A stickied file to place all DB images in perhaps?

[strykerpsg]

As the title says, what are the chances that we can have one central depository for all DB image updates? That being said, they are only put in after complying with a set standard so as not to potentially cause conflicts? Anyway, thanks for those contributing to this massive venture and increased immersion.

[jomni]

Also I'm not sure if there are overlaps.

[mikmykWS]

Working on getting the community organized now. Think CV60, Meroka37, SilentHunter are all working on this. Guys if you can organize and coordinate we'll put the file up here:

http://www.warfaresims.com/?page_id=1876

[JRyan]

I agree...that was what made the Harpoon community so great, you can not keep up with the user created stuff.....

We need a new sticky....maybe vote on overlaps....have one file for all??

[CV60]

Hello-
I've been asked to coordinate the combining of the various image files into one single package, and then releases updates. Initially, I'm planning on an update package every two weeks or so, although this will probably taper off after a couple of months. My goal is to try to have as complete a collection of quality images that accurately show each unit.A couple of issues on images:

1) Keeping image sizes down to around 250 KB each is helpful. We are going to be doing a lot of images, and file size will eventually become an issue. It also helps speed the loading process when the images are displayed. If you don't have the ability to make the images smaller, I can do that for you. However, it will make my job easier if you can do it.

2) Image sourcing: If possible, if you can put either the source of the image in the image file itself, using a program like Adobe, that would be great. I personally use Adobe Elements and put the website and copyright information (if any) using the "File Info" function. If you don't have Adobe, including a .txt file with the image name and source of the image would help us.

3) Ideally, I would like the images to reflect the actual unit, i.e., the image used to display a P-3C Update 2.5 is not a P-3C update 3, but is in fact an Update 2.5. However, this goal might not be achievable right away. If you see a unit that is misrepresented in the database, or if you have to use a more generic photo to represent a platform, then try to note that in the .txt file, and we will flag it for possible replacement once a more accurate photo representation becomes available.

4) For right now, continue to post the images to the Matrix forum. I'll pull them from there, resize them if necessary and incorporate them into the next database image update. I'll also add your name to the credits in the DB 3000 text file. Also, send a email to my inbox, just to make sure that I see your upload. In the near future, I'm hoping to get a single thread to post the images.

5) Good ideas: This is a community project, so if ya'll have any good ideas, I would like to hear them. Right now, I am especially interested in ideas/thoughts on the proper sizing of the photos (how many pixles horizontally and vertically they should be), and what priority image gaps to be filled should be.

[CV60]

Regarding overlaps-The database image viewer allows up to 6 images for a platform. Images other than the main image are denoted _t1, _t2, etc. For example: Ship_123_t1 would be the second image for Ship_123. The subsequent images are displayed sequentially using smaller images. Take a look at the SA-2 image for the USSR in the existing database for an example of the use of smaller images to illustrate a weapon system.

[Temple]

ORIGINAL: CV60

Regarding overlaps-The database image viewer allows up to 6 images for a platform. Images other than the main image are denoted _t1, _t2, etc. For example: Ship_123_t1 would be the second image for Ship_123. The subsequent images are displayed sequentially using smaller images. Take a look at the SA-2 image for the USSR in the existing database for an example of the use of smaller images to illustrate a weapon system.

That's good info on the _t1, etc. I was wondering about that.

One question that you or someone else might know, is there a reverse index for the databases? In other words, something like:

...
Ship_123 USS Something
Ship_124 USS Something else
Ship_125 HMS Another Something Entirely
...

This would be so that if I'm looking at the image file thumbnails I can quickly pick out what images might be in error. I'm assuming that this list could be stripped from the actual .db3 files by some clever soul.

[chemkid]

.

[chemkid]

.

[CV60]

I've been playing around with image sizes and the Database viewer. I'm attaching a screenshot of the USS Iowa entry. The image used in this screenshot was as 600X399 pixel image (of a scanned hardcopy image) at 280 dpi with a total size of 257 KB. After the viewer resized it, it still looks pretty good, although it is just starting to get "grainy." Unless if people object, I'm going to be trying to have primary images be sized in the 96+ dpi/ 600 to 1000 pixel width / 250-300 kb size range

[CV60]

Here is what I see as the current priority list for image files. Of course, beggars can't be choosers, and I'll take anything that people want to work on. These are what I see as the great yawning gaps in the image files. Others are free to chime in with their opinions:

US Ships (CV-60 currently working on these)
China Ships and Aircraft (CV-60 currently working on these)
China Facilities (Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?)
Japan(Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?)
Taiwan(Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?)
United Kingdom(Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?)
Australia (Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?)