the test script, and the product..

This module only works with attached images?

With all image files, which exist physically on the server and are handed over by the vB attachment system.

How?s the progress on this going?

Which version of vbulletin are you testing this on?

Nice mod. I look forward to the next update :)

The plugin hooks into the vbulletin attachment system, before the attachment image gets displayed.
The mod takes the image data either from database or file system according to your vB config, applies the watermark image, caches the image file for next request and prints the image to the screen.

Developed from version 4.0.8 to 4.1.3, basically it *should* work for 4.x.x

how about performance? Anyone using this Hack on a big board?

where are the images cached?

When will this mod be stable?

This remains to be tested.
The image processing should be quite performant, if you choose a bigger cache size, the images only need to be processed once and can then be viewed 100+ times without the need to re-process them.

In the file system, you can specify the cache directory yourself.
Idealy, it should remain outside the httpdocs directory.

It is marked as "Beta" because people were reporting behaviour I could not reproduce.
If it works for your configuration, you can consider it "stable".
I suggest to test it in a safe environment with the same webserver configuration and see if all works as intended.

Whoa I just tried this and now none of my images are visible on my site that were in threads? What happened? How do I fix this?

Is there a way that we can set in the option to have the watermark in random position between the four corners of the image(Top Left, Top Right, Bottom Left, and Bottom Right)?

This is a usual issue if any kind of errors appear.

Do you see the watermark in the adminCP settings page? Or is there no image at all?
Do you see any warning symbols in the product's settings?

You can PM me your forum data so I can take a look myself. I guess it's just a configuration issue.

Not right now. Since images are cached, it wouldn't be a very useful functionality IMHO.