What is the likelihood that we'll see a 'vision' feature?

[Jwguy]

I've been having a great time with Fantasy Grounds, along with a great number of friends who join me every saturday to play our campaigns. We used to play with Maptools (https://www.rptools.net/?page=maptool), and we did alright with it, but we recently switched to Fantasy Grounds because we like how Fantasy Grounds handles a lot of rolls and tables for us, along with all the neat features that come along with it.

Unfortunately, one of things that Fantasy Grounds seems to lack, rather completely, is any kind of support for vision for individual characters. Honestly, the masking tools are ultimately 'okay', but they really take some of the fun and neatness out of the game for our players, when previously our sorcerer would interact with the rest of the group, checking around corners for tossing a fireball into a room a few feet ahead. My players wouldn't be aware of certain things, or all of a rooms' contents until they literally walked in and saw it, and even then, it wouldn't have to become visible to all players instead of just that one, as it should be.

I get that Vision might be a tough thing to pull off, considering everything it'd require, from the DEV side of things, but consider that Maptools, a... rather incredibly lightweight java program manages to do so, and then give players customization of said vision variables, with relative ease. I don't think it would be too unfair to ask that perhaps such a feature would be possible and desired for the good and fun program that is Fantasy Grounds. It'd be great for my campaign, and I'm sure it'd also be great for many others.

Looking on the idea tracker, this (https://fg2app.idea.informer.com/proj/?ia=62870) appears to be the only similar entry, though, and it doesn't appear to have had much discussion or notice. I might be wrong, and I'll accept that, but this just kind of feels like it should be a fundamental feature.

[Trenloe]

This is another one: https://fg2app.idea.informer.com/proj/?ia=40907

Items like these have been discussed on the forums before. The general consensus is that yes, it would be a nice to have, but as something like this would take a lot of development time the general user base would prefer that precious development time be spent elsewhere. This doesn't mean that the developers are not looking at it, or considering it for future releases - give it a vote and keep it towards the top of the list...

[Jwguy]

Well, it is definitely good to see that this is a little higher than I had hoped. I admit, I had thought of something a little different from vision when I saw "dynamic light sources".

Still, in response, I can appreciate the different in opinion, and that it would take some work, but it just feels like a fundamental feature that is missing, especially when something like Maptools can pull it off. The lack of such a feature, even if it wasn't dynamic, just kind of takes a lot of the wind out of the sales of my players since it has become loads easier to play in ever-present sunlight and hive-mind vision, effectively, than to actually attempt to restrict vision to certain players and show different features to different players based on their sight abilities.

[Nickademus]

Also, I got the impression that a large percentage of the active GMs wouldn't use this due to the extra work required to set up lighting. This might also contribute to SW's reluctance.

[Griogre]

Yeah, I know I wouldn't bother to set up light blockers 98% of the time. With the 2% for con games or some special scenario - it would just be additional prep time I don't want to spend for most RPGs. However, a few years back we played an "Aliens" scenario in MapTool with individual and facing lighting that was a lot of fun.

[Doswelk]

I look at it this way......

FGII is supposed to recreate the tabletop feel of an rpg whilst playing over the internet.

i haver created a hand drawn map that could sho me true line of sight or vision radius therefore I do not see FGII needing it either.

But that does not mean no-one else does, it just strikes me as more prep time, which I do not have that's why I play Savage Worlds. But if you need it and FGII did support it then great, but I can think of other things I'd rather have...

[Valarian]

The thing I like about Fantasy Grounds is that it's not map-centric. Other tools, Maptools among them, focus on the map to the detriment of other important features. Great for tactical play, but fairly useless if you don't use a map very often or just use a map to help visualise the scene. I like that Fantasy Grounds focusses the attentions on the character sheet and NPC sheets. After all, in a roleplay game aren't the characters the most important feature?

[Bidmaron]

FG2 well supports both role and roll play. Those are its strengths. I don't think we'll see advanced map features any time soon, but that's just because I hope we see other functionality first focusing on FG's strengths.

[grimm182]

Stick FG and Maptools in the same room with some wine and some Barry White then wait for the MAGIC to happen...

[Jwguy]

Also, I got the impression that a large percentage of the active GMs wouldn't use this due to the extra work required to set up lighting. This might also contribute to SW's reluctance.

