can i set thumb button #3 as default?

[giuliastar]

Hi
i have 2 question
1)
can i set the thumb button in the toolbar as #3 like default?

when i click it , it creates and displas thumbs at #1 96x72

i want to keep #1 96x72 and #320x320

in short i would like to click the button


and have the 320x320 thumbs

2) is 320x320 the max, is there a tip to increase the resolution of the thumbs
i own a huge monitor


thanks

[Stef123]

1) crank up the values of Config > Thumbs > Size #1 and you should be fine
2) look up the [Thumbs] - section in your ini-file

[Filehero]

1) crank up the values of Config > Thumbs > Size #1 and you should be fine

Or just reverse the entire default increased size order.


Cheers,
Filehero

[kunkel321]

Mildly off-topic here, but it would be okay with me if Don added more preset icon sizes. (i.e. In the Prefs dialog where there is "Size #1, 2 3.)

[admin]

It's only three because each one means new creatiobn of thumbs and more space needed by the cache.

My plan is rather to create only one (relatively large) size of cached thumbs and then allow free scaling of thumbs. But this has drawbacks, too: Lesser quality, and it takes more time to show the thumbs.

[kunkel321]

It's only three because each one means new creatiobn of thumbs and more space needed by the cache.

Ah yes. That makes sense.

[giuliastar]

My plan is rather to create only one (relatively large) size of cached thumbs and then allow free scaling of thumbs. But this has drawbacks, too: Lesser quality, and it takes more time to show the thumbs.

that's will be nice
will we see in the next update?

thanks

[Stef123]

I disagree. This won't be nice. Speed is my overall concern when it comes to thumbnails. The faster they show up on screen, the better. I rather have a huge cache (no problem on modern machines) than sacrificing on speed (always an issue when you're browsing many folders)

But this has drawbacks, too: Lesser quality, and it takes more time to show the thumbs.

[Filehero]

I disagree. This won't be nice. Speed is my overall concern when it comes to thumbnails. The faster they show up on screen, the better. I rather have a huge cache (no problem on modern machines) than sacrificing on speed (always an issue when you're browsing many folders)

plus one / full acknowledgement.

Despite that, I really cannot imagine Don favoring a solution 2.0 that has less speed than any existing one.


Cheers,
Filehero

[admin]

Yep. That's why that "plan" will probably keep being just a plan.

[klownboy]

I disagree. This won't be nice. Speed is my overall concern when it comes to thumbnails. The faster they show up on screen, the better. I rather have a huge cache (no problem on modern machines) than sacrificing on speed (always an issue when you're browsing many folders)

plus one / full acknowledgement.

Despite that, I really cannot imagine Don favoring a solution 2.0 that has less speed than any existing one.

Cheers,
Filehero

Totally agree Filehero and Stef123. In my opinion, XYplorer's quality and speed of thumbnail display is one the mayor XY features that has me hooked. No separate photo manager for me. So yes, hopefully Don you abandon any plan that might make the display of thumbnails slower. A change to make them faster, if that's even possible, of course is welcome.

There was a time many years ago I cared about the size of thumbnail caches, but these days of 1 TB SSDs and 4TB standard drives who cares about it if it's giving you super quick display of thumbnails.
Ken