Avatars

Richard Cranium · Post by **Richard Cranium** » Sun Feb 29, 2004 10:32 am

What size are we finally going to be able to use? Is off site hosting going to be allowed? (I could host several for other people if needed)

JMEaT · Post by **JMEaT** » Sun Feb 29, 2004 11:20 am

I think the rule is the same. Off site is working was well.

Defender · Post by **Defender** » Sun Feb 29, 2004 12:22 pm

The chief has spoken

Skyalmian · Post by **Skyalmian** » Sun Feb 29, 2004 1:31 pm

I commend Tetrad and MD for their valiant attempts to get Them to change the max size limit to something suitable for this decade. Good try, dudes, good try.

JMEaT · Post by **JMEaT** » Sun Feb 29, 2004 3:36 pm

I don't see what the big debate is all about. 64x64 seems sufficiant. Some BB's don't even allow avatars at all.

Skyalmian · Post by **Skyalmian** » Sun Feb 29, 2004 4:28 pm

Matrix · Post by **Matrix** » Sun Feb 29, 2004 5:28 pm

ya 64x64 is a little small :P

Most boards allow 120x120

If I were u guys I would just disable uploading and raise it to a size were u can actually see whatâ??s in the picture

and why not some nice theme's they only take like 200k on the server :P
graphics from the 80s :P

fliptw · Post by **fliptw** » Sun Feb 29, 2004 5:37 pm

Im having no problems with 64x64 icons at 1152x864.

The DBB isn't an art gallery, its a bulletin board; you read stuff here, not ogle at people's icons.

Nitrofox125 · Post by **Nitrofox125** » Sun Feb 29, 2004 6:31 pm

not ogle at people's icons.

I wouldn't mind Stress's avatar at a healthy 160x160 size

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sun Feb 29, 2004 6:34 pm

64x64 is completely adequate. It's the DescentBB, not the "show off my huge avatar that takes up too much screen real estate"BB.

If you're really that enamored with Stress's avatar, ask him for a better copy in your e-mail.

Skyalmian · Post by **Skyalmian** » Sun Feb 29, 2004 6:40 pm

Skyalmian · Post by **Skyalmian** » Sun Feb 29, 2004 8:36 pm

bash · Post by **bash** » Sun Feb 29, 2004 8:41 pm

Regarding size, what's up with the puny quotes?

Iceman · Post by **Iceman** » Sun Feb 29, 2004 9:32 pm

Nitrofox125 wrote:I wouldn't mind Stress's avatar at a healthy 160x160 size

No way dude, that one calls for 1600x1200

Skyalmian · Post by **Skyalmian** » Mon Mar 01, 2004 12:33 am

Tetrad · Post by **Tetrad** » Mon Mar 01, 2004 4:29 am

Regardless of the size, we're going to go local-only when uploading is fixed, yes?

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:14 am

Jim, Stress's avatar is a woman feeling herself up (unless he's changed it in the last 24 hours.) The guys who aren't getting any want to see a bigger copy of it.

Topher · Post by **Topher** » Mon Mar 01, 2004 11:48 am

Xciter wrote:
we're going to go local-only when uploading is fixed, yes
Yes

Are we? That is going to mean more bandwidth usuage...

STRESSTEST · Post by **STRESSTEST** » Mon Mar 01, 2004 11:53 am

WAY more

MD-2389 · Post by **MD-2389** » Tue Mar 02, 2004 12:02 am

Archaeloidic wrote:I'd really love to see the results of a poll on this subject. I'm guessing it'd probably be close to a tie.

http://www.fragwerkz.com/dbb/viewtopic.php?t=87

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Sun Mar 07, 2004 2:41 am

hmm

Nitrofox125 · Post by **Nitrofox125** » Sun Mar 07, 2004 10:21 am

and why not some nice theme's they only take like 200k on the server

Many of the mods they added wouldn't work on another theme (unless more editing was done to that theme).

TheCops · Post by **TheCops** » Sun Mar 07, 2004 10:21 am

it's 64x64.
get it through your head. if you want to change the world help campaign for some fascist that wants to be president.

Kyouryuu · Post by **Kyouryuu** » Sun Mar 07, 2004 10:42 am

The 64x64 size limit is just silly. You enforce a 64x64 policy, but let some people keep these 200K+ avatars. Gee, I wonder what's more bandwidth intensive to the system? At least be consistent.

A 100x100 avatar is not huge in this day and age and those who whine that it takes up too much screen real estate need to consider the following. A typical 1024x768 resolution has 786,432 pixels. Clearly, a 100x100 avatar takes 10,000 of those. That's merely 1.2% of screen space. Really space hogging, isn't it?

And as Archaeloidic said, the template we're using consumes 150 pixels of the side ill-regardless.

And I don't know what forums you go to, but 64x64 is very minimal. BeyondUnreal, for example, has an avatar cap around 130x130 and permits forum signatures. It also gets many orders of magnitude more traffic than this one does (or ever will). It's a non-issue - 100x100 does not make or break the system, so I don't honestly see what the problem is. Like I said, at the very least, if you're going to chomp down on everyone and enforce 64x64, then at least enforce a KB size as well. Otherwise, you enforce two completely contradictory policies.

Sting_Ray · Post by **Sting_Ray** » Sun Mar 07, 2004 10:55 am

It's a friggen picture. Your life will go on as planned even if you can only have them at one size.

Get some lives peeps.

JMEaT · Post by **JMEaT** » Sun Mar 07, 2004 11:09 am

The size limit on DBB hosting is 15K. It has been said that on-site only linking of avatars will be here soon.

And what Stingy said.