Yeah, I know I wouldn't bother to set up light blockers 98% of the time. With the 2% for con games or some special scenario - it would just be additional prep time I don't want to spend for most RPGs. However, a few years back we played an "Aliens" scenario in MapTool with individual and facing lighting that was a lot of fun.

Huh. I've always set up light blockers in maps when my groups used maptools, and that was for a good few years. I never found it to be all that hard or time consuming as you both seem to perceive it as. I also kind of find that kind of preparation to be the responsibility of the GM, in the first place; Me and My players have always operated on a level of mutual trust and responsibility, which has always assisted in making our games all the more fun.


I look at it this way......

FGII is supposed to recreate the tabletop feel of an rpg whilst playing over the internet.

i haver created a hand drawn map that could sho me true line of sight or vision radius therefore I do not see FGII needing it either.

But that does not mean no-one else does, it just strikes me as more prep time, which I do not have that's why I play Savage Worlds. But if you need it and FGII did support it then great, but I can think of other things I'd rather have...

I'd say that the reason you never ran into the need to use true line of sight or vision radius on your hand-drawn maps is purely because they were hand-drawn. Anything that a player could see could be revealed simply by going ahead and drawing it, I suppose, but that would also lack a level of complexity that I feel would detract from the overall experience. Ultimately, by treating players as if they have a hive-vision thing going on, and letting them all see the same things, at the same time, you're just devaluing their individual strengths and abilities, and essentially demolishing a feature of the game in the interest of simplicity.


The thing I like about Fantasy Grounds is that it's not map-centric. Other tools, Maptools among them, focus on the map to the detriment of other important features. Great for tactical play, but fairly useless if you don't use a map very often or just use a map to help visualise the scene. I like that Fantasy Grounds focusses the attentions on the character sheet and NPC sheets. After all, in a roleplay game aren't the characters the most important feature?

Well, I realize that it's not the same for everyone, but I use grid-based maps whenever possible. My player enjoy having a tangible world and a representation of themselves in that world. That's not to say that I don't sometimes streamline things (We don't really use double-movement across miles of distance. Overland works fine), but I use them whenever there would be a situation when a player expects to be able to inspect and move about in their environment cautiously, such as in Dungeons, or other dangerous places; The places where this feature would get the most use. While I suppose it is possible to play without maps in those situations, I think it might be a bit callous to discard their potential for impacting a great amount of your play and experience in such areas.


FG2 well supports both role and roll play. Those are its strengths. I don't think we'll see advanced map features any time soon, but that's just because I hope we see other functionality first focusing on FG's strengths.

I can appreciate that, and clearly, you're not alone in your opinion. I also am happy to see that, outside of the forum voices, and at least on the idea tracker, I appear to not be alone in my own opinion (Yay, Third Place~). I also kind of feel like it should be a basic feature in regards to mapping, but I primarily use 3.5e, so it may be a bit biased; I also feel that it is more appropriate to build a good foundation before dealing with any kind of specialization, in most facets of life and games, but that's me, I suppose. X3

[damned]

I think it would definitely add to the atmosphere in many situations and more so in some genres than others.

I wonder if it would also encompass something like the situation that happened 2 sessions ago in my group. During an ambush that involved a mostly dry creek bed and lots of cover and combatants entering the map at different stages pretty much at no time in a 12 round combat could all players see all the same enemies. Of course they could see them on the map but I would be telling player B that he sees another troll entering from the west but none of the other players have see it, or the wizard who was on top of a boulder could not see another enemy almost directly below him because of line of sight etc.

For the maptools users - if we did have the ability to show different views/masks of the scene for each character - how does that impact combat? All the other players would still "see" via the combat tracker that you were fighting someone they couldnt see. It would enhance game play but still your descriptions and interactions with the players are what makes the game.

In the last session I kept sending whispers to a player that his character couldnt respond - his mind was unable to respond to the particular situation - the player didnt see my whispers so I muted him on TeamSpeak until he got the idea :) I could have told him out loud but that would also "give something away".

Definitely vote for it - you are right its not quite the same as dynamic light sources but it could/would hopefully be implemented at the same time...

[Bidmaron]

Per person vision wouldn't work if the person plays more than one character. Or you'd have to rely upon the player not to take advantage of whAt his other character sees.

What about olfactory senses? Why focus on vision? Point is thAt we have the tools to whisper now and the huge graphics overhaul to support this is not IMO worth it. Even then it would be 2d and the canyon example really couldn't be supported without 3d maps.

