Fog of War / Lighting Layer

[sciencephile]

Just wondering if, with the release of 3.0, whether there were plans to create a fog of war layer so that maps could dynamically reveal what is seen by the players, based on their vision and lighting.

In my gaming experience, I have gone from MapTools to d20Pro (have GM+6 licenses) to Fantasy Grounds II Ultimate. I do think Fantasy Grounds is best overall, but the fog of war/lighting is the one major aspect of VTTs that is missing from Fantasy Grounds. While I am sure that there are other things that people want, the vision/lighting aspect is big based on the fact that every major VTT out there except Fantasy Grounds has that feature.

VTT Software that has line of sight / lighting layers:

* d20Pro
* Maptools
* Battlegrounds
* Roll20

I think if Fantasy Grounds would include this feature, they would blow away the competition. FG is best with die rolling, character sheets, and story elements. Unfortunately, the other software is best at maps. Having this upgrade would make FG best at everything :-)

I understand that making ruleset development is the major element of the 3.0 version. Just wondering if the improvements to maps that I mentioned above could be an enhancement in the near future.

Thanks,

Danny

[Nickademus]

Not sure exactly what you are talking about, but FG has something similar to both fog of war and LoS indicators (though not used just for those purposes).

The GM can turn a mask on the covers the map and then manual carved areas away from the mask simulating a fog of war. It's not automated, but then I'd rather it not be.

As for LoS and LoE, you can just use an arrow pointer to check. Run it from the corners or your square to the center or corners of the target's square to see. Again, not automated, but certainly available.

[dulux-oz]

Actually, there is some discussion going on about LOS, etc - I don't know how far along it is but I got into a brief discussion about it with others in my thread on my Pointer Toolkit in the workshop - I can't remember who it was with now, but I know we got into some reasonably detailed coding talk about it.

Yeah, here it is, it was with DrZeuss: https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?19253-Custom-Pointers-Coding-Toolkit-Over-Several-Posts

Just my $0.02 worth.

[sciencephile]

Not sure exactly what you are talking about, but FG has something similar to both fog of war and LoS indicators (though not used just for those purposes).

The GM can turn a mask on the covers the map and then manual carved areas away from the mask simulating a fog of war. It's not automated, but then I'd rather it not be.

As for LoS and LoE, you can just use an arrow pointer to check. Run it from the corners or your square to the center or corners of the target's square to see. Again, not automated, but certainly available.

As far as doing it manually, it is a royal pain in the butt to enter mask mode, manually unmask part of the map, then have to exit mask mode. Doing it once a game session is not so bad but multiple times a game gets a little annoying.

It is easy enough to allow for automation for those of us that want it and allow those of you that don't the ability to still do it manually. It is called an option. Each of the programs I mentioned allow for manual masking. The difference is that they also allow for automated removal of the fog of war.

[primarch]

Just wondering if, with the release of 3.0, whether there were plans to create a fog of war layer so that maps could dynamically reveal what is seen by the players, based on their vision and lighting.

In my gaming experience, I have gone from MapTools to d20Pro (have GM+6 licenses) to Fantasy Grounds II Ultimate. I do think Fantasy Grounds is best overall, but the fog of war/lighting is the one major aspect of VTTs that is missing from Fantasy Grounds. While I am sure that there are other things that people want, the vision/lighting aspect is big based on the fact that every major VTT out there except Fantasy Grounds has that feature.

VTT Software that has line of sight / lighting layers:

* d20Pro
* Maptools
* Battlegrounds
* Roll20

I think if Fantasy Grounds would include this feature, they would blow away the competition. FG is best with die rolling, character sheets, and story elements. Unfortunately, the other software is best at maps. Having this upgrade would make FG best at everything :-)

I understand that making ruleset development is the major element of the 3.0 version. Just wondering if the improvements to maps that I mentioned above could be an enhancement in the near future.

Thanks,

Danny

Hi!

I agree with this wholeheartedly. I understand that fantasy grounds, like most VTT's have limited resources and must marshal their time and effort in what gives the best play experience. But even according to fantasy grounds running tallying of popular features to perhaps add, dynamic lighting is number one.

I think it is high time this feature is added. Along with a lot of other.

Primarch

[Moon Wizard]

It is not part of v3.0, as other items took priority and lighting is a big project.

As I have mentioned in other threads on the topic, I am concerned that dynamic lighting will introduce lag and extra GM setup overhead (i.e. defining walls to block light source/vision). I've actually run games with other tabletops using this feature over 5 years ago (before joining up with SmiteWorks), but the overhead was a constant challenge and I eventually stopped using it. Also, another factor is that vision and lighting work differently across different game systems (darkvision vs. low light vs. dim light vs. normal light vs. outdoor sunny vs. outdoor moonlit vs. outdoor starry, etc.).

Don't get me wrong, I still want the feature, and plan to include at some point. Hopefully, I can figure out how to make it easier in the process.

Regards,
JPG

[AstaSyneri]

For me lighting and Fog of War are extremely... unimportant. I am happy with the ability to mask/unmask parts of a map, all the rest just costs resources. I'd rather have features that help me run a session more smoothly (as a GM). Everything else just makes the border between "real roleplaying" and video games porous. Which in turn might point expectations by players in the wrong directions.

Yes, I enjoy nice graphics, but in roleplaying that's not the main thing!