Skyalmian · Post by **Skyalmian** » Sun Mar 07, 2004 1:40 pm

Phoenix Red · Post by **Phoenix Red** » Sun Mar 07, 2004 1:51 pm

Am I the only one that thinks big avatars look dumb? 64x64 is good imo.

fliptw · Post by **fliptw** » Sun Mar 07, 2004 3:00 pm

What exactly do you need a large avatar to compenstate for?

Vertigo 99 · Post by **Vertigo 99** » Sun Mar 07, 2004 3:56 pm

i think 80x80 would be a good compromise, but so far I haven't seen much problems with 64x64

kurupt · Post by **kurupt** » Sun Mar 07, 2004 4:01 pm

my avatar quality has gone down the drain because it was forced to stretch from 64x53 to 64x64.

i am shocked and appalled!

bash · Post by **bash** » Sun Mar 07, 2004 4:07 pm

I also don't understand how 64x64 is deficient. Real men don't need avatars.

Note: I am, however, simultaneously appalled and fascinated by Duperman's current avatar.

Sting_Ray · Post by **Sting_Ray** » Sun Mar 07, 2004 4:20 pm

You don't pay for bandwidth, or the upkeep of this site.

There IS no compromises.

Nitrofox125 · Post by **Nitrofox125** » Sun Mar 07, 2004 4:28 pm

Note: I am, however, simultaneously appalled and fascinated by Duperman's current avatar.

Yeah... me too.. what's up with that?

MD-2389 · Post by **MD-2389** » Sun Mar 07, 2004 6:32 pm

Xciter wrote:
we're going to go local-only when uploading is fixed, yes
Yes

Now that its fixed.... *ahem*

SSC BlueFlames · Post by **SSC BlueFlames** » Sun Mar 07, 2004 6:49 pm

And as Archaeloidic said, the template we're using consumes 150 pixels of the side ill-regardless.

Seriously... Narrow the name column a bit more.

Limiting icon pixel sizes and then leaving the column a width that assumes 100+ pixel-wide icons is a silly oversight.

Actually, I wouldn't care what size icons were allowed, if there was an option to turn them off. On forums I browse that have the option, I almost always turn off forum icons, so that I can focus on post content, rather than whether or not John Q. Spammer has changed his 1600x1200 BMP icon to something more appropriate.

More to the point though, here's a practical demonstration...

It's Link from The Legend of Zelda, after his Queer Eye makeover.

It's Link from The Legend of Zelda, after his Queer Eye makeover.

Same image, different size. Everyone can still tell what it is. The only difference is that PSP decided on a different palette when I saved it the second time, so I couldn't put the dimensions in the same shade of blue. I'm sure you're heartbroken, Arch.

Now, I'm personally behind the tech curve by a longshot right now. Having about zero income, that's not going to change for a while. Yes, I'm browsing on a laptop with a thirteen inch TFT display with a native resolution of 800x600. (Not that I'm begging, but if you've got spare money you're looking to dispense with, I won't argue with you sending it my way.) On the other hand, I've got enough bandwidth that if Stresstest wanted to, he could set his icon up to stream the entire porn movie he extracted his icon from, and my connection wouldn't flinch. For myself, file size isn't an issue, but screen space is (hence my gripe with the current font size too). I know bandwidth is an issue for the DBB though, so I can understand the 15kb limit for on-site icons.

At the end of the day though, Sting Ray's got the right idea. It's a picture. Even if you've got a 100x100 icon already, it takes about three seconds to resize it to 64x64 in any decent image editor, and unless it's a text-based (read: "stupid") image, it's not going to look any different, except maybe to the legally blind. Seriously, how many people read this forum that are legally blind and do not wear glasses/contacts while reading? Hell, if you [url=mailto:blueflames@planetdescent.com]e-mail your 100x100 icon and DBB password to me[/url], I'll resize it to 64x64 and upload it in your profile for you. It'd take less time and effort to resize it than continuing to whine about something that's not going to change.

MD-2389 · Post by **MD-2389** » Sun Mar 07, 2004 8:13 pm

SSC BlueFlames wrote:Actually, I wouldn't care what size icons were allowed, if there was an option to turn them off.

Actually, there is a phpBB mod that will let you turn off avatars and signature in your profile so if you don't want to see them, ya won't. I would've installed it on the test site, but I don't have access to the SQL DB, and since Xciter is dead set against any mods being installed....lets just say its not happening anytime soon.

Now I know the arguing over the allowed size is a moot point, but making it ONLY 64x64? Thats rather stupid don't you think? If your avatar isn't exactly 64x64, it'll deform the hell out of it. My current avatar (64x48, which is scaled down properly from the original source file) is a damn good example. Compare it to the way its supposed to look:

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sun Mar 07, 2004 11:31 pm

... which, again, is about a 3-second fix in any decent image editor.

But it's also a really stupid design by the phpbb guys...

Zoop! · Post by **Zoop!** » Sun Mar 07, 2004 11:53 pm

I surf the internet on a 15.4 inch wide-screen laptop screen with a resolution of 1920 x 1200. If I can see your avatars with perfect clarity at a 64x64 size, then the rest of you all should stop complaining or see an optometrist.

Kyouryuu · Post by **Kyouryuu** » Sun Mar 07, 2004 11:54 pm

I wouldn't be for modding the phpBB forum either. Truth be told, I don't have a tremendous amount of faith in the script. Though it's more than enough for small forums, there are times when I've seen it become quite unstable under the weight of large ones. It's quirky, at best.

Avatars

Avatars

sigh

Re: sigh

Stress's avatar

Re: sigh

avatars

Avatars

Avatars

*sigh*

Re: *sigh*

Stress's avatar

Re: *sigh*

avatars

sigh

Re: sigh

Re: sigh