Is it me or has something changed with viewing images on a thread.
I use to be able to see at least a thumb nail of an attached image in a thread that had them.
Now I have to download the image file (eg. a jpg which was attached) to see them.
Edit:
Do we now have to use something like http://imgur.com/ to have things seen on a thread using this new and improved forum software?
People uploading ridiculously oversized images has caused problems. I believe the developer is preparing a fix. In the meantime I suspect the thumbnails may come and go.
I can confirm one of the developer is working on it. In the meantime the feature was disabled for some files.
Please be patient until is completely fixed.
Please be patient until is completely fixed.
Thank You. 
I was starting to think the next new feature would be:
'Please ZIP into one file, your question, all pertinent code, your images. Upload it to http://www.instructables.com/
Then enter the link to your ZIP file on this page so others can browse to it easily'
The above is not a suggestion or request. Please do not put any of it on your to-do list!
.
I hope it gets sorted soon, it's a total pita.
If the issue is the size of uploaded files, surely the fix is to put a hard limit on their size?
IMHO this needs to be sorted right now.
I'm not planning on downloading every image (relevant to the topic or not) and store it on my pc to have some idea on what might be asked in some question.
So those threads we used to ask for at least a clear picture are down the drain now.
I can't be bothered to even try to help if i can't just click the image and have an immediate view.
The forum gets crappier every day now, we're almost half a year after "improving" the forum software.
It's not the thumbnails.
OK, so it has taken me a few days to wake up to the problem. I thought it just happened to be some browser foul-up - WIndoze performance with Firefox is becoming virtually unusable in past months; I have no idea why and cannot see much general information about this problem which is severe on machines with less than two (or perhaps four) cores - but some perverse code in the BBS is causing the browser to refuse to render the redirect at the link and instead want to use a "helper application" or download. This is absolutely ridiculous for graphics.
Another way of looking at it is that it is in fact, a bug in Firefox. In some versions, I can choose to use a "helper application" and - select Firefox; sometimes it works sometimes it loops. Since Firefox knows it is a form of file it should always render in the browser, this is indeed, very peculiar behaviour (and there is no option under "Applications" to fix this).
Example?
That's actually how the forum is set right now, Paul, and it's not a problem with your system or browser. What's happening is when you click the link the response comes with a "Content-Disposition: attachment" header; that causes your local system to prompt to save to disk or use a helper program.
http://www.jtricks.com/bits/content_disposition.html
Example:
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Server: nginx/1.2.1
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 07:25:21 GMT
Content-Type: application/octet-stream
Content-Length: 144108
Connection: keep-alive
X-Powered-By: PHP/5.4.35-1~dotdeb.1
X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN
X-XSS-Protection: 1
X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff
Content-Encoding: none
Pragma:
Expires: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 07:25:21 GMT
Last-Modified: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 19:57:23 GMT
Accept-Ranges: bytes
ETag: "118818BOARDS.jpg1426535843"
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename*=UTF-8''BOARDS.jpg
Cache-Control: no-cache
I seem to have fixed it in some variants of Firefox by specifying Firefox as a new "Helper" in "Applications". Is there some add-on or config switch that would simply filter out such nuisance headers?
Amongst the problems here, I do wish they would at some priority seriously figure out how to permanently get rid of the "token" redirect garbage. Whatever module it is, needs to be completely removed.
You can solve the problem by acting on Firefox but in general when this problem occurs the origin is in the website: incorrect coding of "MIME" type.
firefox have no problem with correct MIME.
Unfortunately there are many other websites that do not meet the correct encoding of MIME types
Cache-Control: no-cache
Paul__B:
Is there some add-on or config switch that would simply filter out such nuisance headers?
I wouldn't call it a "nuisance header" because it has perfectly legitimate uses. Imagine downloading an ISO file that you want to burn to a CD; typically you'd prefer to save it first and then launch your CD burning program later. The "Content-Disposition: attachment" header prevents your browser from automatically launching your burning program.
Does that header make sense for attached images on the forum? Of course not. I just wouldn't recommend mussing up your browser settings too much just to make up for this site's shortcomings.
Well, setting files to not cache does make sense when the forum is already forcing you to download the files locally. Web proxy caches tend to be evil things and you don't want to give them an leeway anyway 
Chagrin:
I wouldn't call it a "nuisance header" because it has perfectly legitimate uses. Imagine downloading an ISO file that you want to burn to a CD; typically you'd prefer to save it first and then launch your CD burning program later. The "Content-Disposition: attachment" header prevents your browser from automatically launching your burning program.
But that is precisely what Right click->"Download File" is for.
mastrolinux:
I can confirm one of the developer is working on it. In the meantime the feature was disabled for some files.Please be patient until is completely fixed.
OK, essentially a month down the track and it is badly broken. This function of the forum is almost unusable!
Did I say "almost"? Well, I use a number of different PCs to access it, and on at least one, it is simply, completely unusable; the others, extremely inconvenient.
OK, so your guys do not know how to program the software? Fine, so please just revert to the working version. This version is not working. Maybe the working version had some problems, but at least we could use it.
Could we please - while you find someone capable of programming the necessary incantations, have a version that we can use?
I believe displaying attached images was removed to speed up the look/download time of the forums.
I believe displaying Karma was removed to speed up the look/download time of the forums.
Patience runs short after 2+ months.
If the developer cannot return the forums to the look as it used, to be, pay someone who is competent and has the skill set.
One of the moderators had posted that there was a particularly huge image posted that kicked off the non-showing of large attachments.
Links to .jpgs posted elsewhere, like my website, still display.
Karma I think had to do with spam control. You can click on someone's avatar to see their Karma. Hardly a hardship with the vast improvement in spam control that has been implemented and is a continuing work in progress.
Oops, didn't notice this was 2nd page on this.
I understand the reasons.
I don't care about the Karma.
I just think it's "about time" that we can again see images.
I would think it would be quite simple to reject images over a certain file size.
I hate having to download a image file, scan it, look at what's there while juggling with my browser and then delete the image.
CrossRoads:
Links to .jpgs posted elsewhere, like my website, still display.
Yes, but the poster has to be smart enough to do that - including reading the instructions.
It's just too big an ask - "Newbies" just aren't!
LarryD:
I hate having to download a image file, scan it, look at what's there while juggling with my browser and then delete the image.
It's almost as bad as downloading a ".ino" file and figuring how to run it in the IDE.