[sciencephile]

Thanks JPG. I understand the issue with resources. Even though this is the top desired item, it is unfortunate that there are so many others out there with the attitude of "I don't want it so it should not be an option for others" (not directed at you, JPG but others who chimed in to quash requests for features that don't directly help only them).

Perhaps a compromise would be to fix an issue with the masking that makes it a little difficult for the GM. As it currently stands, when in mask mode (to reveal the map), you cannot click on story links (pins on the map). You have to exit mask mode in order to activate a link to a story. If we could activate a link (a pin) to a story item while in mask mode, then the GM could reveal the map and activate story notes without all the having to exit and re-enter mask mode constantly. I think that would ease the pain in dealing with manual unmasking of the maps. Thanks.

[Nickademus]

I have no trouble accessing pins while in mask mode. One difference I presume is that I have pin set to holding Ctrl and I would guess you have pin set to always present. Try holding Ctrl and clicking the pin.

[Griogre]

I'd like to add my request to AstaSyneri's that we be allowed to click pins on the map in mask mode as well. For site based adventures, using the map as an adventure index can't be beat - and it is *annoying* to have to always switch out of mask mode.

[primarch]

Thanks JPG. I understand the issue with resources. Even though this is the top desired item, it is unfortunate that there are so many others out there with the attitude of "I don't want it so it should not be an option for others" (not directed at you, JPG but others who chimed in to quash requests for features that don't directly help only them).

Perhaps a compromise would be to fix an issue with the masking that makes it a little difficult for the GM. As it currently stands, when in mask mode (to reveal the map), you cannot click on story links (pins on the map). You have to exit mask mode in order to activate a link to a story. If we could activate a link (a pin) to a story item while in mask mode, then the GM could reveal the map and activate story notes without all the having to exit and re-enter mask mode constantly. I think that would ease the pain in dealing with manual unmasking of the maps. Thanks.

Hi!

Sciencephile, the attitude you mention is pervasive in almost every forum dedicated to a VTT out there. Why do you think there are still VTT's that do not even have DICE THAT YOU CAN ROLL. Like fantasy grounds does. It's like a VTT gets designed initially and there is a lot of enthusiasm for innovation and features, but once the "easy" stuff gets done a terrible inertia kicks in where the people whom like a particular VTT no longer want more "complex features". Those are the ones whom chime in saying "I don't want it so it should not be an option for others". It's a sad state of affairs.

Online gaming can be lots of things, but it should never become "fossilized" or stagnant. I struggle to come to grips that in 2013, most (if not all) VTT's still have yet to provide all three in the same package of 3d rollable dice, dynamic lighting and 3d environment (mapping).

I'd gladly pay a subscription service to get this in one all encompassing VTT. But that's probably another reason why it has not happened. Let face it gamers are cheap! They moan an groan about the price of one book, module or VTT software (which will probably give them hundreds of hours of enjoyment) and yet pay for the latest xbox title 60 bucks and play it for a handful of hours.

I really sympathize with game designers/purveyors (as well as VTT designers) that have to deal with that.

One saying that always echoes in my mind is "you get what you pay for". Perhaps that is why we are where we are.

Primarch

[Nickademus]

I'd like to add my request to AstaSyneri's that we be allowed to click pins on the map in mask mode as well. For site based adventures, using the map as an adventure index can't be beat - and it is *annoying* to have to always switch out of mask mode.

I looked for the option to set the pins always on and couldn't find it, so it must have been something I misheard from a video. Regardless, pins can be accessed in or out of mask mode. Perhaps you are encountering a layer issue with an extension you are using, in which the pins are on a different layer and not registering your click.

Without the image layer extension, the pins and mask work together just fine. Perhaps some more data on what trouble you are having?

[Moon Wizard]

I think I might be able to slip that minor change into v3.0, but I haven't actually looked at the code yet. ;)

JPG

[Griogre]

Thanks Nickademus, you helped me figure out what was bothering me. Maybe this will help AstaSyneri as well. If you are in mask mode and you have show pins on, when you move the mouse over a pin the cursor doesn't change to a "grabby" hand, nor is a pin tool tip displayed. But, the pin is actually clickable and after you click one, the tool tops will display though the cursor doesn't change from the mask cursor. This actually only seems to happen immediately after you have been masking/re-masking or when you first go into mask mode. So AstaSyneri the pins really do work they just don't always show the tool tips and they don't show a cursor change in mask mode.

Nickademus, to make the pins always show: right click and select "Layers" at 4 o'clock, then "Enable Shortcuts" at 9 o'clock. This will show the map pins until the map is closed.

[Moon Wizard]

OK, I found a couple items I will address in v3.0.
* Shortcuts are clickable when in other cursor modes, but the cursor display does not reflect accordingly. To be fixed.
* The shortcut always on mode radial option is only displayed if a shortcut has been added or displayed previously. To be fixed.

Cheers,
JPG

[Doswelk]

For me Dynamic lighting is way down the list, when we need to worry about light I plonk a Large Burst Template down, anyone inside that is lit, anyone on the edge is dim (-2) and then everyone is dark, but then SW is nice and fast like that :D

[sciencephile]

Thanks Nickademus, you helped me figure out what was bothering me. Maybe this will help AstaSyneri as well. If you are in mask mode and you have show pins on, when you move the mouse over a pin the cursor doesn't change to a "grabby" hand, nor is a pin tool tip displayed. But, the pin is actually clickable and after you click one, the tool tops will display though the cursor doesn't change from the mask cursor. This actually only seems to happen immediately after you have been masking/re-masking or when you first go into mask mode. So AstaSyneri the pins really do work they just don't always show the tool tips and they don't show a cursor change in mask mode.

