Project VORAPIS non-functional

[UCyborg]

There was an update recently and still 360p is the only resolution. Maybe the issue with non-working right when logged out resurfaced.

[Mæstro]

Personally, I prefer 360p or even 240p. They are what I grew up watching online, and the smaller file sizes make it much easier to stay well within data caps and archive favourite reel locally.

[UCyborg]

My eyes don't agree. Some videos come out awful as-it-is on YouTube using normal resolutions. Well, PotPlayer can still see all resolutions and codecs.

[UCyborg]

Resolutions do show up normally when logged-in alright.

But yeah, there's some old stuff there, some so-called "remastered in HD", but no actual difference in quality beyond 360p. So it's a waste in these cases. That kind of upscaling is already done at runtime as-it-is to cover the screen.

[solitude]

Personally, I prefer 360p or even 240p. They are what I grew up watching online, and the smaller file sizes make it much easier to stay well within data caps and archive favourite reel locally.

I watch videos in 360p whenever I'm using limited mobile data or VPN, it does save a lot of bandwidth, and one can watch more videos compared to watching in higher resolutions. It also doesn't look that bad.

[UCyborg]

Small screens mask the terribleness of low resolution. Though I rarely watch things on a phone these days. Somewhat related, crazy how much I used Opera Mini on a non-smartphone back in the day. Those screens, now those were tiny!

The 360p stream VORAPIS gets when not logged in is not UMPed (whatever that means). UMP in Stats for nerds reads Yes for other higher resolution streams.

[Mæstro]

My screen is 1366.768. It is widescreen, but otherwise approaches the traditional 1024.768 to which I recall so many sites migrating their designs in my childhood. Would this be considered small today? Working in the virtual machine has shown me that 800.600 can feel a bit cramped today, yet I favour 4:3 over 4²:3², and my height has remained fixed.

[back2themoon]

Now, did browser improve? The script? Is Greasemonkey buggy or not? Guess we'll never know. I've had the impression for a long time that no one really knows UXP well.

There's a new Greasemonkey version in the works (beta), aptly named "Greasemonkey for UXP":

An in-development fork of Greasemonkey

[UCyborg]

I was informed of the existence of this fork recently and gave some feedback as the first version I tried broke few of my scripts. VORAPIS changed in some way since the issue back then was encountered and it is suspected that the issue at that one time might have been due to user scripts without extra grants being executed in the sandbox in our GreaseMonkey while in TamperMonkey, they are not. This was changed now in GM.

My screen is 1366.768. It is widescreen, but otherwise approaches the traditional 1024.768 to which I recall so many sites migrating their designs in my childhood. Would this be considered small today? Working in the virtual machine has shown me that 800.600 can feel a bit cramped today, yet I favour 4:3 over 4²:3², and my height has remained fixed.

I was thinking of phone screens at first, though I would consider 1366x768 on the smaller side as well. I have a laptop with such screen. I don't remember the last time I used 1024x768. Probably on the old Win95 computer. Been' on LCDs for 22 years. Played some games for a bit on that old 1280x1024 LCD that I still use as GeForce4 MX 440 back then couldn't cope with 1280x1024. It was...ugly, since they need to be at native resolution. 1920x1080 still feels small at times for side-by-side comparisons. Maybe I'd still rather get 1920x1200 for some extra vertical space for maybe a bit more balance, but yeah, 16:9 is standard for movies and you naturally get a bit wider field of view in 3D games. Feels more immersive that way to me, especially compared to 4:3 ratio.

Generally, dual-screen setup is a must for me, can't go back to single-screen. So my desktop is extra wide. Though media would usually still be used on one screen.

[moonbat]

There's a new Greasemonkey version in the works

Far from new, it is the only compatible version available and hasn't been updated in years. Works fine though.

[jobbautista9]

They're talking about the fork linked in that GitHub issue: https://github.com/SecondCityOsD/grease ... s/releases

[back2themoon]

Far from new, it is the only compatible version available and hasn't been updated in years in two hours.

[sinfulosd]

Now, did browser improve? The script? Is Greasemonkey buggy or not? Guess we'll never know. I've had the impression for a long time that no one really knows UXP well.

