I don't want to sound like someone who likes to nitpik but ... :)
Is there any good reason to use PNGs for the thumbnails?
There will be 60 aircraft thumbnails and we are averaging about 32K per
thumbnail at the moment even with max PNG compression.
That equates to nearly 2MB just for thumbnails.
JPG can do it in 360K at 85% quality (average of 6KB per thumbnail) with no
visual difference to the naked eye.
I know PNG is lossless and JPG is evil because it's not LGPL but I think it's
the right tool for the job (photos on web pages).
Some of us don't have the luxury/option of high speed Internet connections and
a 2MB web page takes 6 minutes to download on a 64K line.
On Monday, 17 January 2005 20:49, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
> For the upcoming release of FG, I'm working on a couple scripts to
> create/manage a web page for individual downloads. Here is where I'm at
> so far. There is plenty room for improvement, but this will at least
> get us started:
> If aircraft developers put a 171x128 pixel image in the top aicraft
> directory called "thumbnail.png", this will automatically get picked up
> and put on the web page. There's no need to get these all populated
> before the v0.9.8 image, but it would be great if people could start
> filling thes in with nice pictures. The one's I created can be replaced
> if someone comes up with something better.
> Aircraft developers can continue to use our base package cvs, or they
> can maintain their files locally and submit a ready to install .tgz
> package ... either way will work fine.
> As part of this, I hope to significantly trim down the default base
> There are obvious areas of improvement such as categorizing the aircraft
> and putting them in their own sections (and we should do that
> eventually) but this at least is a workable starting point for this
Flightgear-devel mailing list