XF 1.5 Odd Res issue.

EXTRA.CSS I added.

body.node2{
background: #123456 url('https://arma3.com/assets/img/apex/screenshots/arma3_apex_screenshot_05.jpg') center no-repeat fixed;
}

Style Properties: General - Body

word-wrap: break-word;
line-height: 1.28;
min-width: 300px;


It appears to be set for 1920x1080 users. My PC is 2560x1080 and I would like for everybody using such res have it look right. I can't remember but there was something I added in the style properties: general - body that fixed this.

Result: Any help?
 

Optic

Well-known member
body.node2{
background: #123456 url('https://arma3.com/assets/img/apex/screenshots/arma3_apex_screenshot_05.jpg') center no-repeat fixed;
}
Try:
Code:
body.node2{
background: #123456 url('https://arma3.com/assets/img/apex/screenshots/arma3_apex_screenshot_05.jpg');
background-size: cover;
background-attachment: fixed;
}
HOWEVER I would not recommend using background-attachment fixed on body, it will DECIMATE your scrolling performance.

I notice you're using UI.X, that comes with Backstretch... use that.
 
Last edited:
Try:
Code:
body.node2{
background: #123456 url('https://arma3.com/assets/img/apex/screenshots/arma3_apex_screenshot_05.jpg');
background-size: cover;
background-attachment: fixed;
}
HOWEVER I would not recommend using background-attachment fixed on body, it will DECIMATE your scrolling performance.

I notice you're using UI.X, that comes with Backstretch... use that.
Good deal. It worked out perfect. Also for another issue, how do I figure out the exact number of the node. I saw this number but it doesn't make sense. Like Both nodes have the same number. I don't know how to figure it out.
Also, I do know about the backstretch UIX provides. But I don't want images in every single section of the forums. Like for example. If I made a node about the ocean. I would want only ocean images in there.
 
Last edited:

BobbyWibowo

Well-known member
HOWEVER I would not recommend using background-attachment fixed on body, it will DECIMATE your scrolling performance.
Eh, it does? I'd guess it wouldn't have much impact if the background was properly compressed beforehand (since then it shouldn't use a lot of memory of the PC). Or maybe I'm simply having this thoughts due to the dark memory I had with super long non-repetitive background (due to the difficulty of making a repetitive version back then), so I'm like, 'compared to that background which was more than 1MB and had my scrolling experience so terrible, a mere 300kB~ something fixed background should feel a lot better'. But well, I think compared to a repetitive background which only weighs a couple kBs + one for the header area that isn't far too big either, it should perform better than typical fixed background.
 
Top