Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Avatars

Last response: in Forum Feedback
Share
November 25, 2005 3:50:57 AM

ok so i added my avatar, a pic of me... but it took about 20 trys before getting the file size small enough to make it work.

10 k is NOT the max file size... 5k maybe.


second, i'd like to make my avatar a flash piece.. can we have that available?

More about : avatars

November 25, 2005 5:14:47 AM

Yeah, I noticed that too. It's a bit higher than 5k though iirc.
November 25, 2005 5:15:13 AM

I got mine to work at less than 9k.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
November 25, 2005 8:20:39 AM

Did you make sure it was 80px*80px?
November 25, 2005 1:24:52 PM

Thought I read 30k max at 80x80
November 25, 2005 1:25:34 PM

You should be able to use moving gifs
November 25, 2005 3:34:47 PM

No current plans to support flash (sorry). Yes, you should be able to use gifs for some animation. I checked the code and 10k is indeed the size, and from what is reported above, they have managed to put in 9k images.
November 25, 2005 4:33:00 PM

10k is too small, and the 80x80 is a little limiting too. Could you push it up to 25K and 100x100?
November 25, 2005 4:42:40 PM

agreed, then the forumz could be even gayer than my original avatar! :wink:
November 26, 2005 3:31:59 AM

could you concider giving flash privlages to those who perhaps earn it? (not saying i have, but i'm sure you know some have)

Have a look at the Avatar here. 'DarcPage'
http://www.digitalgunfire.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard3/ikonboard.cgi?s=2d469dc62c9168daa04dc6f49237ca09;act=ST;f=1;t=184

click play and then click the padel.

the game is supposed to take score, but at this size it gets messed up so i have it only playing one round at a time.

thats at 64x 64 tho.. so i might be abelto make it work at 80x80, but im sure 100x100 will.
November 26, 2005 4:50:55 AM

cdpage,

That's cool 8) Realistically, what can we do with such a small space. What would flash give us that an animated gif cannot. I mean, you cannot really play chess or backgammon in that space :?
November 26, 2005 5:27:30 AM

Quote:
10k is too small, and the 80x80 is a little limiting too. Could you push it up to 25K and 100x100?
November 26, 2005 5:37:52 AM

Are we assuming no one has modem anymore? 25k would be pretty taxing on modem users.
November 26, 2005 5:52:34 AM

Lol, I highly doubt it. 1stly, that is what cache is designed for. Once it is d/led you don't need to d/l it again.

Also, if you were being really nice (I don't see the point in supporting any 56k users) you could add a show avatar check box in the profile settings.
November 26, 2005 3:40:27 PM

There is one fulltime "regular" modem user: Spitfire. I think Wingy or Rich or someone else has a modem at home but broadband at work.

So yes, some access the forum with a modem, but I still think the avatar could be made bigger. Just let people disable it if possible.
November 28, 2005 12:01:56 AM

I dont know if this is possible but have the Avatars be like 100x100 but an option in your profile to either not show avatars or have the server rescale them.
November 28, 2005 12:06:56 AM

Right, make the avatars bigger and the sigs smaller (at least do not allow that damed [ pre ] tag in them, and if ya do, ban em! :wink: :lol:  :wink:
November 28, 2005 3:06:22 AM

...if they do manage to convice you to go to 100x100, reconcider flash.

...interactive avatars are very different then animated gifs. and at that size very playable.

...it doesn't mean that the avatar has to be playable... just interactive.

Also, i like the idea of making the Sigs smaller
November 28, 2005 6:27:12 AM

I've never seen flash avatars...ever. Bar that link you posted.

But it can't hurt to add it - It doesn't require anything extra really.
November 28, 2005 12:51:46 PM

yeah i think 25k 100x100 is standard for most boards, i found it a little bothersome to redo some of the avatars i found just to get them to fit, but if they want them to be less than 10k 80x80 i can live with it.
November 29, 2005 2:52:01 AM

We're Techies... if any forum should have them its this one.
November 29, 2005 2:57:31 AM

Who are you? Your Album page scares me. :cry: 
November 30, 2005 3:17:47 AM

its an industrial/EBM streaming radio station.

I'd be DarcPage

whats so scary?
November 30, 2005 4:16:23 AM

The, um, words. What's going on there!?
November 30, 2005 4:51:22 AM

Quote:
yeah i think 25k 100x100 is standard for most boards, i found it a little bothersome to redo some of the avatars i found just to get them to fit, but if they want them to be less than 10k 80x80 i can live with it.


Yea, I'll second that....

Just think I could post my photograph and grant visitors a glimpse of my masculine good looks.
November 30, 2005 12:36:55 PM

Quote:
I checked the code and 10k is indeed the size, and from what is reported above, they have managed to put in 9k images.
Ja. My avatar, being an animated GIF, got up to 8.7KB, and it uploaded just fine. :D 

That being said, file size isn't file size isn't file size.

