More priorities for files in torrent.
When i downloading torrent and there is for example 100 files, i can set priority to first file high and second normal and all other files have low priority.So it will be downloading in order -first file, second file and all the rest.
It would be good to make more priories for files like queue for torrents.
For example i am downloading torrent with 100 files and set order of files - first whole file _01.avi, after downloaded _01.avi download 02.avi, later 03.avi and so on and not how it is now - part of every file.
I'd like the new "prioritize by file order" feature to automatically update as files complete. Number of files to include in each category should be user-defined as well, so I can specify how many high/medium priority files I want.
16 priorities have been added. It’s an extra option in UI Settings.
Also, there’s a feature to auto-prioritize the selected files.
16 priorities is better than 3, but it should work like queuing does in the torrent list. Numbered order. So, if there are 100 files, uTorrent would download 1, then 2, then 3, until each one was individually downloaded, with you being able to move items up or down the queue (with a dropdown, unlike the torrent list where you have to click up, up, up, up.....).
Ok, thanks, it works nice.
BUT - when for example there is 30 files, i select all of them and give - PRIORITIZE BY FILE ORDER there is:
and when this what has number 15 has DONE (downloaded) next in order which have 1 (after 2 in above queue) should jump to be 2 and this which have 14 should be new 15.
So i dont have manually after few hours select all not yet downloaded and again prioritize by file order.
This queue should be automatically jumping if file finished priority of next file UP.
The feature should be there from the start, but it's what I've always wanted.
Thank you Firon.
could you tell me when it will be available in normal (not alpha nor beta) version ? because alpha versions are banned on most trackers.
what version has it???
yes, where is this new option ?
Mehdi Baha commented
Yeah sure, infinite priorities would be better mais thank you so much anyway for applying this idea, and the fact that a few people now this feature only helps us more !
@Firon, why not make an option to choose between auto-prioritize OR manual 16 priorities, with auto-prioritize on DEFAULT?
IDEA: Add a view that lets you drag and drop active torrents to prioritise them.
Wouldn't it be the best to have an unlimited number (or one uint^^) of priorities with a default of maybe three?
For Example if I download a series of 35 Movies and plan to watch them one after another, I could just give priority in this order, with the highest (or lowest, however) to the one which I want to watch first. If there are only 16 priorities, I can sort the 15 first Movies and then, once their finished, the next 15...
e cel mai tareeeeeeeeee
asa va vreau e cel mai bun lucru posibil
Roberta Hardy commented
Fantastic! Thank you very much, µTorrent developers, we're much obliged to you.
GREAT STUFF! I was thinking 8 levels, but double that, HELL YEAH!
Heh. I know exactly what you want and my response was directed at that. A number system is just a way (albeit probably the best way) to add additional prioritization options. I once wanted that option as well. I have since recognized, however, that additional prioritization options would be very likely to harm torrent health, unless the torrent was already very large/stable/healthy. This is, as far as I know, the number one reason why developers haven't implemented it thus far, and probably won't do so in the future.
"It would only be a hit in performance for people that use the feature"
I'm sorry, but that is false. It operates counter-productively to the way torrents were intended to work (which is an equal distribution of pieces). Simply put: unequal availability of pieces yields inefficient distribution.
Like I said, it would be possible to implement if uTorrent could reliably ascertain the health of a torrent. This would require accurate stats from the tracker and ultimately an arbitrary "health" threshold. To quote myself:
"If [those issues] could be addressed, then I suppose prioritization options on torrents of known good health could be a reasonable addition, provided the amount of prioritization options is proportional to the health of the torrent."
While this seems like a great feature, I do agree that it would harm the health of swarms.
Multi-file torrents are designed as a "package" for those files. Torrent creators are responsible for determining what belongs in that package. Unfortunately, sometimes torrent creators don't package torrents very well. Nevertheless, the goal of a torrent is to distribute *all* of the files in the package.
We already abuse this by selecting some files to download and others not. It is a natural thing to do when faced with large torrents. I do it myself even. We must remember, however, that large torrents are already a method of convenience for downloading a lot of content at once. Theoretically, most of the content should be in separate torrents, but we (as a community) have frequently chosen the convenience of a large torrent, often/possibly over a more healthy set of small torrents. Of course, sometimes this can even be good for the health of a large torrent, but only on the assumption that most people who download a torrent desire all of the contents.
My concern is that, if more prioritization feature are implemented, we'll see a lot more "partial involvement" in the all the content of larger torrents (at least during the download process period). In effort to avoid this, torrent packagers may start pre-packaging even more than they already do (including giant do-it-yourself RARs for non-scene releases [no splits/SFV/NFO]), thereby forcing you to download the complete torrent before you even know the contents. It irks me (and I suspect most people) when the contents of a torrent aren't clearly visible in the file list. And, of course, this would stop even the "less harmful" prioritization we use now.
The only case I can see allowing additional prioritization options is if the torrent is already very healthy. Of course, this would require both an accurate/truthful tracker, as well as a well-thought-out method for uTorrent to determine health on its own (which would inevitably involve setting some sort of standard/arbitrary threshold). These two things are problematic. If they could be addressed, then I suppose prioritization options on torrents of known good health could be a reasonable addition, provided the amount of prioritization options is proportional to the health of the torrent.
Don't get me wrong--part of me really would like this feature, but implementing it blanket-wide on all torrents could seriously harm the health of less popular swarms.
Kelly Larsen commented
I used to think along these lines but the issue is some files are going to have much more seeds than others and I think it will hurt overall performance.
David Levene commented
You could integrate this function within the main window: you could click a little "+" button next to the torrent and this would expand all the files within, and then you could order them in a similar way you can already order your torrents?
A nice prioritization method would be a number based on the total files from all torrents combined.
With a scroll feature that's proportional to the number of files, for mousewheel.
So if there are 100 files,moving mousewheel would use 5 steps.
If there are 1000 files, moving mousewheel would use 50 steps.
Scroll bar on the side always uses 5 step, if applicable.
If file from torrent is complete, eliminate one from all priorities and reduce
number of files with 1.
Also addition of one more priority to the numbers, like "First", which can be
set on multiple files.
A really good feature would be to have an "automatic" priority.
Automatic prioritization should take two approach:
First, Files with almost similar strings but with different/sequential number within their names (in the same folder/location of the torrent) would be detected and the file with a lower number will be downloaded prior to the file with a higher number.
file with name "something anything part 1 other things.ext" will be downloaded prior to "something anything part 2 other things.ext"
file with "something 001.ext" or "something 1.ext" will be downloaded prior to "something 002.ext"
Second, (after having first requirements met, if applicable) files of smaller sizes in a torrent will be downloaded prior to files with large sizes. somewhere in the preference settings, users may be allowed to define a particular size limit. Below that defined size, files will be treated as small files and above that defined size, files will be treated as large files, by the client.
I hope I'm clear.
Finally, I guess this will also solve the some user's problems who are wanting 1-x priorities. Nonetheless, some (including myself) might still want to set their orders entirely manually.
[Disclaimer: I'm not a developer, but have somewhat advanced understanding of programming. I know these are doable but then again these might translate into a lot of work for the developers and surely are not as easy as it was for me/us to write. But, if done, these will make utorrent a great client.]