There's a new Greasemonkey version in the works (beta), aptly named "Greasemonkey for UXP":

An in-development fork of Greasemonkey

Ooo, that's my extension. Whelp, I gotta make a forum post about it, since it's already getting some attraction here.

There's a new Greasemonkey version in the works

Far from new, it is the only compatible version available and hasn't been updated in years. Works fine though.

...Huh?!

[moonbat]

...Huh?!

My bad, I just saw the base URL - the original extension was last updated in 2018.

[UCyborg]

It seems the issue is that selection of codecs is limited when not logged in. AV1 often works it seems. But AV1 is very CPU intensive.

[UCyborg]

I can't live without Sponsorblock and there's no equivalent for PM.

In fact, there is one! The Simple Sponsor Skipper, a user script, targets Pale Moon, including on Invidious instances.

I tried it today and most I got out of it was the first time configuration prompt. Couldn't access config and it didn't block any such segment. Tried both old and new GreaseMonkey.

It worked on Chromium with TamperMonkey without configuring anything specifically.

[sinfulosd]

I can't live without Sponsorblock and there's no equivalent for PM.

In fact, there is one! The Simple Sponsor Skipper, a user script, targets Pale Moon, including on Invidious instances.

I tried it today and most I got out of it was the first time configuration prompt. Couldn't access config and it didn't block any such segment. Tried both old and new GreaseMonkey.

It worked on Chromium with TamperMonkey without configuring anything specifically.

Simple Sponsor Skipper builds its entire configuration UI using 'GM.addElement(parent, tag, attrs)'. The 'GM.addElement' API only exist on Tampermonkey, Violentmonkey, and Scriptcat (Doesn't even exist on the upstream version of Greasemonkey)

Mentioning that not even the official Greasemonkey had it, it's safe to assume that it never existed, back when it was forked to Pale Moon, meaning that it definitely does not exist on the old fork of Greasemonkey for Pale Moon.

On my modern fork of Greasemonkey for UXP: 'GM_addElement' is implemented, but it was going through our generic GM-to-Promise wrapper that all the other 'GM.*' APIs use (since most of them are properly async like 'GM.getValue' / 'GM.xmlHttpRequest'). So instead of returning the element, 'GM.addElement(docHtml, 'head')' was returning Promise'<HTMLHeadElement>'. The script then passed that Promise as the parent of the next call, the wrapper rejected internally (a Promise object has no '.appendChild'), and the rejection got swallowed silently inside the sandbox. TM and VM both return these synchronously; I had this wrong.

I went ahead to see how Violentmonkey applies it in their source code, copied their approach and I tested the userscript with the approach - It is now 100% working (You would have to tick the "Disable Video ID Hashing (Pale Moon Compatibility Fix)" box to be enabled, in order for it to work).

Since it's an important userscipt, I want to use it on my daily basis, and nobody reported any instability issues with the beta version of Greasemonkey for UXP 3.7.0, I will release a stable version of it and I will ship this bugfix along with it.

I have no clue why their userscript decided to add an API that only approximately 30+ userscripts utilize it, makes you wonder what does "simple" in their userscript name stands for.

[back2themoon]

The official SponsorBlock userscript still works fine, I believe. Its non-UI version:

https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.ph ... 20#p254402

Since it's an important userscipt, I want to use it on my daily basis, and nobody reported any instability issues with the beta version of Greasemonkey for UXP 3.7.0...

Perhaps the SponsorBlock userscript is worth exploring?

[sinfulosd]

Perhaps the SponsorBlock userscript is worth exploring?

I did explore it but:

• It doesn't work with VORAPIS

• It doesn't work with other frontends like invidious

I was using the "Simple Sponsor Skipper" one, although was using it more on my Firefox browser with Violentmonkey userscript manager, but then an update had to be released and made it incompatible with my modern fork on Pale Moon, but I'll release a version of it that will make it work again.

[MasterSlenderTR]

There was an update recently and still 360p is the only resolution. Maybe the issue with non-working right when logged out resurfaced.

In my case, Vorapis' extension for Pale Moon doesn't work but the userscript version does for an unknown reason.