Show us your...Intersections

[rooker1]

Oh.........now I understand. 
But does the picture lose that much when resizing?  I have never compared. 
Now that you have mentioned it I can see the difference between your two pics.
Robin 

[Andreas]

Well, personally I prefer 800x600 pics, since anything larger leads to horizontal scrollbars on my system. Since you're posting your work at ST as well, wouldn't it make more sense to create 800x600 preview pics instead the 1024x768 ones, which are only slightly smaller than your screen resolution?

[Haljackey]

Andreas,

I compress my images to 800x500 @ ST to comply with site rules
I compress my images to 1024x640 @ SC4D to comply with site rules
I link my images to the uncompressed image at 1440x900 to show the full resolution.

My screen resolution is 1440x900, so both of these formats are smaller than my desktop display.  I can see if you had a 1024x768 resolution that you would prefer 800x600 pictures (I'm guessing you have this resolution), because having a 1024x640 image would require you to use the horizontal arrow keys slightly to see the image posted on a website.

If you would prefer me to compress my images to 800x500 instead of 1024x640, then consider it done.  You can still click on the image to view it in its full resolution (1440x900). 

Does that make sense to you?

Best,
-Haljackey

[Andreas]

Well, others use 1024x768 pics as well, since the rules allow it. But I just thought that it would be less work for you, because you have to create an 800x600 version for ST anyway. And as you said, the full resolution would be there anyway. I have a screen resolution of 1024x768, but since the forum needs some space for the table borders, the avatars etc., any pic that is larger than about 860 pixels or so will create horizontal scrollbars for me.

[Filasimo]

Also as James (Rickmastfan67) has designated in his sig, he has a tutorial on converting pictures and keeping the resolution is good quality:
http://sc4devotion.com/forums/index.php?topic=2767.0

Please take that into consideration for people with smaller screens and who have a slow dialup connection. not everybody has dial up. Thanks

Theres really no point in having high res pics if you know how to do it properly.

[Diggis]

For some reason Hal your pics also seem to take a very long time to display.  Slower than most others I have seen.

[Tarkus]

For some reason Hal your pics also seem to take a very long time to display.  Slower than most others I have seen.

Same here.  And I'm on a 3Mbps+ (at least) cable internet connection.   There's something in the process you use to link to the hi-res that, for whatever reason, takes a long time to load.  If it's really important to you for people to see hi-res, I'd suggest just doing a thumbnail if at all possible, as ImageShack supplies, which is how I link up any pics over the limit that I want people to see up close.

-Alex (Tarkus)

[krbe]

It's just the ordinary SC4 outpout converted to JPG, and then the "width" property is used in the img tag to reduce the image to a width of 1024px. So,the gain is in pixels, not in size. That being said, the images are heavily compressed to a size of just ~400 kb (you'll notice the blur of many details on the full-sized pictures). In my MD, I've used a size of 800x500 (usually; my screen is 1280x800) with a quality of 95%; while still large at ~200 kb there is little blur (you can even see the black powerlines on the black asphalt) and the visible "scars" after the resizing is some choppy lines.

[j-dub]

Well back to intersections. This is something very wierd, I had to convert my RHW to a oneway under the bridge because the RHW had to turn on a diagonal, and the RHW over the bridge had to connect to a ground hwy so traffic could leave the city.

[Pat]

Sweet intersections here and what a wonderful job you all are doing on them....

Hal I have noticed since the 25th of Jan your pics are showing a temp unavailble siiigh....

[dsrwhat316]

here's a peek at what i've been working on lately; my first true skyscraper city, Aurora. this area has NOT been completed yet:



coming soon to my MD!

~ Dan

[Haljackey]

Andreas:  Actually, its not any more work for me to "enlarge" photos between sites.  Either way I still need to put this in:
img width=1024 or img width=800 because I still need to resize my images.  Like I said, if you prefer 800x600, I will then use 800x500 from now on!



Filasimo: Thanks for the link!  I have looked at that thread multiple times, but I still haven't gotten the "jist" of it.  I will continue to work at my photos to make them even better! 



Diggis/Tarkus/krbe:  It may be because I recently downloaded clip2pic, which instantly takes a full resolution image in JPEG format without any conversion or resizing.

However, as I have discovered, the file size of this JPEG is almost, if not the same size of the PNG taken with the camera tool in SC4.  I have decided not to use this program anymore, because of the long loading times that are a side effect of this program.  From now on, you shouldn't have any huge wait times viewing my pictures just like you didn't in the past. 

Like Filasimo stated: "Theres really no point in having high res pics if you know how to do it properly."

Here is an example of the program at use compared to standard PNG-to-JEPG conversion:

Again, Click the images to view them in FULL RESOLUTION!

Using clip2pic: Filesize: 1184.02 KB


Using standard PNG-to-JEPG conversion.  Filesize: 241.13 KB


I don't think I will be using that program anymore, even if it means a slight loss of quality.



j-dub:  Looks good, just watch the sharp turns there.  Try to make them more "gradual", it will make it look much better! 
-You seem to have some RHW misalignments.  I would either play around with the network some more to get used to how it works, or consult RHW reference guide in the NAM section of this site.
-Also, watch your NAM overpass pieces, you have a few one-way stubs in the overpass.



Pat:  My image uploader was "down for scheduled maintenance" (http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/).  All of my images should be back now.  Sorry about that!



dsrwhat316:  Wow, thats fantastic!  I always like what you can do with sunken highways.  Excellent work, keep it up!

Best,
-Haljackey

[pagenotfound]

i was lookin around and i found this, some diamond parclo hybrid.

[bat]

Great work on your intersections there, @ all!! Great pictures...

[Ryan B.]

pagenotfound:  That's excellent use of those underpasses!

[CasperVg]

Very nice pagenotfound!

Here's something else whipped up to relief congestion into the suburbs.. (and because the default maxis onramps don't look good)


another angle

[JoeST]

That looks good Casper, but maybe change the ElRail-Rail Ramps with Caribou's long ElRail-Subway Ramps found here (link)

Joe

[FrankU]

Yes! Beautiful intersection. Somehow it looks realistic.
I like the touch with the EL-rail diving under everything, though not that realistic. Usually rail goes straight, roads go over or under it, because they can drive steeper ramps.
I miss something: maybe you should add some parking lots......

[bat]

Fantastic intersection there, caspervg! Great work on it!

[dsrwhat316]

here's a new one from me:



~ Dan