Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Suggestion: show torrent ETC consistent with file list priority rather than torrent size #879

Open
c3td opened this issue Jun 5, 2019 · 5 comments

Comments

@c3td
Copy link

c3td commented Jun 5, 2019

It looks ETC on the main rTorrent screen is calculated based on some combination of file(s) size and current download speed.

I think it'd be more useful to present ETC of content to be downloaded versus download speed instead.

As an example, I've attached snips of a TV series download for which I was only DLing the first two episodes (turning off priority for all others in the 'File list' view'). One of the episodes downloaded in ~3 minutes, yet the ETC display showed a 37 minute completion time. The second completed in ~3 minutes, rather than the original 37 minutes displayed. It defeats the purpose of having an ETC if calculated this way for situations like these.

Screenshot from 2019-06-04 22-25-47
Screenshot from 2019-06-04 22-26-15

@chros73
Copy link
Contributor

chros73 commented Jun 5, 2019

Check out rtorrent-ps or rtorrent-ps-ch to able to get insane amount of info onto the screen. :)

@c3td
Copy link
Author

c3td commented Jun 7, 2019

Looks cool, probably a bit of a 'bazooka to kill a fly' for my needs though :)

@kannibalox
Copy link
Contributor

I'd recommend submitting a pull request against #575 if the fix is understood,

@chros73
Copy link
Contributor

chros73 commented Jun 7, 2019

It's fixed in it and so in rtorrent-ps-ch :)
See "III. UI changes in rtorrent" section of this linked issue #144 (comment): "remaining time should display the correct amount all the time"

@c3td
Copy link
Author

c3td commented Jun 9, 2019

@kannibalox, any comment on this suggestion's feasibility for inclusion.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants