We did a thing
3 years ago
I hope you like it.
Digimon | Virus-Type | Registered: December 4, 2005 06:32:59 PM
Recent Journals
-
Health Update 3: Surgery Done
a year ago611 Comments | View Journal- Health Update 2: The Specialist
a year ago88 Comments | View Journal- Health Update: Sadface Emoji
a year agoAdvertise |
Get FA+ |
Merch Store |
Memorial |
Terms of Service |
Privacy |
Code of Conduct |
Upload Policy
80984 Users online — 1670 guests, 8984 registered and 70330 otherLimit bot activity to periods with less than 10k registered users online.
© 2005-2025 Frost Dragon Art LLCServer Time: Oct 18, 2025 04:09 AM - Health Update 2: The Specialist
Something similar to: https://i.imgur.com/xy61hzk.jpeg [Contains nsfw thumbnails - click at own risk] could work a touch better (This is only personal preference of course.)
Give me about four days, I'll get back to you.
If my browser is wide enough (and it is) I get big trenches on the left and right of the page. Images now are shrunk down to fit between the trenches. This is especially bad on wide-aspect images. Exactly this drove me away from InkBunny.
The notification about the new style covers up the top of images in the gallery, and often covers up something important, like the first line of dialog in a comic.
Remember that you are an art gallery first and social whatever second, this is why I come here instead of Twitter or whatever. Things that impact the viewing experience are HUGE problems.
2) The notification will be moved to a different position in the next update, and is more or less temporary.
really appreciate the news and updates as well, the todo has a lot of what people have been asking for
great work!
Some immediate feedback though: UI bars at the top are covering the the top strip of an artwork submission, on both the regular (due to site news) & fullscreened (due to translucent bar) views.
Great improvement to the sites look in my opinion^^
It says 6000 x 6000 px which is 36Mpix and not 3.7Mpix as the site says. Unless that's intentional in which case that kinda sucks. Imo the only value that should be tested against is filesize anyway.
Basically, it's an average of 2K for regular users. We recently had to do a massive upgrade of our storage servers because the previous "edit submission" loophole caused a lot more files to be uploaded at a lot higher resolutions than we were prepared for.
However, I believe that there's no point in testing for anything other than file size. Why not just cap it at a filesize you are comfortable with (even if that value is lower than now) and allow people to upload larger files if they subscribe? If someone wants a giant but highly compressed image or a small but high quality one that should be the choice of the uploader.
The edit submission loophole was one recognized and allowed users to use, but with that the average file size jumped up around 4X. Then with PNGs, and people using higher resolution, the average file sizes more than doubled after that, and started to eat a vast amount of space, and the larger the files there more costs there are to a website, so we're trying to find the best mid-ground solution.
It's something we can always increase the cap later if we choose, we already had to invest near $20K in additional storage earlier than we had intended.
I know some people aren't a fan of this, but we're a small site, and we have to mindful of storage and bandwidth. We can adjust if needed, but first we have to see what the impact is.
If the concern is nefarious actors deliberately uploading a truckload of 10MB files to eat up your bandwidth and storage, then they can still do that regardless of the resolution constraint.
WebP has a lossless mode to accommodate existing png content, so artists wouldn't have to worry about any sort of quality degradation. In order to prevent uploaders freaking out about the format conversion, you could consider offering them the ability to download the content in the original format (converted on-the-fly from webp, so you don't need to keep the originals around).
I think that your decision to charge for 4K is reasonable, regardless. And what I've suggested is by no means a quick or trivial change, especially if you undertake the process of converting the existing content library, which I would heartily recommend. Just an idea to help stretch every dollar that much more. We're a small company too and every little bit helps.
File storage, bandwidth and performance are dependent on the file size, not the number of individual pixels in an image.
If you have to limit file size, limit file size and let people decide how much compression they are willing to put up with to fit their images to it.
Also support webp/avif and tell people who say jpg is trash (because it is) to use one of those if they want to make the most of their file size allotment. If people get in the habit of exporting to these formats, even smaller images will store and deliver better on the platform.
