Bypass the 8192x8192 size limit for photos?

[Rogway]

Is there anyway to bypass this limit? I have an image that is around 10000 x 1000, so it is a bit too large.
I couldn't find any info about it.

[Biohazard]

This is simply a hardware limitation to make sure all systems that fulfill the requirements can display the wallpaper.

Rendering such a large image in real time is just not a good idea and will cost lots of performance, do you actually have a multi monitor setup that would take advantage of that resolution?

[Rogway]

Originally posted by Biohazard:

This is simply a hardware limitation to make sure all systems that fulfill the requirements can display the wallpaper.

Rendering such a large image in real time is just not a good idea and will cost lots of performance, do you actually have a multi monitor setup that would take advantage of that resolution?

Its an ultra wide monitor, but all I want to do is have it scroll through the picture.

[Biohazard]

Then I would suggest to resize it to 8192x1000 and use that. This way you can keep the quality in height. To fix the aspect ratio again, you can simply use the scale along the x axis, increase that to 1.22 and it will look how it should again. You will find that option on the right side when the image is selected.

1.22 comes from calculating 10.000 / 8192.

[Rogway]

Sorry. It just doesn't look too right when I do that.
However, I can split the picture into two parts and put both in there right next to each other.
When I try and use the scroll for the effect it only effects one picture though.
Is there a way to scroll from left to right without using the effects option when you click a picture?

[Biohazard]

What doesn't look right? Please share a screenshot because I think with these values it should work out fine and this would be the easiest work around.

The scroll effect can't be applied to multiple images that are also larger than your screen. It can only be applied to images, the screen or parts of the screen. There is also no way I could change that since this is just an inherent limitation to proper real time rendering, like the max texture size of 8192^2 I'm afraid.

With the next update you could alternatively solve this by having separate objects for two parts of the image and using scripts to move the images yourself. But this is kind of an overkill solution for this problem.

[Final_Illusion]

Sorry, I know this is an old post, but I am facing the same problem.

I am not sure whether triple 4k screens are a thing, but images with a resolution below 11520x2160 fail to provide enough quality and fidelity for my setup.

Sure I know it is an edge case at present, but I believe with low-price 4k monitors become widely available recently, this limitation may restrict a part of the community. Therefore, I would strongly suggest some built-in features (such as the workaround mentioned above) to bypass/increase the threshold of this value and motivate more multiscreen-capable workshop entries.

[Biohazard]

Originally posted by Final_Illusion:

Sorry, I know this is an old post, but I am facing the same problem.

I am not sure whether triple 4k screens are a thing, but images with a resolution below 11520x2160 fail to provide enough quality and fidelity for my setup.

Sure I know it is an edge case at present, but I believe with low-price 4k monitors become widely available recently, this limitation may restrict a part of the community. Therefore, I would strongly suggest some built-in features (such as the workaround mentioned above) to bypass/increase the threshold of this value and motivate more multiscreen-capable workshop entries.

We will look into this, of course things evolve, yeah. The issue is simply that the cost of rendering such resolutions becomes exponentially larger and only the most high end system would be able to handle this without significant increase in noise/heat while just idle on the desktop. Perhaps a solution would be to hide these high resolutions by default in the browser.

As mentioned in my original reply, a resolution like that would also just not work at all for some people, so yeah, hiding them by default is probably a way to avoid this.

[Anfia /s]

+1

[AjaxÄrBra]

Ive got the actual pc for it, how do i do it?

[butcho]

I did a wallpaper once where I needed an image that was something around 50.000 x 3.000 pixel. To make it work I cut it into different smaller pictures, added them into the editor and attached them with a script. Worked pretty well. ^^

[TΩKSYK]

Originally posted by butcho:

To make it work I cut it into different smaller pictures, added them into the editor and attached them with a script. Worked pretty well. ^^

How do I achieve this, are there any tutorials for such scripts?