[kane280484]

I support this strongly. I can live on without this feature but it'd make Fantasy Grounds almost perfect tool. BTW I am new here, is there a topic somwhere that consists development plans/ideas?

[damned]

Welcome aboard kane!
Not a thread here but a place where you can vote on features and can add your own for others to vote on...
https://fg2app.idea.informer.com/

In the meantime get on over to https://www.fg-con.com/events and sign your group up for a session of something different :)

[dulux-oz]

And don't forget to check out the Tutorial Videos on the Wiki (or directly from my sig, below)

And Welcome!

(Another "Shameless Tutorial Video Plug" ™ brought to you by Dulux-Oz's Shameless Tutorial Video Plugs, Inc, a division of Dulux-Oz's Shameless Plugs for Fantasy Grounds) :p

[Jwguy]

Per person vision wouldn't work if the person plays more than one character. Or you'd have to rely upon the player not to take advantage of whAt his other character sees.

What about olfactory senses? Why focus on vision? Point is thAt we have the tools to whisper now and the huge graphics overhaul to support this is not IMO worth it. Even then it would be 2d and the canyon example really couldn't be supported without 3d maps.

That's true enough, but it seems like it'd be fairly simply to restrain vision with a hook in the Combat Tracker, and even without that, consider the last part of your statement: "Or you'd have to rely upon the player not to take advantage of whAt his other character sees."

That already happens with the current model, and with all players. Because of a blanket "no one can see, everyone can see" mask feature, that's pretty much a constant of the environment. Even if your scenario played out the way you think it would, I'd much rather have to deal with one player who controls a few characters, than all players.

Secondly, regarding Olfactory Senses and the Focus on Vision; The focus on vision is because it is a primary sense, and one of the few things a player can relate to the world with, and will actually influence them on a more instinctive level. They understand what they can see, fairly instinctively, by looking at a map. A player cannot "smell" what is on the map, nor can they "taste" or "feel" it, which requires the DM to act as a go-between and elaborate on these descriptors to help the player develop an understanding. It is quite a few steps more than implementing vision, and would require more to sufficiently impart the same knowledge and understanding that vision does. Vision is simpler, and communicates more effectively, making it a worthy focus. Secondly, few characters might actually be able to smell something, and even if they all can, then it simply can be communicated in chat. Given how the masking system works, if you reveal anything from a mask, you reveal it to all players; That hinders and flattens the field of capabilities that these characters are capable of. Different types of vision or circumstances in those situations no longer matter, because everyone can see either everything, or nothing. Furthermore, the inclusion of vision "cones" would allow much deeper play: A sorcerer throwing a fireball into an open room might not see the prisoners around the corner who are also affected, or a player moving into an abandoned house while chasing a thief might not immediately go to his friend's last location if said friend is incapacitated. And what's worse, even if you attempt the GM-mode "But your character isn't aware of this" explanation, the knowledge that something happened will subtly, and sometimes not-so-subtly, influence the player's actions from there-on. This gameplay allows you to not have to metagame in order to make sure that basic functions of sight are applied: Which feels like something that a program like Fantasy Grounds ought to be used for.

Lastly, you're correct in stating that this would not help in 3D maps such as the canyon mentioned previously; That would require a fundamental difference in how the maps work. It would, however, tremendously benefit the 2D side of things, and make facing matter in much more than just some elements of combat. It doesn't require a huge graphics overhaul, though it is possible you mean something different by that, to pull off; Just the functionality and a set of variables that we would have control over... wrap it into the player characters only, and make those variables represent a cone that unmasks what they can see. That's all that is necessary.

That all said, thankfully, we appear to be in second on the Idea Tracker, now. If that is still being used, hopefully this new status will provide fruit!

[Bidmaron]

The overhaul would be huge if you want to account for obscuring objects. If all you want to do is create a cone (semi-circle? what would it be? would you have to define peripheral vision limits too? How would you know which way the player is looking?) of vision that doesn't have to know anything, then, you are right, there would be no graphics overhaul, but you'd have to support n-layers of masking. Plus, you'd be relying that each player had their own screen to keep other players from seeing what the other players see. I don't think people are asking for a simple cone - they want obscuring object aware line of sight. If that's not want you want, you can control vision right now - simply load copies of the map and mask it for each player and reveal it to only one player.