If the size of the file is the issue, limit the size of the file. Other arbitrary limits are just confusing.
What if I want to upload a 10,000 x 10,000 bitmap of pixel art with only one color that compresses to 56k? Why not? :)
It's been 3,000 years.
It looks so much cleaner! :D
And FA+ with a non-paypal purchase so now you can get my money! :D
One thing that I'm sure you're getting lots of angry feedback about are the 1850px gutters affecting widescreen users. I'm not angry, since I've already removed those gutters with a TamperMonkey script.
I understand that stretching the spiffy new banners isn't something you want to do, but I think centering them on the page with a gaussian-blurred css background is a good alternative that may not have been considered.
Thank you for your continued stewardship of FA!
I also can't take credit for the bulk of the actual css investigation, which was done by someone else, though the changes are quite straightforward. I'm choosing not to link that work here out of respect for the site management. I'm sure everyone's patience will be much appreciated.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/wtn7semjo...../FAUI.png?dl=0
- On submission pages, going into full view results in the navbar covering images.
- Get FA+ is displayed on the footer when logged out even though it has been delibrately avoided in other situations.
- Probably already noted, but action buttons on user pages are rounded, but they are the same everywhere else, which is a bit inconsistent.
I will edit if I find more.
- You can view the banner of someone who has chosen to hide their userpage when logged out, which might be expected to be private.
- The news header now covers the page instead of being inline, in addition to being out of place. (Maybe make it transparent like the navbar?)
- Minor: The FA+ icon in the navbar means there are now two paws in the menu bar that look inconsistent. (And maybe a pair of binoculars would be better suited here?)
- Also minor but maybe not noted yet: Perhaps the non-svg icons (example: golden pawb) should be svgs too?
Oh, and as not to come off as hating this redesign which is far from the truth, I do think this is a step in the right direction for a more modern looking website. :3
Chrome looks okay, but I'd like to give Google the finger, kthx.
I'll send you an e-mail with the screenshots.
It'd be nice if we could still click on our icon to reach our page, though.
Charging for larger sizes could be problematic, though. Particularly with vertically oriented comics.
I blame this update
Feels odd to limit resolution like this, especially when we still don't have a good way to upload comics in 1 go so people extended them downward to compensate.
The edit submission loophole was one we allowed for a number of years, but it was being abused well beyond its intended usage, and en masse. Once that happened we started to lose storage space at a rate which we hadn't quite foreseen, which necessitated a near $20K investment into site storage.
We'll be monitoring performance and will make adjustments if/as needed. I don't want to paywall higher resolution art, but there also real costs behind hosting such as storage servers, drives, bandwidth, and offsite caching. If had the funding I'd love to give infinite upload resources.
If there isn't lifted image limitation for tiny file sizes coming up, that pretty much nukes my future uploads.
I do hope and pray there would be an increase of the file size limit soon.
Nice to see progress, and all the prompt feedback. Looking forward to the continued refinements. Banner took a few experiments to make one that worked alright, and I wouldn't be surprised to find that future refinements will necessitate minor adjustments. I can adjust if I have to whenever that happens. My browsing hardware is on the lower end of the resolution scale and things fit fine.
The resolution was picked to give the average person about a 2K image, and we'll be monitoring file storage, bandwidth, site load in the future. If we're able to give it a bump up we'll consider doing just that, but we're also a smaller site with limited resources, so nearly doubling basic resolution is something we have to monitor.
Conversely, an image could be below 2K resolution, yet come out above 10 MB if it featured more complex details, like a painted or a CG work, and was either less compressed or in a lossless format like PNG which has trouble compressing a highly detailed image because of far fewer patters to compress effectively if at all.
With the concern here being bandwidth and storage, I think it'd make more sense to only check the file size itself rather than including the image dimensions.
I would like it if there were a link to my user page's shouts area from the msg/others page.
Banners look nice, I have no complaints there. I do use a smaller resolution than the average person (1366x762) so that may factor in.