Nickademus, to make the pins always show: right click and select "Layers" at 4 o'clock, then "Enable Shortcuts" at 9 o'clock. This will show the map pins until the map is closed.

It was actually me that brought this up, not AstrSyneri, but that's no big deal :-) Thank you for the info. I'm used to clickable things being a hand.

[sciencephile]

OK, I found a couple items I will address in v3.0.
* Shortcuts are clickable when in other cursor modes, but the cursor display does not reflect accordingly. To be fixed.
* The shortcut always on mode radial option is only displayed if a shortcut has been added or displayed previously. To be fixed.

Cheers,
JPG

Great! Thanks! Wow, in a roundabout way, I helped with alpha testing and didn't even know it :-)

[sciencephile]

Hi!

Sciencephile, the attitude you mention is pervasive in almost every forum dedicated to a VTT out there. Why do you think there are still VTT's that do not even have DICE THAT YOU CAN ROLL. Like fantasy grounds does. It's like a VTT gets designed initially and there is a lot of enthusiasm for innovation and features, but once the "easy" stuff gets done a terrible inertia kicks in where the people whom like a particular VTT no longer want more "complex features". Those are the ones whom chime in saying "I don't want it so it should not be an option for others". It's a sad state of affairs.

Online gaming can be lots of things, but it should never become "fossilized" or stagnant. I struggle to come to grips that in 2013, most (if not all) VTT's still have yet to provide all three in the same package of 3d rollable dice, dynamic lighting and 3d environment (mapping).

I'd gladly pay a subscription service to get this in one all encompassing VTT. But that's probably another reason why it has not happened. Let face it gamers are cheap! They moan an groan about the price of one book, module or VTT software (which will probably give them hundreds of hours of enjoyment) and yet pay for the latest xbox title 60 bucks and play it for a handful of hours.

I really sympathize with game designers/purveyors (as well as VTT designers) that have to deal with that.

One saying that always echoes in my mind is "you get what you pay for". Perhaps that is why we are where we are.

Primarch

I've noticed that too. No big deal. I too sympathize with the developers. Another aspect is that these VTT generally only have 1-2 developers, rather than a whole team like Call of Duty would. It's a niche market and from what I have seen it is these 1-2 developers that move the VTT forward, rather than let it go dead (often as side projects). Gamers are also opinionated and don't hesitate to give their opinion. I am also opinionated which is why I don't mind throwing this back at folks. I am quite reasonable and don't mind waiting.

The problem is that these types of topics seem to get lost in the quagmire of posts and even doing advanced searches don't necessarily allow you to find information (or sometimes when you do it is 5 years old). This is where I really feel sorry for the developers - having to constantly respond to posts like these :-)

[Nickademus]

Gamers are also opinionated and don't hesitate to give their opinion.)

I resent that! /opinon

There is actually a wishlist for user to put ideas on and vote for them to move them up the priority list. (Ironically, I think dynamic lighting is one of the highest in votes right now.) This makes it easier for the devs to pool information and ideals instead of having to fish through forums. The link is in a sticky around here somewhere.

[Dakadin]

There is actually a wishlist for user to put ideas on and vote for them to move them up the priority list. (Ironically, I think dynamic lighting is one of the highest in votes right now.) This makes it easier for the devs to pool information and ideals instead of having to fish through forums. The link is in a sticky around here somewhere.

You just have to find a post by moon_wizard (JPG) and check his signature to get to the wishlist.

I would like to see this feature also having come from map tools but I believe JPG made the right decision to put the changes into FG v3.0 that he did. The CoreRPG ruleset should really help keep rulesets from not keeping up on features. That also will help when he does add this feature because I am guessing it will be in the CoreRPG ruleset so any ruleset built off of it will be able to take advantage of the dynamic lighting and fog of war.

[AstaSyneri]

Even though this is the top desired item, it is unfortunate that there are so many others out there with the attitude of "I don't want it so it should not be an option for others" (not directed at you, JPG but others who chimed in to quash requests for features that don't directly help only them).


I hope you didn't read me that way ;-). I think it would be a nifty _option_. In most cases I would stick to the current version, though. My time preparing game sessions is limited, and any programmed fog of war/lighting feature would mean that I have to provide information on for example walls and where the lights come from on every map that I use. That's a lot of work. Instead of winging it suddenly you have to prepare you maps like you would build a level for a video game.

What is important to me is that such a feature never replaces the current one, thus forcing me to spend that amound of time (in addition to everything else!) on preparing adventures. If it comes as another option, fine. But in personal wish list, more tools for the GM (making the creation of modules a lot more intuitive/easy) would come way first than this gimmick.

[grimm182]

Just thinking out loud here...but Steam's client has an overlay that also allows you to view a browser. If an embedded browser could be shared like an Image in FGs could...then someone can make a web app (if it doesn't already exist) and use whatever map features they want...*including* just referencing a picture or maybe even a rules wiki. This allows the FG client to focus on ruleset automation and the gui itself and unburdens it from it being pulled into more of a 3D game type app. That data doesn't pass thru to the client...it just tells the local system to view that webpage itself. (after clicking accept of course :) )

Im sure there are technical limitations/concerns...but wanted to offer another way of looking at things. :)

[Tielc]

It is not part of v3.0, as other items took priority and lighting is a big project.