[Jwguy]

The overhaul would be huge if you want to account for obscuring objects. If all you want to do is create a cone (semi-circle? what would it be? would you have to define peripheral vision limits too? How would you know which way the player is looking?) of vision that doesn't have to know anything, then, you are right, there would be no graphics overhaul, but you'd have to support n-layers of masking. Plus, you'd be relying that each player had their own screen to keep other players from seeing what the other players see. I don't think people are asking for a simple cone - they want obscuring object aware line of sight. If that's not want you want, you can control vision right now - simply load copies of the map and mask it for each player and reveal it to only one player.

I suppose you have a point. For what it is worth, the cone/circle items could be controlled via variables that a player/GM could configure. If you need an example, go check out Maptools; They have a really great function for this type of thing. Cones are controlled via facing and a radius value controls circle-sight. If you don't have a clear idea of what we're talking about or what kind of settings are expected, that'd not be a bad place to start, really.

For what it is worth, one of the other high-vote items in that item tracker happens to be just that, though: Multiple Layers. It appears that fulfilling two of the biggest demanded features in one go wouldn't be so bad, in my opinion, especially considering all the options and good it will bring to the game. And again, the argument that characters could possibly undermine this system to gain knowledge they would not already have is a rather flawed one, especially since the current system is worse and said exploits are available to all players by default, in that regard.

[Bidmaron]

You missed my last sentence. You can selectively reveal to each player right now. Simply load a copy for each player, share each map with only one player and mask what you want/don't want. It's not automatic, but the automatic doesn't work anyway (who sees in a cone for God's sake?).
All you have to do is whisper to the player what he sees. I just don't see this as the killer feature you do, but to each their own....

[Trenloe]

I think it certainly would be a nice to have. I've used maptools and made use of the dynamic lighting and liked it. But remember that maptools was designed from the ground up with the focus on the maps (that's why it is called maptools), Fantasy Grounds was not designed with the main focus on the map. For those who really want it, don't underestimate the amount of development time this would take - it will require a complete rewrite of how images are currently handled in Fantasy Grounds, and that rewrite will have to keep backwards compatibility with all of the rulesets, extensions and modules that currently exist for Fantasy Grounds. That is significant work.

The devs have mentioned in other posts that they are looking at the possibility of a new images/graphics engine for Fantasy Grounds, so I would imagine that some new features would be available with whatever engine is selected, integrated into the FG application and API, tested and then deployed. Still a lot of work for the devs to do, taking them away from all of the other features that the community is clamoring for; and it certainly would not happen overnight.

[Jwguy]

You missed my last sentence. You can selectively reveal to each player right now. Simply load a copy for each player, share each map with only one player and mask what you want/don't want. It's not automatic, but the automatic doesn't work anyway (who sees in a cone for God's sake?).
All you have to do is whisper to the player what he sees. I just don't see this as the killer feature you do, but to each their own....

Coming back to this after a while of doings of many other things, and having forgotten it was happening.

For what it is worth, I didn't miss your last sentence, I just didn't think it needed addressing and did not pursue it; That really feels like a hugely complicated and somewhat silly way to approach the issue, in my opinion, and it wouldn't really address all the same issues that the dynamic lighting would. It would also require a massive amount of coordination and downtime, considering that you would have to manipulate every item on the map for each player, including their masking layers, which suffer from only allowing rectangular polygons to be masked/unmasked (or so I've been able to find; I can't seem to find any other polygons to toggle the sight with).

Also, to answer your parenthetical question, Humans see in a cone. Yours, and my, vision start directly in front of our eyes, and expand from there, creating a cone. Yes, you can crane and turn your neck to move that cone (as a player can rotate their facing on a token to move their vision), but you ultimately still see in a cone at any given time, as would any creature with eyes similar to ours (I.E., most player characters).

As for your parting words, I don't think that it should be the end-all of features, but I just don't think it has the little value you and others seem to assign to it (not universally, of course); Given it's potential and effect on roleplay, gameplay, and how it allows player and his GM to interact with the fantasy world, I feel as though I'm defending its tremendous benefit to Fantasy Grounds, though I simultaneous endeavor to support it becoming a feature.


