A compromise would be to use, for example, 768x768 textures. Some old cards might not support them but those cards could keep using 512x512.

-1 as long as it's the devs who have to pay the bandwidth/transfer bill.

Wait. Let 1024x skins be downloadable via option, but only if you pay for them - something similar like the current pubstat access.

okey

1+ / 1- (there we go again )

1- for that every body need to have the same format.
i just mean that it need to be a opption with size you want.
(1024 or maybe 512).

so the 1+ is for the option and i am sure that my computer and internet will make it. so you can diside what is good for your pc.

still sorry for my bad english, but i will try too level it up

reintjan

Quote from Dajmin :

I'm not sure I like that idea.

Firstly, it'd be much harder to police the ToS. There'd be nothing to stop someone hosting their own porn images or other offensive skin, and no way for racers to stop them. When they're all in one place (LFSW) it's much easier for the devs to do random checks and then remove one if they get complained about.

Secondly, I'd hate to have to wait god knows how long for people to upload their skins to other people's computers. The race would be half finished before you saw the skin It's not just dial-up either, I know a lot of broadband providers seriously limit upload traffic, and unless there was a central storage area (ie, another server), they'd need to upload the skin to every individual in the race. The lag for the uploader would be crazy, too.

Firstly it would work exactly the same. If you abuse the service, you loose the priviledge to have your own skins.

Secondly, the idea was to have the skins hosted on your own webspace, not sent each time from your own computer, you've misunderstood that. Basically the same way redirect hosting works with Unreal/FEAR/Quake3
Not to mention it would be an option so if you hated the idea so much you just would never enable it.

Quote from CELTIC100 :

Gunn I think you missed understood BBman's post what he is saying is that the file size of 1024 x 1024 image is four times larger than a 512 x 512

I didn't misunderstand. A 1024 x 1024 skin is not neccessarily four times larger file size than a 512 x 512. That's my point.

The attachments below show the default FOX skin and one that has been resized to 1024 x 1024, no compression has been used. The filesize ratio is not 4:1

Point taken Gunn I stand corrected but my post just outlines the true mathmatics to the problem the difference you are stating in the example above must be to do with compression from 1024 to 512 as I take it the original Photoshoped Image was possibly 2048 reduced to 1028 and then 512, compression not being perfect gives the inconsistancies in the file sizes.

But I now know where your coming from thanks

Quote from CELTIC100 :

Point taken Gunn I stand corrected but my post just outlines the true mathmatics to the problem the difference you are stating in the example above must be to do with compression from 1024 to 512 as I take it the original Photoshoped Image was possibly 2048 reduced to 1028 and then 512, compression not being perfect gives the inconsistancies in the file sizes.

But I now know where you coming from thanks

I didn't use any compression, I began with the 512 image and enlarged it, and I didn't use Photoshop.

Whatever means you use on a computer to enlarge or reduce files it never works out exacly correct this is due to the way in which the program that you are using works as it will always lose something in the process.

The real world is a murky place

Quote from CELTIC100 :

Whatever means you use on a computer to enlarge or reduce files it never works out exacly correct this is due to the way in which the program that you are using works as it will always lose something in the process.

The real world is a murky place

A vector image can be enlarged, shrunk, twisted, fractured and not lose any quality. For the best result in skinning at different resolutions, create your skins in a vector program, resize to the desired size and export as a JPG. This way you can create any res you like without subjecting the work to the quality loss that resizing a raster image brings.

But even so, a raster image that is created at a high res and sized down will not suffer nearly as much from quality loss as a raster image that is resized up. Hope this helps.

Yes Totally agree

But the File size issue is all to do with algorithms within the program that transforms your image fron one size to the other - Would'nt you agree

No, I wouldn't.

OK Case Closed i'm off to lunch (Shakes head and walks off slowly)

@Eeekie
I definitely misunderstood the part about web hosting. That's not a bad idea at all. My mistake.

But I don't know how you'd enforce the rules on offensive images. Right now (I'm guessing here) you get your images removed if they're deemed offensive. If they're hosted on your own webspace, the LFS devs could ask to remove them, but unless the hosting company agrees, they can't make you.

I doubt the developers are spending all their time policing skins. I bet they'll only ever look if they get a complaint, so that wouldn't be any different.
If you had an off-site skin of a penis, and someone complained, LFSW admins would stop your ability to use custom skins as normal. Think about it, LFSW would store a text link to your off-site skin image. As other uses wont automatically know where to look. So when they revoke your skinning priviledge, they'd also remove that link. Therefore, other users wont get your skin, even if it remains hosted. It's just like you have to option to link to an off-site avatar on a forum, but that doesn't mean forum admins have no way of turning off avatars.

It's simple, and caters for all.

