Proboards not responding

[ronturner]

I have been seeing this message quite frequently recently, and furthermore many instances of typing being slow or digits missed out. Anybody else, or is it at my end? This is not happening in any other URL on my PC. at same time.
Ron

[jetdragon]

Had occasional issues over the last couple of months Ron, I usually find refreshing the browser or just logging into the site again fixes the issue

cheers

JD

[radiostationx]

Had this issue a lot when replying to threads containing multiple images.
The tell tale sign being the blue circle spinning away in the open tab at top of screen, and the slow keyboard response.
What I think is happening is some photos have full resolution bbcodes posted (4000 pixels ish wide or greater). Proboards use a html wrapper to position the image correctly within the vertical forum scroll bars, while this is happening, the proboards image "conversion engine" downsizes the image to fit a given screen which on my 14 inch laptop is typically 700pixels wide for nwan images but tops out at a limit of 1024 wide on bigger screens.
If a member posts a 5000 wide bbcoded image, it is automatically displayed at 1024 max on the forum and clicking on the image redirects the html to the host page where the photo is shown at full Res.
Proboards html coding is working very hard in the he background on some pages of the forum that are image heavy.
I did ask for the highslide plugin which would cut the "html space" used by 50% or more.
Images would appear horizontally in a lightbox which is has arrows each side for moving on to the next image in a given post,users can insert comments for each photo within the lightbox.
This would cut down n the vertical space used on a forum page and make less pages and load quicker.


The delay in page loading is the proboards internals trying to convert a 5000 pixel image code to a useable 1024 one.

[Beemer]

I keep on asking members to stick to the Forum standard on 1024 x 683 but I waste my time. Ron's photos from the Hanover Show are far too big measuring at 1600 x 1126. I have reproduced one of his photos down to the recommended size and I think it is better

Original OE-FEC
OE-FEC z by Beemer328i, on Flickr

Reduced OE-FEC
OE-FEC by Beemer328i, on Flickr

Beemer

[viscount]

Beemer, I cannot see any real difference between the shots as displayed on my PC screen. To me that shows that although the resolution is lowered, the actual difference is not seen by the human eye - unless shown on a very big screen.

There was a time, some years ago, when oversize photos distorted the post and thread - so was obvious to all who the culprits were, including the person posting!

The worst offending slow-loading threads for me at present, are the photo heavy posts on the Manchester daily threads. Great pictures, although can be rather repetitive day by day, but they do take a while to load, which is frustrating - especially as my internet is not a strong link.

Conversely I am no lover of just 'postage stamp' size pictures displayed, which need to be clicked over individually to get the fuller screen image.

As I use Picasa, I am given the option to resize when uploading to a 'third party' host site, and changing the resolution is absolutely straight forward, indeed set-up to be automatic. How this works for Photoshop and other image editing programmes, I have no experience.

[ronturner]

Very interesting stuff guys. Thanks for the explanations. I must admit, not being a prolific poster of photos until just recently, I did not know about the size limit until today, when I read it in the flicker user hints posting. I have been down sizing from a very high size to 1600 X ,,990, ish for my own purposes. It's easy to go to to the NWAN default in future, although from a point of view of a user experience I see no difference on my PC or my HUDL.

[radiostationx]

There are so many native resolutions for pc & laptop displays.
The 27 inch thunderbolt display for imac is 2560 x 1440 pixels and that is one huge display.(3.6 megapixels)
A forum photo posted at 1024 would take up nearly half of the screen real estate, which is big enough.
Some 15 inch gaming laptops now have 5k screens which are 3840 wide (eye watering price).
The good thing about these displays is that you can have 2 forum pages running side by side with no loss in resolution but in the case of the 15 inch gamer laptop, try this and the text will be really good quality but tiny.
The imacs/macbooks are brilliant for graphic designers and animators, nothing better out there for these applications but they are a marmite of computers for every day use.
In the main, most posting here do not print their pictures so anything over 1024 is wasted if you use only NWAN forum, some other aviation forums allow up to 1280 pixels limit as they have a custom html page set.
The fact is that from a brand new nikon/canon etc super duper pixel crammer slr, few people actually own the display hardware to actually show a full size photo from such a camera yet alone a printer capable of producing such a high res image.

Airliners.net and I think jetphotos also have a preference of 1024 pixels wide for submitted photos. Air team images 1024 or 1200 I think.
I think its safe to say they would all reject anything over 1600 wide.