Altarion Posted February 12, 2021 Share Posted February 12, 2021 Often mods have tons of large images. Which is great! Many (most) mods are visual, and being able to see what they do in detail is great. Except a lot of the time they don't need to be 100% correct/uncompressed honkers of PNGs, and those of us not blessed with similar honkers of internet connections have a rough time browsing through them, and I have to guess they use up a decent amount of bandwidth for the site. Nothing's free, but I do wonder if it's been considered a valuable investment of dev time to present optimized images (via, pngquant or jpegoptim, for example) unless uncompressed images are requested? jpegoptim@95 and pngquant@90 or so can produce large savings in image size at very little cost to image detail. I use jpegoptim on my own site, I think most distros have a package for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pickysaurus Posted February 12, 2021 Share Posted February 12, 2021 Hey there, Thanks for the feedback. I will say that the images shown on the mod page itself are optimised to be smaller thumbnails However clicking the image will show it in full resolution as the author intended. I do get that if you have a bad connection this isn't ideal. We'll be reviewing the "image gallery" feature as part of an update to the site in future, so I'll be sure to bring it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts