Photo Question for the FSM Forum Staff

still better that what is being used right now

gary

Ya, I don't remember exactly, but I think at SimCombat, it was like "X" megs of attachment space for a member and about twice that for "Premium Members", those that paid a yearly fee...  Their version of a "Subscriber-Only" perc, I'd reckon...

Hey, there ya go, FSM... A perc for your faithful subscribers who toil away at both bench and 'board to help make this place so much more than a really slow chat room...

That makes sense, they've got a limit on the size.

FSM would have to allow thousand's of gigabytes of space!

Here's the gig though... The forums that allow direct uploading give each member a certain amount of space for attachments... Once that limit has been reached, the member can no longer upload any more attachments until he "cleans out" his space (he can still link to his photos elsewhere though)...

Hans,

When you use the IMG tags from a pic hosting site such as Photobucket, you upload, or copy, the image in its entirety to their server. The IMG tag then shows a thumbnail pic in whatever post you include that image in. Move or delete the image from Photobucket, and the picture in the post disappears. The picture doesn't really "exists" in the post. Photobucket stores the "hard" copy for you. That's why the version you posted above has a link to view the larger size. You actually "see" the large version on Photobucket's site, not FSM's.

Directly uploading the image to FSM would require them to store the entire photo on site. Smaller forums may be able to afford the space for direct uploads, but FSM would require a huge amount of server space based on the membership they have.

Yes, it's a bit harder to use, but once you get used to it, it is actually very simple to do.

I had really, really, REALLY hoped that this was going to be part of the upgrade. Avatar can be done direct. Gallery can be done direct. Easier access might lead to greater participation.

Guess this's where my computer ignorance becomes apparent... What's the difference if the photo is here as an attachment vs. it being posted somewhere else and here???   I never could wrap my head around that...

Are you saying that, even though I am looking at a photo here, it's actually somewhere else and being transmitted through cyber-space to occupy a "hole" here?  And can't attachments be limited in size  to remain smaller than ordinary photos, say 200 kb vs 2 mb? 

The reason I ask that is that SimCombat.com, for instance, runs the attachment gig with members uploading screenshots of their dogfights & aircraft that run into some pretty high numbers, but still look really good..

For instance, the following thumbnail of mine is 4152 bytes on the post

And the full-size is 55783 bytes

What am I not understanding?

Be gentle though... When it comes to figuring out computers, I start sweatin' like a hog that knows he's dinner... 

The issue with direct posting of pictures is the sheer volume of server space required to hold all the photos. Server space doesn't come cheap, and potentially tens of thousands of users posting multiple images would overwhelm the website.

And admit it, you'll never stop teasing the Doog!