[QUOTE]Try This: [URL]http://www.youtube.com/html5[/URL]
It may not be "pure", which thus may not work, but it's worth a try.[/QUOTE]We have used the HTML5 version since they introduced it. About half of the videos on YouTube work and the other half are "unavailable". Still, it is better than nothing!

[QUOTE=chalsall;303406]
[URL="http://www.mersenne.info/trial_factored_bar_graph_video/3/332000000/"]The 332M range[/URL]
[/QUOTE]
Ok, let's take out the yellow bars from there, they are ugly...
This should be easy... :razz:

[QUOTE=LaurV;303514]Ok, let's take out the yellow bars from there, they are ugly...
This should be easy... :razz:[/QUOTE]

Actually, that would involve regenerating all of the stills for all the ranges, and then regenerating all the videos. Several days worth of processing...

But one of the things I'm going to be doing for version 3.0 is choosing better colors for the graphs, and render above 75 bits where appropriate.

In the interim, why don't you TF all of them up to 70? :wink:

[QUOTE=chalsall;303515]
In the interim, why don't you TF all of them up to 70? :wink:[/QUOTE]
That is what I was talking about when i said to take out the yellow bars, and I already started 20 minutes ago... Is yer joke detector off, or ye mimicking RDS? :razz: I have nothing against yer colors. In fact I don't give a funk what colors ye use..

[QUOTE=chalsall;303515]Actually, that would involve regenerating all of the stills for all the ranges, and then regenerating all the videos.
snip...
In the interim, why don't you TF all of them up to 70? :wink:[/QUOTE]
I think the latter was what he was joking about...

Edit: Cross post

[QUOTE=LaurV;303519]Is yer joke detector off, or ye mimicking RDS?[/QUOTE]

The former. Sorry....

The first evaluation is 285-315 hours, on two full loaded gtx580, and occasionally the third if it will not be busy to make a living...

But if I continue to do this now, some of my gpu-272 assignments are on the verge to expire so I would respectfully ask you to extend them in case they run in the reds... (I am talking about the oldest P-1 assignments, and no, I did not joke nor make irony when I said "respectfully", I really appreciate what you are doing there).

P.s. I have a factor already, hehe.

Am I missing something or is this report?
 

[url]http://www.gpu72.com/reports/estimated_completion/primenet/[/url]

In the DC report
when you click the PrimeNet column
in the 30M row
PrimeNet has over 20,000 exponents
but no Total time reported.

[QUOTE=petrw1;303628]PrimeNet has over 20,000 exponents[/QUOTE]

...all of which are at 69 (or double-checked) already. Mission accomplished.

[QUOTE=ckdo;303632]...all of which are at 69 (or double-checked) already. Mission accomplished.[/QUOTE]Then, there needs to be some explicit indication of that status, not just blanks, in order for the viewer to distinguish that status from a report malfunction. (Also for the 24M range)

For instance, show zeros instead of blanks in the "69" and "Total' columns (as is already done in the "GPU72" column) for those ranges.

It makes visual sense to have blanks in, for instance, the 29M line under ""68", because 68 isn't the goal for that range and all the work that's left is shown under "69", but there needs to be some non-blank indicator in the goal-bitlevel box for each range when that range has completed TF up through that goal. (Maybe it could be a link to some recording of that guy who delivered the long "gooooooooooooooal" announcement at a soccer match.)

[QUOTE=cheesehead;303634]Then, there needs to be some explicit indication of that status, not just blanks, in order for the viewer to distinguish that status from a report malfunction. (Also for the 24M range)[/QUOTE]

OK. I've changed the report to show "Completed" in the Total column for those ranges where the work has been, well, completed....