I think it certainly would be a nice to have. I've used maptools and made use of the dynamic lighting and liked it. But remember that maptools was designed from the ground up with the focus on the maps (that's why it is called maptools), Fantasy Grounds was not designed with the main focus on the map. For those who really want it, don't underestimate the amount of development time this would take - it will require a complete rewrite of how images are currently handled in Fantasy Grounds, and that rewrite will have to keep backwards compatibility with all of the rulesets, extensions and modules that currently exist for Fantasy Grounds. That is significant work.

The devs have mentioned in other posts that they are looking at the possibility of a new images/graphics engine for Fantasy Grounds, so I would imagine that some new features would be available with whatever engine is selected, integrated into the FG application and API, tested and then deployed. Still a lot of work for the devs to do, taking them away from all of the other features that the community is clamoring for; and it certainly would not happen overnight.

I apologize if it seems like I'm asking for the impossible: This thread, nor have any of my posts, been made with the intention of requesting my personal pet feature to be implemented at this very moment.

Originally, I just kind of wondered whether it was being looked at or if there was any kind of talk about adding it, since I, myself, find great interest in the feature and would be really stoked to hear that it'd be implemented (related, I also feel that it would benefit the program greatly and just be altogether fantastic). Beyond that, I just got swept up in disbelief with the amount of what appears to be a mixture of apathy and negativity. It just seems to me that there is much more potential and capability in the function than it is being given credit for, though I acknowledge the matter of development being a costly thing.

[damned]

@Jwguy - roleplaying games are played by people like us because they give us so much freedom to do things *our* way which is most obviously the *best* way!
everyone has different wants and needs - many people dont even use tokens and maps - or they use maps as reference items but dont use them tactically.

it is definitely a feature that would enhance the product. the negativity or apathy you are feeling is more (I think) a reflection of each individuals own desires for the product and how it fits for them. as you can see in the feature voting it is right up there but on the other hand the devs have indicated its not easy with the current graphics engine. changing the graphics engine could very possibly result in breaking a huge amount of existing code which could outweigh its benefits...

dont feel that any apathy or negativity is directed at you or your ideas!

[Jwguy]

@Jwguy - roleplaying games are played by people like us because they give us so much freedom to do things *our* way which is most obviously the *best* way!
everyone has different wants and needs - many people dont even use tokens and maps - or they use maps as reference items but dont use them tactically.

it is definitely a feature that would enhance the product. the negativity or apathy you are feeling is more (I think) a reflection of each individuals own desires for the product and how it fits for them. as you can see in the feature voting it is right up there but on the other hand the devs have indicated its not easy with the current graphics engine. changing the graphics engine could very possibly result in breaking a huge amount of existing code which could outweigh its benefits...

dont feel that any apathy or negativity is directed at you or your ideas!

I appreciate you being so friendly in this manner, and certainly, I'd say you're probably right. I guess I am just passionate about the idea. My group played for years on Maptools before migrating to Fantasy Grounds II, and it is the only thing missing (Though we'd not trade the whole of Fantasy Grounds for it, alone, necessarily). It really made a lot of amazing and wonderful encounters. I used to enjoy just making maps for my campaign and thinking about how the vision component would alter gameplay (Our rogue especially loved being able to dash behind objects, and my players adored being able to catch glimpses of things through the narrow spaces between crates and the like).

I recognize the risks, and the time it would take to develop, though, I do. Here's hoping we can see it in the future, at some point, even if not soon. Something to look forward to, perhaps.

[Andraax]

Also, to answer your parenthetical question, Humans see in a cone. Yours, and my, vision start directly in front of our eyes, and expand from there, creating a cone. Yes, you can crane and turn your neck to move that cone (as a player can rotate their facing on a token to move their vision), but you ultimately still see in a cone at any given time, as would any creature with eyes similar to ours (I.E., most player characters).