For example, my avatar is exactly 8,915 bytes. Now, using 1024 (as should be done, since this is a binary operation) that makes it 8.70 KB. However maybe some operating systems use 1000? (Which would make it 8.92KB.) And then there's the actual file system's overhead too. My NTFS formatted drive for example actually uses 12,288 bytes (12.0KB) to store the file.

I don't know what OS and file system the server uses, but is it possible that the file size limitation is using the space consumed on the hard drive instead of the literal file size? And if so, could we get some statistics on how much this actually shaves off of the 10KB limit?
November 30, 2005 12:53:52 PM

Quote:
10k is too small, and the 80x80 is a little limiting too. Could you push it up to 25K and 100x100?
:lol:  :lol:  :lol:  10K is too small? With an animated GIF I'm not even pushing 10K! So long as you use any compressed image format, how on earth can 10K be too small for an 80x80 pixel image? :o 

Granted, I could see where maybe the move to 100x100 would be nice. Not that it'd really gain you all that much, but why not? 25KB for 100x100 though seems a little high. I mean a completely uncompressed 24bpp 100x100 bitmap image takes 29.3KB. Any form of compression would drop that significantly. For example, a sample 100x100 24bpp image that I used drops to 8.87KB using a losless PNG format, and to 2.75 KB using a JPEG format with very mild artifacts. So I could easily see 100x100 still having a 10K limit and doing just fine.

You'd have to be using some pretty crappy image format or making one heck of an animated GIF for the file size to really be a problem.
November 30, 2005 1:03:36 PM

Quote:
Realistically, what can we do with such a small space. What would flash give us that an animated gif cannot. I mean, you cannot really play chess or backgammon in that space :?
You could play PONG! Man, I haven't written a good Pong clone in ages. :lol:  :lol:  :lol: 
November 30, 2005 1:09:16 PM

Quote:
Right, make the avatars bigger and the sigs smaller
**ROFL** Yeah, because saving a couple hundred bytes with smaller sigs will make all the difference when increasing the avatar limit by tens of thousands of bytes. :lol:  :lol:  :lol: 

Quote:
at least do not allow that damed [ pre ] tag in them
Not only is the pre tag still not working, but it doesn't even seem to exist anymore. :o 
November 30, 2005 5:02:55 PM

lol, but we don't want crappy avatars like yours! :wink:
November 30, 2005 5:50:19 PM

Actually, I was amazed that I was able to scale down that silver phoenix drawing all the way to 80x80 and still have it look okay. I mean I drew it with pencil on a yellow post-it. I scanned it in using just the binary black-and-white setting, which helped, but cleaning it up to scale down that far still wasn't easy. Of course it looks much better in its original size, but then most things do. :wink:

As for Cedrik, well, he was easy. :lol: 

It actually kind of cracks me up to have such two extremes of artwork in one avatar. :mrgreen:

Now if only I could find my old runic SP drawing...
December 4, 2005 1:05:58 PM

I just thought of this from Pat's post....what if parger Avaters were givin at a certain post count? and other features and abilities were givin at post counts?

I mean if 100posts gets you 80x80 1000 should get you 100x100 and 5000 should get you more file size.


Bascially he huge, complex, and system hoggin resources would have 25-30 people having them.....not 1,200. Just an idea.
December 5, 2005 4:59:17 AM

Quote:
10K is too small? With an animated GIF I'm not even pushing 10K! So long as you use any compressed image format, how on earth can 10K be too small for an 80x80 pixel image?


True but your avatar isn't colored in and it's a simple transformation from one image to the other. I've done a couple on here and I've had to compress down to sixteen colors to get them to fit And remove some frames .
December 5, 2005 12:20:46 PM

**ROFL** Oh boo hoo.

Seriously, unless you're doing something absurd, 10K is a freaking large amount for an 80x80 pixel avatar. :lol:  :lol:  :lol: 
December 6, 2005 10:12:01 AM

Quote:
**ROFL** Oh boo hoo.

Seriously, unless you're doing something absurd, 10K is a freaking large amount for an 80x80 pixel avatar. :lol:  :lol:  :lol: 


Don't get vile with me just because I disagree with you!

You can't compare your avatar with all avatars that someone might like to make.

A transformation simple as your avatar consists of doesn't require much space.
December 6, 2005 12:38:08 PM

I think the concensus already is 25Kb @ 100px by 100px. As Russel said, you can't compare your avatar to everyone elses.
December 6, 2005 5:12:07 PM

Quote:
Don't get vile with me just because I disagree with you!
Silly, not vile. Geeze, like I care enough to get vile. :lol: 

Quote:
You can't compare your avatar with all avatars that someone might like to make.
Who ever said that I was comparing my avatar at all? Even the sample compressions I played with were full color ones. Which is why I say, unless you're doing something absurd.

The point is that there's no reason why you can't use what space you have. So you have less of an animation. Wah. Honestly. I mean hell, I've got another two images I'd like to throw into my avatar and it'd be uber-L337 if I could use more than twice that number of transition frames. But I don't do it. Why? Because that'd be a pretty darn big file, that's why.