As I have mentioned in other threads on the topic, I am concerned that dynamic lighting will introduce lag and extra GM setup overhead (i.e. defining walls to block light source/vision). I've actually run games with other tabletops using this feature over 5 years ago (before joining up with SmiteWorks), but the overhead was a constant challenge and I eventually stopped using it. Also, another factor is that vision and lighting work differently across different game systems (darkvision vs. low light vs. dim light vs. normal light vs. outdoor sunny vs. outdoor moonlit vs. outdoor starry, etc.).

Don't get me wrong, I still want the feature, and plan to include at some point. Hopefully, I can figure out how to make it easier in the process.

Regards,
JPG

Thank you! You just saved me $150! I was so close to buying this, but it wasn't clear to me if they had this like Maptool. Love the Character Sheets and the Die Rollers, but unfortunately this is a critical feature for my group.

[AstaSyneri]

Thank you! You just saved me $150! I was so close to buying this, but it wasn't clear to me if they had this like Maptool. Love the Character Sheets and the Die Rollers, but unfortunately this is a critical feature for my group.

Really depends on what you are playing. The Savage Worlds tools available make GMing for me so much easier, that I can wait for dynamic lighting another ten years. It's the Intelligence of the features that make RPG online swifter that draws me to FG.

[sciencephile]

I think the GM overhead is an optional concern. If dynamic lighting were included, the GM overhead issue could be determined by each GM. Those that want to use it can use it. Those that don't want to use it, just ignore the dynamic lighting layer and move on.

The lag is the central issue here so I understand because nobody wants bloated software :)

[YAKO SOMEDAKY]

I believe the dynamic lighting is of great value, because I've had problems opening different areas of the map, as players went to different parts of the map and the dynamic light I do not have to worry about that, and about the performance of computers and internet, I believe that we all have good machines and other "VTT" cited has this feature and are not burdensome and as said, this would be an optional feature.

[Trenloe]

Iand about the performance of computers and internet, I believe that we all have good machines and other "VTT" cited has this feature and are not burdensome and as said, this would be an optional feature.
The quote from Moon Wizard was 17 months ago and referring to the single-threaded nature of the current Fantasy Grounds application, where intense operations have an adverse effect on other aspects of operation of Fantasy Grounds due to it being pretty much single threaded - graphics, automation, player connectivity/communication, dice rolling, network, etc. all have to operate in the same thread. One of the reasons to move to the Unity platform is that this single-thread limit is removed, and with the Unity graphics engine perhaps we will see some form of dynamic lighting/fog-of-war in the future.

[primarch]

Thank you! You just saved me $150! I was so close to buying this, but it wasn't clear to me if they had this like Maptool. Love the Character Sheets and the Die Rollers, but unfortunately this is a critical feature for my group.

Hi!

While I have used Fantasy Grounds for nearly 5 years without such a feature, I agree that it is "critical". It is one feature that has been sorely missed since I moved to it. I can fully understand why it is a critical feature for your group. While recently a ruleset builder has taken precedence in my personal list of feature that I require. Dynamic lighting is definitely still in the top features I desire.

Hopefully, with the move to Unity, both can become a reality and I can stop looking to other programs for what I am missing.

Primarch

[felipearmat]

The quote from Moon Wizard was 17 months ago and referring to the single-threaded nature of the current Fantasy Grounds application, where intense operations have an adverse effect on other aspects of operation of Fantasy Grounds due to it being pretty much single threaded - graphics, automation, player connectivity/communication, dice rolling, network, etc. all have to operate in the same thread. One of the reasons to move to the Unity platform is that this single-thread limit is removed, and with the Unity graphics engine perhaps we will see some form of dynamic lighting/fog-of-war in the future.

This quote is awesome! I'm pretending to buy FG ASAP, the main reason is that FG is the VTT with the highest potential to become "THE ONE VTT", dice is really nice, char sheet is awesome, all stats, bestiary and hundreds os NPC's from uncountable RPG games already ready-to-implement (for a fair price)... but that cherry that comes on top is missing, the DL. If you guys get this, be shure that you will have an new user really soon... xD

[JohnD]

This is getting silly... sock accounts to put pressure on for a feature?

[damned]

hey felipearmast - add your vote here: https://fg2app.idea.informer.com/

[felipearmat]

This is getting silly... sock accounts to put pressure on for a feature?

JohnD sorry if it did look like I was trying to put pressure on developers, that wasn't what I mean. I was trying to say that FG is by far the best VTT out there, they have everything that others lack, good interface, awesome dices, easy instalantion and configuration, cool character sheet, is modulable and much other things. Te only thing that I think it lacks is the DL.
I'm not saying I'll only buy FG if it gets DL, I'm about to buy it (got delayed by a car crash) ,just because it's the VTT with highest pottential and active staff support. I went through other VTT and the only thing that I miss on FG (Because of maptools) is the DL...

And thanks for the link to the voting page. :)

[Tielc]

This is getting silly... sock accounts to put pressure on for a feature?

Sorry, I may have dug this up and started it off again. I was searching for information regarding this, as I was looking to purchase Fantasy Grounds. I honestly felt like this post saved me from purchasing Ultimate. My group is wicked cheap, but I myself enjoy integrating tech and software into my games. This tool from 30,000 ft. looks so much better than Maptool, which we're using now. To the point I've re-worked a framework, written a translator from Hero Lab to Maptool. I liked how integrated the rulesets are, and understand this has been a big emphasis of the platform. On the otherhand that focus means, this feature doesn't exists. This feature in the end is more important to our group. We can always roll dice for anything else. I have a functional solution to bringing Hero Lab into Maptool, and I let Maptool be the Mapping software. Someday, someone is going to get all of these pieces working together properly, then they will ultimately win this arms race of VTT features.

