Oh. I found a way to make the cloud variable limit higher, but only if your computer is glitchy

CommunityAccountBJJ wrote:

Oh. I found a way to make the cloud variable limit higher, but only if your computer is glitchy

How? It would be nice to know.

VGCI

No Support. You do not need over 10 cloud variables for lots of projects. A few can make it function. Also it would mess up the server. I support cloud lists, but I do believe the limit of variables is fine.

VideoGamerCanInvent wrote:

CommunityAccountBJJ wrote:

Oh. I found a way to make the cloud variable limit higher, but only if your computer is glitchy

How? It would be nice to know.

VGCI

I think one method would be to open up many variable windows many times, more than 10. Then, check the cloud variable option on every window, then create the variable.

mitchboy wrote:

There is a project with like 33 cloud variables on it, but I'm too lazy to find it right now. Just trust me, there is a way. ;-)

Also, please refrain from using caps it topic titles, because this makes it less likely for your topic to be seen. Word of advice.

Can you please give me the link to that guys project with loads of cloud varibles

I have some spare time. Should I make a list of everyone's estimate of how much increasing the cloud variable limit would cost?

TheMatrixKid wrote:

As I said on another of the same persons topic…


By the way maybe you should do the math…

1000000+ users
9 cloud data limit
4-8 bytes per variable (lets average it at 6)

So,
(1000000*9)*6=54mb for 1million projects. If it were fifty that would be 450mb for 1000000 projects. Pretty sure theres more that that many projects. Give me the name of a server with half a gigabyte to use on 1 million projects when they probably use up at least 15 gigabytes already.

Therefore with 5000000 projects you would have nearly 100 gb ore more down the drain (97.5gb+ to be exact.)

good point but its still not as much money as you think as in i have an xbox one and i have 3 tb of storage which would be around 50 USD per terabyte Which is backed up by this and scratch is an MIT creation and they have plenty of money Which is backed up by this article now this only speculation so it may not be correct but still it's not hard to get that much storage

i dont support
this would cool to have more cloud variables BUT this could be solved tif cloud lists were a thing using make a block you can make all of your variables be in one list making a cloud variable be obsolete

TheMatrixKid wrote:

As I said on another of the same persons topic…


By the way maybe you should do the math…

1000000+ users
9 cloud data limit
4-8 bytes per variable (lets average it at 6)

So,
(1000000*9)*6=54mb for 1million projects. If it were fifty that would be 450mb for 1000000 projects. Pretty sure theres more that that many projects. Give me the name of a server with half a gigabyte to use on 1 million projects when they probably use up at least 15 gigabytes already.

Therefore with 5000000 projects you would have nearly 100 gb ore more down the drain (97.5gb+ to be exact.)

And i thought i knew about bytes and cloud variables.

GizzyGazzy360 wrote:

i dont support
this would cool to have more cloud variables BUT this could be solved tif cloud lists were a thing using make a block you can make all of your variables be in one list making a cloud variable be obsolete

I've noticed that it may be possible that new scratcher fake accounts may be using cloud variables. this may mean that scratch cloud variables will be deleted. so sorry gizzygary360, i wan't more too but i don't think it is possible.

Charles12310 wrote:

No Support. You do not need over 10 cloud variables for lots of projects. A few can make it function. Also it would mess up the server. I support cloud lists, but I do believe the limit of variables is fine.

VideoGamerCanInvent wrote:

CommunityAccountBJJ wrote:

Oh. I found a way to make the cloud variable limit higher, but only if your computer is glitchy

How? It would be nice to know.

VGCI

I think one method would be to open up many variable windows many times, more than 10. Then, check the cloud variable option on every window, then create the variable.

Wow… ‘he obeys scratch?’ i would like to point out that is not obeying what scratch set(from the last bit)….

