Hurin

Okay. . . little test of that setting here. . . I'm at 1680x1050 desktop. With the setting in the back-end at 85%. . . if I've guessed at the setting's functionality correctly. . . 85% of 1680 = 1428 pixels. So 1400-wide images shouldn't scale. While 1450-wide images should scale. The first one should not scale for me. The second one should. And that's exactly what I'm seeing. Of course, unless you're running at 1680x1050 as well, everyone will just have to take my word for this. So, does 85% sound like a good threshold for this? I'm tempted to go down to 75%. Edit: Ah. . . now I see why having a high percentage isn't really a good idea. . . at 85%, things that are resized are barely fitting in my browser window and the forum framework while my browser is maximized. So, I'm forced to have the browser maximized to avoid side-to-side scrolling. So, given this, I'm going to set it to 75%. This will make my test above stop working (both start scaling). So, again, you'll all just have to take my word for it that it worked as expected.

There is a mis-labeled setting that I found. . . Though this didn't appear to be helpful based on the description. . . it appears to actually control the threshold at which a (non-attachment) image is dynamically resized. It was set to 50 (%). Which seems to be the reason that anyone at 1024x768 resolution would start seeing images scaling at 512 (width) or higher. Those at 1600x1200 would see scaling at 800w. . . etc. I've now set it to 85%. Though I haven't tested exhaustively, I did notice that some images that were scaling before are no longer scaling. So it seems to have had the desired effect.

Uh-oh. This looks like a problem with GD. I'll pass this along to Shawn since this is a low-level server thing. Edit: PM sent with some details and possible diagnosis/solutions.

Yes, apparently the code for dynamic re-sizing of in-post images (not attachments) looks at your desktop resolution to determine if scaling is necessary. I figured it did it by window size but could not get it to start scaling just by shrinking the window. I just set my resolution to 1024x768 to see if I got scaling and it does indeed scale now. Having said that. . . I'm not sure I see a problem. They are clearly marked as scaled and there's a clear "click here for full size image" available. Personally, I much prefer this to those times that people post a huge image and we have to scroll side-to-side for the rest of the thread. Finally, there is no certain size that you can post that won't cause resizing since what might not cause resizing at 1024x768 might still cause resizing for those running 800x600 (though that's probably pretty rare). My rule of thumb has always been that I shrink something to about 600w before posting it to forums. But that's just me.

Actually, IPB 2.2+ has scaling of non-attachment images that are so wide that they would break the forum layout. It usually works pretty slick. . . but apparently some people are having trouble seeing them whereas others aren't. I'd recommend everyone delete their cookies and/or clear their caches. Note the link at the bottom of the Index page: "Delete all cookies set by this board." Though, using your browser's cookie controls may be preferred since you're actually more interested in deleting cookies set by the old board version.

Okay, here's the problem and why I'm having trouble understanding. . . they look fine to me. No resizing or anything. They are appearing full-size for me. No dynamic scaling whatsoever in either thread. . . and no scaling here either. Maybe it's a cookie thing?

I'm confused. Are we talking about images that are posted via attachments or directly linked images? None of those directly linked images in those threads look problematic to me. But I do see a couple of attachments that will are appearing in their own window when clicked. . . but the window is tiny and needs to be re-sized by hand. I suspect the latter will be fixed when the attachments are rebuilt (hopefully soon).

Where's the choice for: "I've never really had a problem with my Yamato toys and I think some people on this forum are a bit over-emotional and may need to seek counseling regarding their sense of betrayal by a toy company."

I think you're referring to dynamic resizing of the image so that it fits within the browser window and does not distort the rest of the thread. You should just be able to click on it and it will then display in full size. If I'm mistaken, please point me to an image that isn't behaving properly (as above).

I'm not sure that they are intende to be pointy pointy. I mean, there are several places where Hikaru and Misa's ears are very pointy as well. Yet they aren't vulcans. Then again, you could be right. Now that you mention it, I seem to recall some overt pointiness.

Zentraedi have pointy ears in DYRL?

They lost me when I saw the Elf.