[Vishera]

So is fog of war in works or just not going to happen?

[Griogre]

For completeness, fog of war is currently in FG with masks. Dynamic and individual lighting is high on the wish list and after the port to Unity the developers will evaluate what it would take. It's likely, IMO, that "some day" FG will have those features. But "some day" is not tomorrow or next week, or next month is my best guess.

[Nylanfs]

So, you are saying that later today is still open? ;)

[YAKO SOMEDAKY]

Lol

[Patou]

Very interesting stuff ..... i will live without dynamic lighting since we never had it to start with on our 24 x 48 inch board on the table. could you imagine a bunch of players around the table with taped paper across the face to create vision blocking.... hehe.

Looking foward to using Fantasy Grounds Full License.

[Griogre]

So, you are saying that later today is still open? ;)

Well you never know... ;)

LOL you know the whole time I was typing that TORG's intro was on my mind.


The Near Now ...
Later today, early tomorrow, sometime next week, the world began to end.

Hopefully, dynamic lighting will not end the world... :D ;)

[Surge]

The thing I want the most when it comes to maps is just a better set of drawing tools. Hell, the ability to change the width of the line to draw would be a godsend.

The (essentially) complete lack of drawing tools makes it very difficult to do on the fly locations, meaning not railroading the party is even more of a headache.

[damned]

Hey Surge I totally agree.
This is what I use when I need a map in a hurry - https://pyromancers.com/dungeon-painter-online/
You can honestly draw great stuff in here really quite quickly.
Not the right answer I know - but check it out its easy and quick to use.
Quick video on making a round tower here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpg_-fUrGnU
Why a round tower? Just to show that a square/grid/tile mapping app can still do things like circles etc :)
Making the same tower but square would take half the time and you would likely do that more often.



https://www.fg-con.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/fg-con-6-150-8.jpg (https://www.fg-con.com/events/)
FG Con 6 – April 17-19th 2015 - register at www.fg-con.com (https://www.fg-con.com/) for all the latest info.

[Andraax]

I just have a large library of maps (some I made, many I found in various locations around the web) and when I need to do an "on the fly" encounter, I grab one of those maps and drop it onto the VTT, share with the players, and off we go. I did a random encounter in my last game session, took me less than 2 minutes to set everything up. No railroad necessary.

[iemckinnon]

The fog of war is one thing that could have improvements. Even if instead of the "draw a box to reveal" method they have now, to something like the draw or erase feature in Photoshop where you have a "reveal brush" that you can use to "draw" on the masked area to reveal those parts. That way if you have a diagonal room you are not drawing a dozen boxes to just reveal the parts you want to reveal, but you can paint the area you want to reveal. It would give a lot more flexibility.

Probably my biggest gripe with FG. as it makes dungeons a real chore to do.

[Nylanfs]

Welcome to the forums and community, and yes that is one of the biggest issues with the current code base (which is about 14ish years old) and is going to be addressed in the far-offish Unity re-write.

[Andraax]

Hold shift and you can draw an arbitrary shape to reveal. Ctrl-Shift allows you to arbitrarily conceal any shape.

[Fenris4024]

Well, since this is back on the boards, I'd like to add how much easier it was to build maps and adventures in FG withOUT having to set up all the Vision Blocking and whatnots. Technology is awesome, but I'd rather be able to drop in a map as needed on the fly without having to build in the VBL's and all that. If there was a way to "magically edge detect" walls and such in the maps and then apply the VBL, it would be useful, but I still think it would be more processing power that could be used for other features. Also, think about all the "ready made" modules that are done already in the FG store. They'd have to have their maps completely redone for this system...

When the Unity port is finished, and IF they add it as an option, I might use it, I might not.

I think we need to NOT assume everyone plays on a desktop rig that was built for gaming, has a current gen graphics card, and has 16gb of RAM. I do know that there are quite a few gamers out there that play on non gaming laptops for VTT use, and I know for a fact that the added system overhead would be detrimental to those players games (If it takes you 4x as long to see the map reveal and move due to the VBL, is it really worth it?) We had this exact issue in my group when we were running another VTT that runs in a browser. Between the VBL revealing/ concealing and the browser itself eating up RAM, some of my players were having more issues with it than the setup on my end was worth, so we eventually stopped using it altogether.

Just my opinions of course.

[Ken L]

2 words:

Polygon Tool.

[iemckinnon]

Hold shift and you can draw an arbitrary shape to reveal. Ctrl-Shift allows you to arbitrarily conceal any shape.

I must have missed that, that will help.

I am all for simplicity over a super complex mapping tool or interface. a crisp interface that is clearly understood, even on a user's small laptop screen. During my Pathfinder game last night using FG2, I had a used complaining that she could not see the health dots on the monster tokens, or the status symbols because they were too small. So, I am hoping for a clean interface, I don't need 3d, where I can do my own maps, and tokens. I just want to be able to have the tools I need without a huge load on my system (I run on crossover on a Mac). I came over from D20pro because I did not see a huge future for that product. FG2 has a nicer interface, seems to do pathfinder better (though there are still some kludges), I have hopes of Paizo coming over like Wizards did, and honestly my players enjoy the little perks like the dice. I looked at the kickstarter for the next version of D20Pro, but it really looked like they were going for gimmicks, and not for a better experience/interface. I would hate to see FG2 go the same path.