Quote from Gunn :

I didn't misunderstand. A 1024 x 1024 skin is not neccessarily four times larger file size than a 512 x 512. That's my point.

The attachments below show the default FOX skin and one that has been resized to 1024 x 1024, no compression has been used. The filesize ratio is not 4:1

But close to 4:1, and that's what I meant (I know it's more a rule of thumb)... I know that detail, colours and compression play a big role, but the fact is that the exact same image doubled in size will be about 4 times bigger in filesize... Multiplicating it by the number of skins downloaded everyday from the server, it would make a huge impact on the transfer and thus, to cost... So unless that system isn't changed (transfer distributed to the clients) or suddenly everyone on this planet starts playing LfS, I don't see this implemented...

Come on guys, don't get all anal about the maths, its not really important to get the figures exact to three decimal places, it's the idea and the principal (and the possibility) of the thing that's important in this debate.

Quote from bbman :

But close to 4:1, and that's what I meant (I know it's more a rule of thumb)... I know that detail, colours and compression play a big role, but the fact is that the exact same image doubled in size will be about 4 times bigger in filesize... Multiplicating it by the number of skins downloaded everyday from the server, it would make a huge impact on the transfer and thus, to cost... So unless that system isn't changed (transfer distributed to the clients) or suddenly everyone on this planet starts playing LfS, I don't see this implemented...

Like I said earlier, enlarging an existing skin is useless, the skin must be made from scratch at the larger size if you want better quality. The enlarging ratio (which isn't even close to 4:1 in my example) is irrelevant anyway. If some people are willing to pay a little for the option of downloading larger files there should be no problem with implementing the idea. The cost of the extra bandwidth required just needs to be covered by those who wish to use the service.

The only obstacle I can see is that some people are complaining of lag or delays when other people download skins. I've never experienced that so I'm not sure how relevant that is in this case.

Oh yeah, great, let's be nitpicky about every little dot displaying a letter on your screen... Wether you're enlarging or scaling down a picture, it doesn't make a freaking difference! It'll be still be about a 4:1-ratio, which greatly affects transfer...

In fact the only thing we managed to agree was that it couldn't really happen in the form we have it now... The rest is drivel about the fact I didn't expressed it the way you wanted... Happy now?

MSPaint took a picture from 75.1kb to 110kb when doubling the size. Then taking the 110kb picture and halving it in MSPaint left me with a file of 45.8kb :beady: it's probably due to Satan.

4:1 only applies to raw file format.

jpg is a whole other story

EDIT - current lo vs hi skin storage :

lo : 7072 MiB
hi : 20549 MiB

almost a ratio of 1:3

I'm so glad I refreshed before posting, Victor beat me to it.

Well, at least he didn't do it on the track

Quote from bbman :

Oh yeah, great, let's be nitpicky about every little dot displaying a letter on your screen... Wether you're enlarging or scaling down a picture, it doesn't make a freaking difference! It'll be still be about a 4:1-ratio, which greatly affects transfer...

In fact the only thing we managed to agree was that it couldn't really happen in the form we have it now... The rest is drivel about the fact I didn't expressed it the way you wanted... Happy now?

Hmph, I took the time to give you information instead you act like a hurt kid. If you don't wish to learn the facts then fine, but take it out on yourself, not me. Just remember the next time somebody tries to help you, it is your own fault that you don't want to learn.

I see no reason to be so nitpicky Gunn, and besides that you weren't exactly addressing his point either. What he said was correct - if you double the dimensions of a picture, the amount of pixels in that picture quadruples. That is a fact and I don't recall him stating anything else.

Of course you cannot say that the actual amount of disk space required to store the image is going to be exactly four times as much, because the JPEG compression doesn't work that linear (as we now see, Victor showed that it's three times the size). However the main point was that 2x the dimension is not equal 2x the file size, and that point still stands.

The information that you gave was that simply doubling the size of a texture will not make it look any better, but it's not like bbman stated anything related or contrary to that anywhere either.

Quote from bbman :

Transfer of images increases EXPONENTIALLY to their size... So, if you double the size of those skins, you'll quadruplicate the transfer!

Quote from AndroidXP :

What he said was correct - if you double the dimensions of a picture, the amount of pixels in that picture quadruples. That is a fact and I don't recall him stating anything else.

Sorry Android, but he did say it'll quadruple the transfer, implying file size of the finished jpeg skin at double the resolution, so Gunn was correct to point out that file size is not directly linked to number of pixels in this case.

However, for once, Gunn was unable to make his point quite clearly enough, hence the confusion. This is an exception rather than the rule - Gunn is normally VERY articulate with his language.

Oops, guess I've overread that, however I still think Gunn was talking about a different thing than bbman.