Make cloud variable limit HIGER, I am trying to make a multiplayer game and I only need ONE more cloud variable for it to work.

jromagnoli wrote:

Carpit999 wrote:

Guys,
MIT is not going to add a higher cloud limit. There is something called servers.
I mentioned this before, but servers have a limited storage space.
Here. Lets say they are running on 80 GB hard drives. Western Digital has some for $20. So let's say they use that.
There is over 10 million users on scratch. Let's say, now, that each cloud variable is 10 KB for each user.
10,000,000 x 10 = 100,000,000
100,000,000 / 1000 = 100,000 MB
100,000 MB / 1000 = 100 GB
That would be $40 per cloud variable. Here would be a project with 10 cloud variables, with the same assumptions as before:
10,000,000 x 10 x 10 = 1,000,000,000 KB
1,000,000,000 / 1,000,000 = 1000 GB = 1TB
That would be 1TB for a single 10 cloud variable project. That is $260 for a SINGLE project with 10 cloud variables.
As of right now, there are 22,301,406 projects shared. What if each had 1 cloud variable, and the other assumptions are still true? Here:
100,000,000 x 22,301,406 = 2,230,140,600,000,000 KB
2,230,140,140,600,000,000 / 1,000,000 = 2,230,140,600 GB
2,230,140,600 / 1000 = 2,230,140.6 TB
2,230,140.6 / 1000 = 2,230.1406 PB
2,230.1406 / 1000 = 2.2301406 EB
2.2301406 Exobytes. That is a LOT. That would cost $1,393,840. That would be if there was exactly 10 million users, each cloud variable using 10 KB for each user, scratch used those $20 80GB hard drives for the servers, and there was 22,301,406 projects. That number would increase to a ton of money if every project had more than 10 variables.
That's why cloud variables are hard to make more than 10 of, because it would be so expensive.

You can get some 1TB hard drives for $50.

Eh, even then this data is not truly correct. So it doesn't really matter.

stickfiregames wrote:

jromagnoli wrote:

Carpit999 wrote:

Guys,
MIT is not going to add a higher cloud limit. There is something called servers.
I mentioned this before, but servers have a limited storage space.
Here. Lets say they are running on 80 GB hard drives. Western Digital has some for $20. So let's say they use that.
There is over 10 million users on scratch. Let's say, now, that each cloud variable is 10 KB for each user.
10,000,000 x 10 = 100,000,000
100,000,000 / 1000 = 100,000 MB
100,000 MB / 1000 = 100 GB
That would be $40 per cloud variable. Here would be a project with 10 cloud variables, with the same assumptions as before:
10,000,000 x 10 x 10 = 1,000,000,000 KB
1,000,000,000 / 1,000,000 = 1000 GB = 1TB
That would be 1TB for a single 10 cloud variable project. That is $260 for a SINGLE project with 10 cloud variables.
As of right now, there are 22,301,406 projects shared. What if each had 1 cloud variable, and the other assumptions are still true? Here:
100,000,000 x 22,301,406 = 2,230,140,600,000,000 KB
2,230,140,140,600,000,000 / 1,000,000 = 2,230,140,600 GB
2,230,140,600 / 1000 = 2,230,140.6 TB
2,230,140.6 / 1000 = 2,230.1406 PB
2,230.1406 / 1000 = 2.2301406 EB
2.2301406 Exobytes. That is a LOT. That would cost $1,393,840. That would be if there was exactly 10 million users, each cloud variable using 10 KB for each user, scratch used those $20 80GB hard drives for the servers, and there was 22,301,406 projects. That number would increase to a ton of money if every project had more than 10 variables.
That's why cloud variables are hard to make more than 10 of, because it would be so expensive.

You can get some 1TB hard drives for $50.

Not to mention that those calculations are completely wrong. Cloud variables don't take up space per user, they just take it up once. Even if there was a cloud variable that stored 10KB for each user of the project it's in, there's no way 10 million people would all use that project.

I would guess the actual use of cloud vars is less than one per 100 shared projects, just because of the sheer number of basic projects out there that don't use the cloud at all (see: Recently Shared). People tend to overestimate the number of cloud vars because they mainly see popular projects which are much more complex. Also, an average cloud var might take up a few hundred bytes, maybe even a few kilobytes, but not 100GB for every single one.