[Zacchaeus]

During my Pathfinder game last night using FG2, I had a used complaining that she could not see the health dots on the monster tokens, or the status symbols because they were too small.

Go into the options and change the Token: Show enemy Effects to 'Tooltip' or 'Icons Hover' should make this easier to see.

Edit: Wait they might not be available in the PFS thing. If that is the case then switch to 5E :)

[iemckinnon]

Thanks Zacch, I did that already. I was just using the point to emphasize the need for a clean, easily understandable interface. One too cluttered, or not easily understood, distracts from the game.

I am learning about FG2 and its limitations on the message board. I am sure it will get better, and things like Hero Lab and the like may be better transferrable (especially NPCs).

[Nylanfs]

[insert plug for PCGen]

[sciencephile]

I find it discouraging that because some people do not want fog of war tools because it takes up too much of their time, they think nobody should have it.

The fact of the matter is that the idea that having dynamic lighting / fog of war reveal being processing intensive, memory intensive, or graphics intensive is a load of bunk. Most other VTTs out there have this feature and they seem to work really well. Even the cheapest of the VTTs (free - MapTools), had this feature and it worked fine. To be honest Roll20 is like a freight train, taking more and more users and new features like this might be necessary in order to get new people in.

I personally like Fantasy Grounds the best for other features and have not harped on this because I personally think that the current owners/developers of SmiteWorks have inherited a system that was not the best architecture and they have had to unravel that and improve it (version 3 was an example of this). Eventually, they will have the product in a way that they will allow for dynamic lighting / auto fog of war reveal without any issues. But then again, maybe there will always be enough of you people who think that because you don't want it, nobody should have it.

[Zacchaeus]

You are correct in that the current architecture can't support dynamic lighting and so for this feature we need to wait for the port to Unity to see if it makes an appearance then.

I think everyone is agreed that dynamic lighting would be a welcome addition and I don't see anyone saying that it shouldn't be there. What I do see is people saying that it should be optional for a variety of reasons.

[sciencephile]

Sorry, didn't mean to imply that the last 2-3 posters had that opinion, it was just a preemptive strike to those that would have started that line of thinking again. If you look earlier in the thread, there were literally people who had the opinion that if they don't want it, it shouldn't be there. I was hoping that this thread would have died down but it got resurrected and decided to post the "pro"-argument early before it once again got bogged down with the "I don't want it, it needs not to be added" surge of postings.

To be honest, if I would have had the ability, I would have deleted this entire post long ago. I'm kinda sorry I started this conversation many moons ago.

[Fenris4024]

You are correct in that the current architecture can't support dynamic lighting and so for this feature we need to wait for the port to Unity to see if it makes an appearance then.

I think everyone is agreed that dynamic lighting would be a welcome addition and I don't see anyone saying that it shouldn't be there. What I do see is people saying that it should be optional for a variety of reasons.

My apologies if I came across as saying it shouldn't be done, that wasn't my intention. My intention was that was to say that if there was a way to make it lightweight (I admit, we had never really TRIED it in Maptools, only in Roll 20), and easy to use (I.e. not requiring tons of set up time) then I'd absolutely use it, provided it didn't cause any of my players issues with their systems. I think making it an option, as Zacchaeus points out in the above quote , is the perfect solution, personally.

I also did want to point out that there are people who don't have the best systems, and that the extra processing power, if implemented with a current single threaded application as we currently have today, could cause issues on some player's systems. My own personal system, I have no worries about.

We used it to great effect in R20, but FG does everything else so much better. Which is why I am here. If it's a doable thing once the Unity port is finished, then I don't see a reason for the devs to not work on it. My previous post was merely to state that there can be extenuating circumstances as to why it might not be a good thing for everyone, and it should be an option, not a requirement.

[Fenris4024]

My apologies Sciencephile, I thought you were directing towards me... I agree, that if it can be done, it absolutely should be done and an option for people. I don't understand the "If I don't want it/ need it, then no one should have it" mentality... but such is the way of the world.

I would think that so long as whatever feature is added, be it fog of war/ lighting, or the ability to control your keg-erator from in game-- that as long as its done well, and with the same quality as we have with other features currently available, then it should most certainly be added.

May all your rolls be critical hits!

[Trenloe]

I agree that Dynamic Fog-of-War/lighting would be a nice addition - after/as part of the move the Unity.

What has been the driving point around discussion/resistance in the past has been the devs telling us that it would take lots-and-lots-and-lots of work to do. That is where the arguments against it come in - if the small dev team is doing lots-and-lots-and-lots of work on something people aren't interested in, then they're going to think that there's no work happening on stuff they are interested in. It's all people's opinions, and if they see some new functionality they really want to see being delayed/ignored because of some functionality they aren't interested in then they're going to be vocal. Just as some of the posts on this thread are vocal in wanting dynamic lighting/fog-of-war over other functionality that they're less interested in.

We all have our individual priorities based off what we play and how we play it. Smiteworks doesn't have a bottomless development pool, so things have to be prioritized and this will never please everyone.

For example, if Smiteworks took Zeuss off the 5E DMG development and told everyone: "Sorry, we're delaying the DMG release by 9 months because Zeuss is going to work on dynamic lighting" then I'm sure there'd be a lot of people up in arms and want the DMG first and dynamic lighting later, and then have other 5E priorities later on too. There'd also be a lot of people who don't play 5E or are not really bothered and would be OK with it. There'd be others who would prefer that there was no work on the DMG or dynamic lighting, but something else that they really want. There would be others who really want dynamic lighting and would want all development/bug-fixing dropped in favour of it.