Actually, it's 3D vision that is a cone. When you include peripheral, monocular vision, human eyesight (barring vision problems) actually extends more than 180 degrees.
6399

[Jwguy]

Actually, it's 3D vision that is a cone. When you include peripheral, monocular vision, human eyesight (barring vision problems) actually extends more than 180 degrees.
6399

Ha, I was wondering if that was going to come up. Good on you for catching the exception: Due to the ability to move our eyes, as well as some smaller technicalities, it can be arguably bigger or smaller; That's why I prefer to have a Long Cone and a Short circle around a token, myself, back when we played in Maptools. Still, the vision of a non-moving eye (or pair of eyes) is rather restricted to less than 180 degrees, which ultimately begets cone-sight. Rotating it allows you to add more to your perception of the area around you, but so does moving your neck, neither are proper in representing the actual shape of "vision" since including those results mean that you are simply moving your 'current' vision to another area, in other words, your peripheral or extreme monocular vision.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d9/AP_-_Peripheral_Vision.pdf/page1-776px-AP_-_Peripheral_Vision.pdf.jpg

A pretty easy test to prove this is to stare straight ahead, preferably at an object to help keep focus, and move some identifiable, thin object to just behind your head on one side (Your finger, perhaps, if you ignore the rest of your hand, or maybe a pencil. Slowly move it forward without turning or moving your eyes, and the object will enter your vision generally around the 120 degree mark. You can show this by (gently and cautiously) moving the object to your eye (again, preferably the pupil) without moving or turning your gaze.

Now, the argument could be made: "Who in the world never moves their eyes and only stares at fixed points?", and to that, I would contend, that I never would have suggested that (My preferred, as I mentioned, both a small circle and a long cone. And players would have the ability to rotate their own facing, as would any normal person, barring special circumstances).

[jasonisop]

Tossing my 2 cents in. I would like just a simple circle set for vision distance/light source.

Also adding a second mask that would override the player vision, say there is a lantern down the hall.

I do not need walls to "block" vision just would like to be able to hide tokens that are too far away to see for certain players.

[Andraax]

"The approximate field of view of an individual human eye is 95° away from the nose, 75° downward, 60° toward the nose, and 60° upward, allowing humans to have an almost 180-degree forward-facing horizontal field of view. With eyeball rotation of about 90° (head rotation excluded, peripheral vision included), horizontal field of view is as high as 270°. About 12–15° temporal and 1.5° below the horizontal is the optic nerve or blind spot which is roughly 7.5° high and 5.5° wide."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_eye#Field_of_view

Many states have a *minimum* field of view of 120° required for issuance of driver's license. If your claim that this is the maximum is correct, then only people with the best vision are allowed to drive in those states? And besides, I've done the test you suggest, and I see objects entering my field of view at significantly more than 60° to either the left or right (total of 120°) - interestingly enough, it's a higher angle for my right eye than my left.

[Jwguy]

"The approximate field of view of an individual human eye is 95° away from the nose, 75° downward, 60° toward the nose, and 60° upward, allowing humans to have an almost 180-degree forward-facing horizontal field of view. With eyeball rotation of about 90° (head rotation excluded, peripheral vision included), horizontal field of view is as high as 270°. About 12–15° temporal and 1.5° below the horizontal is the optic nerve or blind spot which is roughly 7.5° high and 5.5° wide."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_eye#Field_of_view

Many states have a *minimum* field of view of 120° required for issuance of driver's license. If your claim that this is the maximum is correct, then only people with the best vision are allowed to drive in those states? And besides, I've done the test you suggest, and I see objects entering my field of view at significantly more than 60° to either the left or right (total of 120°) - interestingly enough, it's a higher angle for my right eye than my left.

I stand corrected. Perhaps I was too powerfully influenced by looking at the image I was attaching, and for that, I'll concede and accept the criticism on that point. I've never been one to be able to accurately "eyeball" any measurement. https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/images/smilies/redface.png

Still, I feel comforted in your own information in your post, which appears to confirm, at least, that it is less than 180 degrees, and not the much greater amount of degrees that you seemed to state prior, though you may not have been referring to completely forward facing vision. When you said that, I seriously doubted for a moment and had to perform that same test a number of times to see if I could see the object beyond 180 degrees, which was an impossibility for me (Even 180 is, really, but then, I won't trust myself further to do measurements).

[Andraax]

They test our peripheral vision for driver's licenses here in Minnesota, and they start the test at 170° (you fail here if it's not at least 110°). I always catch the lights right away, at the 170° mark. I presume that I would see more than 170° if it were actually tested past that point (because the lights that appear at 170° are not "at the edge" of my vision, they're already inside of it).

[Bidmaron]

Hey, I never said the feature wasn't cool. Sure, who wouldn't want to have it?

The point is that it isn't the program's strength (yet). Someday, they may do a new graphics engine and support it. I just hope it isn't for a while so we can get other needed functionality that is part of what makes FG unique among VTTs.

