thanks...

Alas, phpBB resized screenshots into smaller but smoothed .png files, which sometimes resulted in massive files (say, over a megabyte for a file that was originally 200KB).

Lord Aro wrote:since 1024 x 768 is much more normal nowadays (and 800 x 600 is much rarer), how about an increase?

Not that I'd argue either way here's some statistics I've gathered from my website, although this is not necessarily representative of tt-forums users, orudge perhaps you should consider getting google analytics for the forums to gather data such as this.

Lord Aro wrote: ok then, ignore me

and i used the wrong word; i meant: minimum

lawton27 wrote:Not that I'd argue either way here's some statistics I've gathered from my website, although this is not necessarily representative of tt-forums users, orudge perhaps you should consider getting google analytics for the forums to gather data such as this.

I did a little poll not so long ago. While many people do have larger screens now, not everyone (as Rubidium says) uses their browser in a full screen mode. Plus, there are an increasing number of people accessing the forums from mobile devices now, which do, of course, have small screens. As such, I think adding huge graphics to the forums in-line would not really be the best thing at the moment.

Now, a user-customisable option, on the other hand, might be good. But alas, phpBB doesn't support it.

orudge wrote:

Tattoo wrote:Yes, I understand but I have a 24" widescreen so I'll have to crop and resize either way if I want them to show up without a link. I like how it was before where the image was resized by the forum but I guess I'll make do with how it is now. Thanks...

Alas, phpBB resized screenshots into smaller but smoothed .png files, which sometimes resulted in massive files (say, over a megabyte for a file that was originally 200KB).

WOW! the size increases that much the way it was before? That is a lot. So because it gets shrunk, does it save a NEW shrunk file AND the original?

orudge wrote:I did a little poll not so long ago. While many people do have larger screens now, not everyone (as Rubidium says) uses their browser in a full screen mode. Plus, there are an increasing number of people accessing the forums from mobile devices now, which do, of course, have small screens. As such, I think adding huge graphics to the forums in-line would not really be the best thing at the moment.

Now, a user-customisable option, on the other hand, might be good. But alas, phpBB doesn't support it.

I don't use my browser full screen either and that's cool that you're thinking about these ppl too. Ya gotta be versatile now a days, right...

Tattoo wrote:WOW! the size increases that much the way it was before?

Sometimes, not always. TTD screenshots were particularly bad, because they're typically just 8-bit paletted PNGs, which compress quite well, but phpBB's resizing mechanism would smooth them out, which ends up using significantly more colours, and is less compressible. Hence, the thumbnail file has a larger filesize.

Oh, ok. Now I understand how it works. Thanks