We all have our differing requirements and when we feel we're missing out most of us speak up.

Oh, and please don't include "the ability to control your keg-erator from in game" in the core ruleset - I'm definitely not interested in that! A community extension would be fine... ;)

P.S. The devs have said a number of times that dynamic fog-of-war/lighting is on the roadmap after the Unity port, not before. So make the most of/get by with the tools you have now and then luxuriate in the functionality that will come sometime after the move to Unity.

[Nylanfs]

What about a button that would order and deliver your favorite pizza, I'm okay with that also. :)

[Trenloe]

What about a button that would order and deliver your favorite pizza...
Don't see FG here: https://anyware.dominos.com/ Doug needs to get in touch. Then we can have a Pizza tracker as well as a combat tracker...

[sciencephile]

...

May all your rolls be critical hits!

Unless you are the GM. Then it makes for a short campaign.

[JohnD]

I find it discouraging that because some people do not want fog of war tools because it takes up too much of their time, they think nobody should have it.

The fact of the matter is that the idea that having dynamic lighting / fog of war reveal being processing intensive, memory intensive, or graphics intensive is a load of bunk. Most other VTTs out there have this feature and they seem to work really well. Even the cheapest of the VTTs (free - MapTools), had this feature and it worked fine. To be honest Roll20 is like a freight train, taking more and more users and new features like this might be necessary in order to get new people in.

I personally like Fantasy Grounds the best for other features and have not harped on this because I personally think that the current owners/developers of SmiteWorks have inherited a system that was not the best architecture and they have had to unravel that and improve it (version 3 was an example of this). Eventually, they will have the product in a way that they will allow for dynamic lighting / auto fog of war reveal without any issues. But then again, maybe there will always be enough of you people who think that because you don't want it, nobody should have it.

Pretty sure you're misrepresenting that, but whatever helps.

[sciencephile]

Sure, your comment is noted. Thanks for that. I can sleep tonight now.

[JohnD]

Thank God for that. Insomnia is a terrible thing to endure.

[sciencephile]

I know, right? Have a good one, JohnD :)

[Pikup]

Let me take a slightly different approach on the idea that the community does not value the feature enough to warrant the development effort. You need to realize this community has already self selected for folks who don't prioritize mapping features. Mapping has always been FG's weakest feature. So groups that prioritize the visual map aspect of a VTT are off playing with other tools that give them those features.

If I'm going to run an old school dungeon crawl game I'm going to use Maptools, SyncRPG or Roll20, because I really want the look and feel on the map of a poor human carrying a torch. The character sheets will be weaker and source material will all need to be added in but I often make the decision that its worth if for the look and feel.

If I'm trying to run something like Pathfinder and running a game with broader strokes, I'm going to pick FG. I keep supporting FG because i appreciate the team and really hope they can continue to build the product into the "One VTT" to rule them all. But I do most of my playing with other tools.

Its hard to prioritize the value of a feature based on the interests of a community that has always felt the sheets, dice and tabletop are the priority. Re-read this thread and others like it and realize how many people have walked away from FG (or never purchased it to begin with) just related to the limited map features.

Just my $0.02.

Pikup

[damned]

Hey Pikup I think what you say has some merit but I disagree with other parts of it.
Yes - those that rate dynamic lighting above all other features will go where they can get dynamic lighting.

To say that dynamic lighting makes that a superior map based experience is a subjective statement. I think the maps in FG with targetting, with ranges, with auto scaling tokens, with health indicators on tokens, encounter pre-placement, with pinned encounters, pinned stories, with drag and drop attack and damage resolution and application etc i think that the mapping experience is amazing in Fantasy Grounds.

But to get back on track - ultimately I believe that the reason we dont have dynamic lighting in FG today is because of the limitations of the single threaded game engine it is built on. Every time anyone moved their token, including rotating the token, it would trigger a series of calculations and redraws which would prevent the net action - be it a dice roll or chat entry or accessing a library entry - would be delayed while the dynamic lighting calculations do their thing.

[kalnaren]

Just my thoughts as a new FG user:

I went with FG over everything else because of the "all-in-one" nature of the software, mostly the ability to speed up the clunky parts of gameplay (like combat rolls, initiative and HP tracking, things like that). I also really like the fact I can have all my campaign information in the program and linked and/or pinned to other notes and relevant maps. Considering my first campaign with it I'm running with all new players, having access to all the info they need in the program is a huge, huge plus. That's what sold me on FG over the other solutions out there. It seemed to me that the other solutions focus so much on having good battlemaps they pretty much leave everything else off the table, so to speak.

Dynamic lighting and shadows are cool, but it is incredibly expensive resource wise (if you want it to look good), and there's no simple way of doing it on a two-dimensional surface without some type of layer support. Consider the requirements to do it when using multiple clients -you'd either have to have each client re-calculate the shadow overlays for their own maps (after the host pushed the required layer data), requiring decent computers on behalf of the clients, or you have to have the host/server do all the calculations and push the overlays out to the clients when they're done. In both cases at the very least you're doubling the amount of map data you need to push to clients and requiring a re-sync every time the lighting changes. Not everyone is lucky enough to be running a $500 GPU in a desktop rig that could do those calculations very quickly and efficiently (I actually cringe to think about how long that would take on my laptop).