The other point is that it is rudimentary. As has been pointed out, it doesn't support 3d (think of the role-playing opportunities of a 3d limited-vision ability). It doesn't support individual visual acuity. What about infra vision? shouldn't that be included, since some player races have that? Where do you stop? Right now, it's easy. You mask it manually, and that's where it stops.

But, hey, jwguy, didn't want to sound too negative. I'm glad you're in our community now. We will no doubt continue to respectfully disagree on the prioritization of the feature, and that's well and healthy. You raise great points. Thanks for caring!

[damned]

Hmmm.... i just did a simple test with my hands held out to the sides and in line with my ears. I could *see* them as in I coud see something there but dedinitely peripheral vision - noticed them as there was movement and lose them when there is no movement. wiggle my fingers and i can see them again.... That was a 180+.....

[JohnD]

https://www.focusingonnature.com/Newer-Images/Newer-Images/i-cNpcCfS/1/L/2011_06_06%20023s-L.jpg

[ddavison]

JWGuy, I'm sorry we haven't replied directly to this yet, but it is a definite nice-to-have but not anything we have on the current development list. It is on the wishlist - just not slated for development at this time. We really want to make sure that GM prep time doesn't become too cumbersome, so it would definitely have to be an optional feature to lay out walls and other line of sight/light blockers. It never hurts to ask for features and explain what you envision. Many of our best features come from community requests and often the solutions do as well.

[damned]

Sexy eyes (https://listverse.com/2010/12/12/10-animals-with-incredible-eyes/)

[Trenloe]

Sexy eyes (https://listverse.com/2010/12/12/10-animals-with-incredible-eyes/)
Good selfie at #7! ;)

[damned]

thats the one i was going to post but i loved them all :)
sorry to the rest of you - didnt mean to derail the thread but there are some good looking eye-balls in that lot!

[JohnD]

#2 is definately going to make an appearance in a game sometime soon. [/evilDMchuckle]

[Ahoggya]

I would think that being able to open areas as being visible with different types of drawing objects instead of just a rectangle. So you would be able to open a wedge for looking through partial open doors or spherical for when a torch is thrown into a room, etc. I would think that's a doable thing with the current masking tool.

[Jupp]

Too bad this feature is not in development. Revealing parts of the dungeon while you move a marker is the main reason we still use MapTool instead of FantasyGrounds. I've bought the DM license but it just catches dust because the map part of FG is just not up to the level I would like it to be.

It might mean more prep time (about 30-60 minutes per dungeon level) but during actual game time you are much faster and gameplay is much more fluent because you dont have to fizzle around with unmasking tools, you just move the markers. Also during fights the visibility features clear up alot of questions before they even thought of :).

[Moon Wizard]

Freehand region mask/unmask can be done with current version.

https://www.fantasygrounds.com/wiki/index.php/Images#Masking

Cheers,
JPG

[Willot]

Yeah I just usually Free hand it.

[Blacky]

I look at it this way......
FGII is supposed to recreate the tabletop feel of an rpg whilst playing over the internet.
Bad way to look at it. If that were the case, FG would include state of the art audio & video communication, and handle numerous local and remote displays to get the feel of a real life game.

Some things are harder to do in virtuabl tabletop, seeing other people is one right now (the only bottlenecks being upload speed and number/size of displays).

Other things are much harder to do on a real table, like private conversation, or dynamic vision & lightning of map.

Right now FG doesn't do these advanced graphic things. Hell, I'm pretty sure that given the choice between ten mid-range feature (from the Informer tool that could be Token stacking, Map ping, Map text labels, Common dice features, Unicode, better text, Undo everywhere, User comment in online manual, Alternate names in CT, Scrambled image name ; meaning all of these) or dynamic lights (with the understanding it would be an ugly patch, that would need to be rewritten when FG switch to a more modern graphic stack or engine) and nothing else, most people would choose the ten mid-range features (although it would be a blood bath to select said ten features ^^).

Since SmiteWorks resources are limited, and they are now (somewhat) investigating switching to other engines like Unity, even is said switch are happening in a year or two it would be better to focus on things that can be done right now, and if possible things that won't need much rewrite in the future. I mean, what's the point of rewriting _everything_ just to be Unicode and 64bits (for example) if all of that is thrown away in 2 years because of Unity (or some other engine)?