Assuming a 10240B cloud var for every 100 shared projects, that works out at about 2GB - which actually sounds far too low to me, but more likely than 2EB. Admittedly the figures are based on very rough guessing.

Excuse me, THIS IS ASSUMPTIONS.
Seriously, do you expect a middle school student to calculate EVERY SINGLE NUMBER? HECK NO!

Carpit999 wrote:

jromagnoli wrote:

Carpit999 wrote:

Guys,
MIT is not going to add a higher cloud limit. There is something called servers.
I mentioned this before, but servers have a limited storage space.
Here. Lets say they are running on 80 GB hard drives. Western Digital has some for $20. So let's say they use that.
There is over 10 million users on scratch. Let's say, now, that each cloud variable is 10 KB for each user.
10,000,000 x 10 = 100,000,000
100,000,000 / 1000 = 100,000 MB
100,000 MB / 1000 = 100 GB
That would be $40 per cloud variable. Here would be a project with 10 cloud variables, with the same assumptions as before:
10,000,000 x 10 x 10 = 1,000,000,000 KB
1,000,000,000 / 1,000,000 = 1000 GB = 1TB
That would be 1TB for a single 10 cloud variable project. That is $260 for a SINGLE project with 10 cloud variables.
As of right now, there are 22,301,406 projects shared. What if each had 1 cloud variable, and the other assumptions are still true? Here:
100,000,000 x 22,301,406 = 2,230,140,600,000,000 KB
2,230,140,140,600,000,000 / 1,000,000 = 2,230,140,600 GB
2,230,140,600 / 1000 = 2,230,140.6 TB
2,230,140.6 / 1000 = 2,230.1406 PB
2,230.1406 / 1000 = 2.2301406 EB
2.2301406 Exobytes. That is a LOT. That would cost $1,393,840. That would be if there was exactly 10 million users, each cloud variable using 10 KB for each user, scratch used those $20 80GB hard drives for the servers, and there was 22,301,406 projects. That number would increase to a ton of money if every project had more than 10 variables.
That's why cloud variables are hard to make more than 10 of, because it would be so expensive.

You can get some 1TB hard drives for $50.

Eh, even then this data is not truly correct. So it doesn't really matter.

stickfiregames wrote:

=Snip=

I would guess the actual use of cloud vars is less than one per 100 shared projects, just because of the sheer number of basic projects out there that don't use the cloud at all (see: Recently Shared). People tend to overestimate the number of cloud vars because they mainly see popular projects which are much more complex. Also, an average cloud var might take up a few hundred bytes, maybe even a few kilobytes, but not 100GB for every single one.

Assuming a 10240B cloud var for every 100 shared projects, that works out at about 2GB - which actually sounds far too low to me, but more likely than 2EB. Admittedly the figures are based on very rough guessing.

Excuse me, THIS IS ASSUMPTIONS.
Seriously, do you expect a middle school student to calculate EVERY SINGLE NUMBER? HECK NO!

Ok. so about those 1 TB hard drives…

They're freaking * man! There are two types of hard drives: Spinning and solid state. Spinning is cheap *. Solid state is a MUCH better investment because it is much better.

Charles12310 wrote:

No Support. You do not need over 10 cloud variables for lots of projects. A few can make it function. Also it would mess up the server. I support cloud lists, but I do believe the limit of variables is fine.

VideoGamerCanInvent wrote:

CommunityAccountBJJ wrote:

Oh. I found a way to make the cloud variable limit higher, but only if your computer is glitchy

How? It would be nice to know.

VGCI

I think one method would be to open up many variable windows many times, more than 10. Then, check the cloud variable option on every window, then create the variable.

I got like 50 this way a while ago

The ST will not increase the maximum at all if you don't give real reasons, rather than “I need them for a project”.

Botcho_Otkho wrote:

The ST will not increase the maximum at all if you don't give real reasons, rather than “I need them for a project”.

