Search…

X3 Photo Gallery Support Forums

Search…
 
User avatar
mjau-mjau
X3 Wizard
Posts: 11501
Joined: 30 Sep 2006, 03:37

Re: Problem with flat Pano

07 Feb 2019, 10:10

voyezvousca wrote:This evening i will try to test with titles at 128 (256 now), for my curious. Do you think it can be better with this?
You mean tilesize? I don't really think it will be better with smaller tiles ... probably not much difference. It certainly won't help with the tile cache, which is limited at 32, regardless of the tile size. If you check our FLAT demo, it happens to be very large tiles 2048 px, and because of this, the cache will be much more extensive (2048 px tiles * 32).
https://demo.photo.gallery/examples/plu ... onasteries

Anyway, I will be considering improvements in the future. For now, I don't think there is too much point in changing tilesize.
 
User avatar
voyezvousca
Experienced
Posts: 75
Joined: 27 Mar 2011, 11:21

Re: Problem with flat Pano

08 Feb 2019, 05:38

Ok :) tank you, i will try some differents test (maybe 1024, 2048 ?) 

If you have some improvement in future, i will be here to test it :)
My website using x3 : https://bit.ly/2EMEmNq
« La photographie est une brève complicité entre la prévoyance et le hasard. »
 
User avatar
mjau-mjau
X3 Wizard
Posts: 11501
Joined: 30 Sep 2006, 03:37

Re: Problem with flat Pano

08 Feb 2019, 11:38

voyezvousca wrote:Ok :) tank you, i will try some differents test (maybe 1024, 2048 ?) 
Your choice of tile size is not directly related to the X3 panorama plugin ... I mean, the advantages and disadvantages between different tile sizes will be the same in all panorama viewers. Small tile sizes might give better "progressive" loading, but large tiles might be better for storage and might even load slightly faster (less requests). The end result is more or less the same. I am no expert, but it seems many tools default to 512 px as default, which might be a good balance.

The only reason why you might currently get better visual performance in X3 with LARGE tile size, is because it means the tile cache limit (32 x tiles) will cover much more of the view (less, but larger tiles). This is really just an "accidental" benefit, and you shouldn't really base your choice of tile size on this.

When I viewed your panoramas first time, I thought they looked great (super nice detail on zoom). I didn't notice the loading/unloading tiles until you posted the video ... Even with the previously loaded tiles re-loading into view, they will certainly load almost instantly since they are already cached in browser. My point is, I don't see a HUGE difference from the visitors perspective, who is more likely to zoom/pan to an area and then view ... Personally, while I zoom or pan a panorama, I am not really studying it because it's in motion. I will pan/zoom, then look.
voyezvousca wrote:If you have some improvement in future, i will be here to test it :)
Yes, it's definitely on the radar as outlined in my previous post. I would like to increase the tile cache, and see if there are any possibilities for automated progressive level preloading (pinning). It just needs to be done with proper planning.