And that says nothing of the amount of prepwork you'd have to do on a 2D image of a map to set up every object that casts shadows and blocks light. When messing around with lighting in Campaign Cartographer -which has native, built-in support for static lighting- it takes a LOT of effort to set everything up and getting it to look right.

I think a nifty compromise could be to greatly expand the mask options, treat it as a separate object layer and allow gradient transparency. Just a thought.

Having said that, if shadows and lighting was implemented in FG I wouldn't complain. But there are other features, personally, that I'd make a lot better use of if they were implemented.

[Fenris4024]

Yup, Damned pretty much nailed my concerns there in the last paragraph-- just said it better than me.

[Pikup]

To say that dynamic lighting makes that a superior map based experience is a subjective statement. I think the maps in FG with targetting, with ranges, with auto scaling tokens, with health indicators on tokens, encounter pre-placement, with pinned encounters, pinned stories, with drag and drop attack and damage resolution and application etc i think that the mapping experience is amazing in Fantasy Grounds.


The idea that it is subjective is my point. If you felt that dynamic lighting made for a superior map based experience..... Then you would not be using Fantasy Grounds.

And I will readily admit I have no idea what the performance impact would be on the engine. But other engines have sorted that issue out. Doing a full engine re-write and not having the capacity would seem to be chasing 2010's feature set. I don't want to sound too negative. The work this team has done is fantastic. What can be done with the character sheets and trackers are amazing features.

As has been said in other posts, at a minimum I hope we can get some improved drawing and map tools. I will still continue to dream of the day when I can have my cake and eat it to and get full dynamic control over what is displayed to my players.

Pikup

[damned]

The idea that it is subjective is my point. If you felt that dynamic lighting made for a superior map based experience..... Then you would not be using Fantasy Grounds.

And I will readily admit I have no idea what the performance impact would be on the engine. But other engines have sorted that issue out. Doing a full engine re-write and not having the capacity would seem to be chasing 2010's feature set. I don't want to sound too negative. The work this team has done is fantastic. What can be done with the character sheets and trackers are amazing features.

As has been said in other posts, at a minimum I hope we can get some improved drawing and map tools. I will still continue to dream of the day when I can have my cake and eat it to and get full dynamic control over what is displayed to my players.

Pikup

I think you will see a lot of the popular requests on the wishlist will be able to be and will be supported (in time) on the Unity build.
I think Dynamic Lighting is one of those that will become part of the system in the future.

With Carl from TableTopConnect joining with Fantasy Grounds this will help the Unity projects realisation and Carl has some really nice features - and ideas - that will hopefully be incorporated into the next FG application.

Drawing tools and layers are also likely improvements - again these might not arrive with the first Unity client but I think that they will appear sooner rather than later.

I too hope I didnt sound too negative in my reply to you - it certainly wasnt meant to be a negative response - I was posting at the end of a long week!

[senjak]

I'd love to see the ability to print out character sheets for the players. My players love to be able to look over what they have and what they can do while waiting for their turn.

[Andraax]

I'd love to see the ability to print out character sheets for the players. My players love to be able to look over what they have and what they can do while waiting for their turn.

So, why don't they just bring up their character sheet on the screen?

[damned]

I'd love to see the ability to print out character sheets for the players. My players love to be able to look over what they have and what they can do while waiting for their turn.

Please vote for it on the wishlist. I know Doug has mentioned a couple of times that it is something he would like to get implemented...

[Patou]

Could light from a torch or spell be set to a token? therefor is your map is currently masked; the DM or player who has that torch or spell on them could move it along the map revealing what is necessary (light & dim light area). All this is a token property. The rules of that token are set by the person using the item or casting the spell (range; area of effect).

The only problem I see is that on the map certain masking rules would have to be set to block off the effects of that token's properties.

I would have tried it with the token tool by using a transparent background but I wouldn't be able to get past the masked area. (the masked area also hides the token)

Cool idea.... doable... oufff??

[Griogre]

It is not possible to have this happen automatically. You could move the token around manually to use as a template on where to unmask the map, though it's probably easier to just use circle pointers for this and move them since you don't have to worry about losing the pointer under the mask.

[Patou]

However the pointer does not remove the mask as you move it around correct. you would have to draw (unmask) that area as the pointer is moved?

[Griogre]

Correct, there is no way right now to have automatic unmasking or re-masking. It is one of the most requested features, but it won't be implemented until after FG is ported over to use the unity engine.

[Patou]

Correct, there is no way right now to have automatic unmasking or re-masking. It is one of the most requested features, but it won't be implemented until after FG is ported over to use the unity engine.

Thanks :)

[bullywug]

Just a little FYI:
Fantasy Grounds just purchased Tabletop Connect. I did a little beta testing on this product for its creator to test touch screen compatibility and it's a very competent VTT. According to his updates he's been providing he now works for Fantasy Grounds. I think they got the message that their VTT was painfully out of date. It's clear the software was created by someone who used it as it's got some great features and can do anything I've come across in my adventures. It makes running games fast and interesting.
The only problems with Fantasy Grounds have to do with the out dated VTT and the inconsistent and unconventional UI. Other than that my gripes are all little nit picking things like having to type numbers in front of story elements and heaven forbid you ever need to move a story element around in order. But it works and it mostly works very well. If they fix my big two gripes then I think you'll stop seeing the flaming in the forums. Okay, maybe not stop but greatly reduce.