Yes and no.
I'm trying to make a lock screen for my android projects and I'll make it where you can have an account and put a PIN/password to unlock. And that requires a cloud list. Make that 2. AND I need to make googol play (lol get it 10 to the power of 100) And I need other people to post apps on that. That will take up another fraction (5/10 and 2/10). Then I need to make a chat, no not blacklist a whitelist. That takes up 1 more. And I know that games will take up 1. Another is making youtube (with sharing videos and choosing). So that is 3 more (estimating). So yeah.
2
+5
+1
+1
+3 (theoretically)
______
12

So I'd need 12 cloud variables. Yeah. Is that a reason?

And no because there are 32,363,936 people on scratch. Let's say they all make 1 project and put 4 cv (cloud variables) in it.
32,363,936 * 4 = 129455744
So 129455744 cv will be created. Then the space….



ST can make it a WHOLE lot simpler if they added cloud lists.

Birdlegs wrote:

DaSpudLord wrote:

Charmind wrote:

Williamja wrote:

Please make it 50 or 25 I need the limit higher to make my game “Rainy Day” multiplayer!

why? there is VERY EASY way to make multiplayer using only 1 cloud variable

Please don't necropost.

Necroposting on Suggestions is generally just fine. Reawaken an old idea.

Please no arguing unless its about scientific, mathematical or other types of facts.

Tommy0924 wrote:

(snip)

Yes instead.
Just imagine how much space that will take with all those users: there's a reason if the ST doesn't add cloud lists or change the limit. Where do they get the money? From you? I don't think. Please, just inform yourself about why, as I can also see that you're slightly new to Scratch.

Tommy0924 wrote:

Birdlegs wrote:

DaSpudLord wrote:

Charmind wrote:

Williamja wrote:

Please make it 50 or 25 I need the limit higher to make my game “Rainy Day” multiplayer!

why? there is VERY EASY way to make multiplayer using only 1 cloud variable

Please don't necropost.

Necroposting on Suggestions is generally just fine. Reawaken an old idea.

Please no arguing unless its about scientific, mathematical or other types of facts.

It is right to tell people that NP is allowed in suggestions.

Botcho_Otkho wrote:

Tommy0924 wrote:

(snip)

Yes instead.
Just imagine how much space that will take with all those users: there's a reason if the ST doesn't add cloud lists or change the limit. Where do they get the money? From you? I don't think. Please, just inform yourself about why, as I can also see that you're slightly new to Scratch.

Tommy0924 wrote:

Birdlegs wrote:

DaSpudLord wrote:

Charmind wrote:

Williamja wrote:

Please make it 50 or 25 I need the limit higher to make my game “Rainy Day” multiplayer!

why? there is VERY EASY way to make multiplayer using only 1 cloud variable

Please don't necropost.

Necroposting on Suggestions is generally just fine. Reawaken an old idea.

Please no arguing unless its about scientific, mathematical or other types of facts.

It is right to tell people that NP is allowed in suggestions.

Ok
I've kind of changed my answer to mostly no. But other backup variables may need to be created, and if 100000 people use a project then more backup vars will need to be created. And let's say they used 4 in their project. Then the more that view the project and use it, the more backup vars will be created. Let's say a year after the project was posted 286542 (random number) people used it. Let's say 250 tried to use it but were new scratchers. Then 286292 people actually used it. Now the data saves. 4 for other things not mentioned in this list, 6 for save vars. Then 1 year later 46578 (another random number) viewed the project after 2 years of being posted. 549 (one more random number) were new scratchers. Then 46029 people used it that were scratchers. More backup save vars. So yeah.

Plus someone said there will be cloud lists so THANK YOU ST.

Please it 20!!! I want to make a role game and my problem is the the cloud variable limit! I know it is difficult, but please try!
Yours faithfully,
ben10bnhappl

Tommy0924 wrote:

Plus someone said there will be cloud lists so THANK YOU ST.

Whoever said that, they're wrong.