Module export missing Map Tokens

[Nilliom]

Hi I'm having a problem exporting an adventure. Everything seems to be OK, but for the fact that the maps don't have the pre-positioned token from the encounters.

What could be the problem?

I'm using all of the .ext of Dr Zeuss, doing it from a new campaign and the /export command.

Thanks for you help in advance

[Trenloe]

There seems to be an issue with the /export not adding the module reference. See this thread here (https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15356) and this thread from post #9 onwards (https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15786) on ways to manually edit the module to fix this.

[Zeus]

I think Trenloe maybe correct. Default /export behaviour in 4E appears to just blindly copy campaign database nodes into a table which is then used to export to module data using the standard Module.export method. No manipulation of node data appears to take place (unless I missed something).

For standard campaign adventure images I think the Module.export method maybe hardcoded to add the module reference as I can't see this functionality in the ruleset scripts export.lua and exportmanager.lua in 4E.

Given the newer token pre-placement functionality I suspect that the Modules.export method either needs updating or the module reference needs to be added as part of the ruleset functionality before Module.export is called. I'll have a chat with JPG to figure out the best way of approaching the problem.

[Nilliom]

Thanks for your help

[Moon Wizard]

DrZ and I are chatting about this.

I have a feeling that it's going to be a combination of changes in both the FG client and the 3.5E/4E rulesets in order to get the encounter export positions working. However, I need to really dig in under the covers to see exactly what is happening.

I'm deep into the next update, so I'll add this to my list for possible inclusion in the next release. I'm hoping for a beta by the end of January. DrZ's extensions were quite a bit more complex than I originally thought, though I shouldn't be surprised. ;)

Check the Laboratory forum if you are interested in trying the beta when it's ready.

Cheers,
JPG

[Trenloe]

DrZ and I are chatting about this.

I have a feeling that it's going to be a combination of changes in both the FG client and the 3.5E/4E rulesets in order to get the encounter export positions working. However, I need to really dig in under the covers to see exactly what is happening.
While I've got you guys - a related issue to this (in terms of module export causing issues) is that the encounter (battle) node id's created are not unique to the module they start at id-00001 without a specific module name tagged on.

If I have a module with an encounter in it with an id tag of <id-00001>, open the module in my base campaign and I create a new encounter in my base campaign the encounter will include the details of the encounter from the module. If I have 2 modules open, encounter details from both modules will appear. Basically, <battle> entries with the same id across all modules merge together.

Of course, the work around is to manually change the id entries in each module - but, it would be nice if this could be addressed in a future release. Please! :)

[Zeus]

@Trenloe - does the merging of list entries still occur if you /export your module with a unique module ID? i.e. you add a unique string to the 'Merge ID' field of the /export palette before your export?

[Trenloe]

@Trenloe - does the merging of list entries still occur if you /export your module with a unique module ID? i.e. you add a unique string to the 'Merge ID' field of the /export palette before your export?
I was just looking at that - great minds think alike! :D

Unfortunately, in the 2 rulesets I've been testing on: 3.5E and Castles & Crusades, using a unique MergeID string doesn't make a difference. :(

[Zeus]

I suspect both rulesets need updating then. I can''t remember which version of FGII introduced explicit list separation of data (2.6? 2.7?) but it was a while back.

I am surprised 3.5E doesn't separate them though, given the recent updates its received. C&C is a little more understandable.

Maybe just a simple case of updating the rulesets root version in base.xml.


I'll be working on FGII 4E extensions (new and existing) all throughout tomorrow. More to come.

[Trenloe]

I suspect both rulesets need updating then. I can''t remember which version of FGII introduced explicit list separation of data (2.6? 2.7?) but it was a while back.

I am surprised 3.5E doesn't separate them though, given the recent updates its received. C&C is a little more understandable.

Maybe just a simple case of updating the rulesets root version in base.xml.


I'll be working on FGII 4E extensions (new and existing) all throughout tomorrow. More to come.
Yeah, works fine in Vanilla 4e.

So, I checked the difference between the XML files used for the encounter windows (3.5e: campaign_encounters.xml, 4e: adventure_encounters.xml). the obvious difference was that the 4e adventure_encounters.xml had :<root version="2.6"> for this file, whereas the 3.5e campaign_encounters.xml had no root version just <root>.

I put <root version="2.6"> in the 3.5e campaign_encounters.xml and the issue was fixed! Wierd...

Thanks for the pointers DrZ! :)