I'm not saying 25K at 100x100 wouldn't be cool. Hell, 1GB at 2048x2048 for all I care. :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  It's just a bloody avatar. 2k at 50x50 would even be enough. It's TGForumz server space. Let them set the limits and let me squeeze as much as I feel like out of it.
December 6, 2005 7:19:50 PM

Quote:
Which is why I say, unless you're doing something absurd.


Absurd is exactly the comment I was referring to and you just repeated it.
It comes across as demeaning. [throws hand up *WHATEVER*]
December 7, 2005 1:57:48 AM

I agree with pickxx,

the more posts/longer you've been here, the more space you can have.

Start noobs at 2k 25x25 move up to 25k 100x100


as for .gifs

yea they can range in size very fast simplist things can be huges... while you can get away with a long drawn out one with almost no size at all.

Quote:
I've got another two images I'd like to throw into my avatar and it'd be uber-L337


and thats why it would be nice to earn more space.
December 7, 2005 3:39:22 PM

I'm with slvr_phoenix here. 10k is enough.
December 8, 2005 2:55:45 AM

don't get me wrong. 10k is enough. i don't want to slow down the site...if it will. perhaps stranges or noobs should not have one at all. they make up how much of the users here?

its nice to have something to look forward to other then just a new title too.
December 8, 2005 2:32:21 PM

How about after 100 posts you can post 80x80 at 10K but after 1,000 and then 10,000 posts you can post something bigger?
December 8, 2005 2:49:26 PM

Quote:
Absurd is exactly the comment I was referring to and you just repeated it.
It comes across as demeaning. [throws hand up *WHATEVER*]
I can't help it if you're over-sensitive. :tongue:

Hell, even if I take it fully bloody seriously (which I almost never do), I don't see how it's even remotely demeaning to call throwing way more animation frames than anyone possibly needs into an avatar as absurd. Saying that it's just plain silly to make a gigantic and slow-loading avatar in no way reflects upon anyone personally. I didn't say something like, "Your a freaking moron if you want that much space." I didn't say, "You're low life scum for using that much space." I said it's absurd to bog things down like that when no one needs it. You certain won't die without it. Nothing will break because you can't fit in those ten extra frames or million extra colors for a neato-keen blend effect. The worst that can happen is that you have to sacrifice a bit of l337-ness. Oh darn.

So maybe you should just pull that stick out of your behind already and grow up. :wink: Now that was a demeaning (but IMHO deserved) statement. See the difference? :twisted:
December 8, 2005 2:54:44 PM

Quote:
How about after 100 posts you can post 80x80 at 10K but after 1,000 and then 10,000 posts you can post something bigger?
That certainly sounds interesting. Although I'd still keep the 1K post bonus fairly small, like 100x100@15K, because a lot of people have that many posts. :lol: 

I'd work the scale up slowly, and still probably never exceed 100x100 pixels, because we don't want that column taking up the whole page. :wink:

If anything, after 100x100 is reached, just squeezing up the byte limit by 1K per notch or something might do. I mean we don't want to make things so freaking huge that even on broadband things take forever to load. And goodness only knows how much storage space the server has and how much bandwidth it can handle. (Especially since so many people here have ancient accounts with giant post counts that'd be grandfathered in to huge new limits.)

:lol:  :lol:  :lol:  Maybe you could even design the system to allow the avatar space limit to be a flat rate of one byte per post. :o 
December 8, 2005 3:05:23 PM

*cough*

At 30,000 posts we get 150x150?
December 8, 2005 4:10:13 PM

Quote:
At 30,000 posts we get 150x150?
Ach no! IMHO that'd be awful As it is 80x80 is just right. 100x100 I could live with, as it wouldn't stretch that column much bigger. But anything over a 100 pixel width would bug the crap out of me.
December 8, 2005 8:41:34 PM

Quote:
At 30,000 posts we get 150x150?
Ach no! IMHO that'd be awful As it is 80x80 is just right. 100x100 I could live with, as it wouldn't stretch that column much bigger. But anything over a 100 pixel width would bug the crap out of me.

Based on a screen grab the biggest we can get with out actually making the column any bigger, taller or wider, would be roughly 95 x 140


Hey... that would be GREAT!!!! pefect for a game of PONG!

now... how to get to 30,000 posts. :lol: 

Edit:

Note that anything added to the 80px height would make the column taller...provided the post was 2-3 lines and the user didn't have a signature.
December 8, 2005 8:57:00 PM

What's with this pong obsession?
December 8, 2005 9:14:50 PM

hehe this'll have to do for now. Boing Boing Boing

actually its not an obsission for pong, just interactive avatars.

it could be a poll, a maze, your life story, an inside look of your computer...etc.

'Pong' is just something that i did for somewhere else and thought it would be more fitting here.
December 8, 2005 9:16:40 PM

i wonder if it ouwld be posible to make a game of Chess, one that would be playable over a period of time. you know so that you could come back to it.

weather its one person or many people playing.

hmm
!