I've always included my writings under pics instead, at least partially for that reason.
now it just takes you to all of the comments, and none are highlighted! it's not the end of the world but it's a weird change and makes it a little harder to reply to lots of people
Leave the Classic site alone.
The banners display weird from one version to the other and adding the User Titles right next to the Usernames in comments is distracting. It bleeds into the username while reading it. If it were displayed below it, it wouldn't be too bad. I'd prefer not at all, if I'm honest.
Just my two cents
Is there any other benefit to FA+ besides supporting the site and paying for a service that you have now locked behind a paywall? No disrespect, but it seems very misleading to say you increased the size limit when in reality you just fixed a trick that not many people even knew about. About 90% of the artists I follow just upload and let it compress at 1280. I've even asked a few why they do this and they've told me it's because they didn't even know about it.
While we're on the subject of changes, why can we still not delete comments? We can only cover them up with a newspaper like hiding a stain on the carpet. There's nothing more frustrating to me than scrolling through the comments section and seeing "comment hidden by it's owner/Page Owner" because then the only thing I can think is, "What was the comment? Was it mean? Was it nasty? Was it sad? Was it an accident?" Which completely distracts me from the submission itself which is why I clicked on it in the first place. I don't know much about websites, but isn't that also adding to the bandwidth problems? I'm assuming that it's more complicated then that, but it still drives me crazy.
While trying to end on a positive, thanks for adding the banners. Especially to the old FA template which is the one that I use. That was a nice touch.
That limit is 10mb ... I work and was posting at 2560x2560 and most pics were around 3.5mb
So there really is NO REASON to cap the resolution at less than a 3rd of the FA+ limit. They could have give free users half (3000x3000) and it would have been fine
Filesize though? Go for it. 8MB for free users and 200MB for FA+ maybe.
Still really sucks , but it's not Discord where you can't post anything bigger than 1000x1000 without it screaming it's too big.
I just wish they didn't hype us up with the update only to give us 700x700 more and lock the rest behind 60$ a year... not too heavy of a cost but I just don't like we weren't told beforehand there was going to be a cost on the higher Limit.
* below 10MB in file size
* below the number of pixels in a 1440p (2k, 2560x1440) image or 2160p (4k, 3840 x 2160) for FA+ subscribers. The width and height can be anything as long as the total number of pixels stays below the limit
* below the maximum width and height of 6000 pixels, as a sanity check sort of thing, to prevent extremely tall and narrow, or wide and short images
2560x1440 is 3,686,400 pixels or 1920x1920 if you were to upload a square image, and 3840x2160 is 8,294,400 pixels or a 2880x2880 square. This is a step up from the previously allowed 1280x1280 max width and height.
I admittedly never noticed there being an [*IMG] command being usable on FA. Is that also new? Is it exclusive to certain users? If not, what are the restrictions for those and where outside of journals can you implement images, please (if you might be able to answer me that, Dragoneer)? ^_^
Would've just been easier to up the dimension limits and file size limit for free and FA+ members. Now we have to account for pixels.
As for the look of the site, I can take it or leave it. I don't care for the new rounded corners on PFPs and certain buttons. Comments look bland now.
I feel like file-size limits should be the real target for limits if they are needed.
Part of the problem is we filled up years worth of storage well before the intended time due to the previous loophole, and the cost to upgrade was significant. If we had bigger budgets or funds we'd not have to worry about caps, but the hardware and cost requires to upgrade again will be significant ($50K).
I'd we had that kind of additional funding we could build our a super robust storage system for years, but as we're a small indie site without a million dollar IT budget we have to try to find balance.
A lot of my work as it stands could not work under these circumstances, and I hope more flexibility is implemented down the line.
With the mention of mobile has the issue with the random scrolling jumping to the bottom of the page been found/fixed? (Was inconsistent at appearing for me and not sure what triggered it)
Keep up the wonderful work!
Also, we are aware of the jumping issue but have not been able to identify and recreate it 100%. I am doing additional testing on things, as I can kind of trigger it, but we've seen multiple staff with the same devices get to make it happen and one gets it, others do not.
We know it happens, we just haven't identified why. We continue to hunt.