How do players see my modules? Module data types and distribution

[arnon]

Some questions:

If I'd set my modified modules with the common.xml file type (so that it'll update if I make any corrections/additions), will it need to load up everytime a players connects to me?

Will it be better if i send them the modules (each time i change them) and tell them to place them in the modules folder? and will that cause a long loading time like the first time a player connects?

[Griogre]

Some questions:

If I'd set my modified modules with the common.xml file type (so that it'll update if I make any corrections/additions), will it need to load up everytime a players connects to me?

Yes, it will have to be loaded each time the player connects.

Will it be better if i send them the modules (each time i change them) and tell them to place them in the modules folder? and will that cause a long loading time like the first time a player connects?

Client modules would not be need to be transfered. Which is better really is determined by the stage of your module. If you are in the constantly making changes stage then a common module is better. Once things are stable though client modules are better to avoid the transfer on connection of common modules.

Of course, you may want to use a common module to limit distribution of your data - if that is important to you.

[arnon]

So if I send my players the modules, in the Module Activation window all i'll need to do is allow them to see it, not Force Load... right?

Thanks for the answers

[Griogre]

That is correct. To allow players to open a local client module all you need to do is allow it. If the host forgets, the players can ask by attempting to open the module which sends a small message to the host that someone is trying to open the module. The host can then allow or disallow the load.

[Astinus]

Does opening a module consume memory? Or is memory only taxed when a specific image/entry in the module is opened? I'm wondering if there's any value in limiting the number of open modules in FGII, or if we can have as many open as we like without affecting system performance.

[Griogre]

I can only guess at an answer, but I would presume opening a module consumes some memory (however small modules may not actually cause the program to use any more RAM depending on how it allocates memory initially). This is based on "lag" when large modules are opened.

Most modules are text only and as long as this is true - really wouldn't take much memory on any computer able to run Windows and DirectX 9.0c. When I run I typically have open all the default d20 modules, some of the CSRD modules, a cheat sheet module, and usually an adventure module or two. That would be between 9 and 12 modules. I doubt you would see much preformace impact unless you have a computer running less than the required amount of RAM for you operating system and was running a ton of large modules.

[Callum]

Hmm on a spellbook like module I would have expected you to make it by hand not by using the /export command.

This is probably a really dumb question, but what do you mean by "make it by hand"?

[Tenian]

I assume he means open the XML file and enter the data manually, in some sort of XML/text editor (i.e. outside FGII).

[Griogre]

Yes, that's what I meant. The /export command is usually used for making adventure modules (or parts of them). Spellbook and other "library book" type modules are usually built with some sort of XML editor to avoid having listings in the varies Story, Map, Item, and Personality books. Also you can do things you wouldn't be able to do it you exported the module.

[mattcolville]

I think I've run into this problem.

What's the function of having both different types of data, but also an interface for "GM Only," "Players have access," and "force push to players?"

Because it seems based on my primitive understanding, that you kinda need to work both sides of that for it to function properly.

I feel like the FGII interface, Deny/Allow/Force covers the data types. Is there a reason it works that way?

Usually when I find something like this, where it seems like a dependent redundancy, I later discover it's that way for a reason. Figure that's about to happen here.