34 pages. . . can't find these sketches or anything beside ranting, arguing, and those ranting and arguing about the ranting and arguing. Can someone do a summary post. Maybe the content will go up on MW main page or the Nexus. Best, H

Basically, the pilot becomes one with the universe in some way, and his mech disappears from targeting computers. It's a "zen" thing. As I write that, it looks incredibly silly and stupid. But as written on the pages of the books themselves, it comes across pretty cool. Mostly because of the way we don't really know exactly what happened the last time someone witnessed such a thing. But we hear many people obliquely refer to it, and others seem downright disturbed by it. If memory serves, the character who first acheived such a state is first shown in a monastary, trying to come to grips with what had happened to him. But again, the reader is left totally in the dark for the majority of the story regarding what exactly has disturbed him so. Indeed, this thread could almost be considered a spoiler thread.

Yeah. It was Stackpole. I don't remember being totally disgusted with it as written. The Warrior series by Stackpole was top-notch (though, try to count how many times he uses the phrase "framed himself in the doorway"). But it certainly sounds dumb in hindsight.

It's clearly not over a video card anymore. But, of course, you've never taken part in any internet arguments. Ever. You're the model of decorum.

Huh? What about this? Moving on. . . Video encoding is CPU dependent. The FX5700 has no video encoding capabilities of which I'm aware. Go ahead and look it up. So, unless you've got some super-duper FX5700 with a hardware MPEG encoder add-on chip, these "dramatic" improvements in video encoding performance that you are claiming to have seen from a video card driver update are almost certainly illusory. But the fact that you were running the drivers off the CD until just recently (on a three year-old card) doesn't raise my estimation of your level of expertise in this area. You can "restate" this all you want. But it doesn't make it true. Nvidia or ATi can't magically write a driver that suddenly makes their hardware actually faster. They can sometimes identify bugs and/or inefficient code that fixing provides a marginal (at best) peformance benefit. But, again, most of the time their driver updates are made up of bug fixes, feature additions, and possibly very minor performance increases (often on a per-application basis as they find work-arounds or optimizations for certain code). I feel exactly the same way. Yet you seem to think that it's "common sense" that video card companies wouldn't try to fix individual bugs with applications but would instead primarily concentrate on magically making their hardware faster via software (drivers). I think it's common sense that the hardware is the main arbiter of performance and once the base-line drivers are written, all they can do is optimize them for specific circumstances and fix bugs and inefficiencies as they are reported. Of course, my view of things is based on reading pages and pages of video card driver release notes over the years. So what do I know?

I've always found the mailing system of IPB 2.1.x to be flakey. But it's never failed to work altogether for everyone, at all times. This may be related to Shawn's low-level upgrades to the server. As with so many things, we have to put our hopes in IPB 2.2. Macross Nexus's email problems went away after that upgrade. H

That's sorta my point. Please stop throwing around Scientology buzzwords where plain english will suffice. Because, as you so eloquently put it. . . Exactly. I know you'd probably just love to feel persecuted. But I would have the same reaction to someone who was saying things like: "Such behavior is very un-Christian" or "That's the Muslim way of things." So, please partake in your own advice and leave Lord Xenu and the Thetans out of your MW discussions. H P.S. I didn't change your title either.

So, just to be clear, we're being chastized for not being good Scientologists?

I'm not looking for performance increases via drivers. That's what all the R600 fans are doing. And, again, I think they're kidding themselves. I have no idea what's confusing you. Exactly what do you think drivers are? The hardware dictates speed. The drivers can only get in the way through inefficient or bad coding. If your drivers are already decent, then you're not going to see any real increases in speed no matter how much "better" they make them. 99% of driver updates are for bug releases, stability issues, or to add new functionality aside from raw performance. When they do list "performance increase" in the driver release notes, it's usually modest at best. . . and normally it's a "per game" fix. Meaning, it's not an overall or universal increase. I don't know where you're confused. But it's seems pretty cut-and-dried to me. Drivers rarely increase performance (speed) substantially. The cries of "Wait for better drivers! They'll be faster!" are rarely borne out and are usually only heard at times when a disappointing hardware release has been made and people are unwilling to accept reality or concede that their prior fanboy rantings were in error. H

And Raiders of the Lost Ark. And American Graffiti. And Ep IV: A New Hope. Then, fasten your seat-belts. Because the rest of his career = children, morons, prat-falls, and fart jokes.

Hasn't Lucas promised more direct involvement in future television projects? That can only be bad news.

Post-'82 George Lucas = Not a Good Movie. . . er, TV Show.