Fantasy Grounds Unity engine

[Andraax]

Just counting my GM hours (2 games a week, ~4hrs per game session) and *not* including my playing time, my cost for a fixed license works out to $0.11 per hour. Using a subscription for the same period of time would be $0.28 per hour (except that the subscriptions didn't exist when I started...)

If you throw in playing time, I'm around Zacc's numbers as well (though I don't track playing time as well as I track GM time...)

[Waldbaer]

and don't forget prep time :) you of course could run an adventure by simply doing that. But actually for me prepping everything as good as possible is a big part of the fun.

[poppy_thompson]

I don't doubt that there are many out there with the stats that Zacc and Andraax are at, but I would guess they are equaled, if not greatly exceeded by those with much higher hourly rates. Just as Zacc said, it depends on the user. I have owned the Ultimate License (no subscription here) for approximately 3 years. In that time I have used it quite a bit. Scheduling sessions to run. Playing in games as much as possible. Using it as a tool to create characters. Hell, I even use it to run a character I play in my regular (every week for the past 3+ years) Sunday night game on Roll20. I have converted several games to FG that I was running on Roll20 because I dropped a lot of money to buy it.

I had to justify spending $300+ dollars upfront and additional money on modules over the course of the last 3 years. I have been a participant, as a player or DM, in 5 or 6 campaigns with sessions lasting between 3 to 4 hours. One has lasted a year with the group trying to meet consistently every week for a year. It didn't happen, but I'll conservatively use it. The others have been every other week and lasted any where from 3 to 6 months. Again, scheduling prevented meeting every session, but for simplicity and conservatism, I'll assume we did. That puts me around 400 hours rounded up. If I only count the cost of the software, I am at $0.38/hour. That isn't accurate, though. I bought the PHB, MM, and DMG. That raises it to $0.75/hour. But, I purchased adventure modules to DM. I don't have all of the material, because I stopped buying them until I decide to run them. I have the adventures up through Out of the Abyss. No discount here for completing the bundle. Each of those running $50. That is another $200. I also bought the SCAG and LMoP, $30 and $15 (pretty sure it was $20 when I bought it, but...) I have run or am running each of these in some form or another, so they all count toward my hourly rate making it $1.36/hour.

I would say that is closer to the norm, but not quite there. On the other extreme, I know people that have purchased the software and use it a few times a year due to various reasons (family, work, life). Those folks outnumber me greatly. Their cost per hour would be so much greater.

[Modu]

Sure, people who play MMOs also get great value, because that's the nature of these games. You spend a lot of time on them. I used to play MUDs that charged by the hour, that was a bad scene. I digress.

I have been a subscriber for 2 years. I love Fantasy Grounds, it makes being a DM a lot more fun. Combined with the fact you can buy the complete modules ready to run is AMAZING. This software makes DM'ing so much less stressful.

However, the Coming Soon™ updates are pretty discouraging. Yes, it's great that you are waiting till it's ready, but there are some highly requested features hiding behind this nebulous update. Features your competition is already doing. I'm not going to get into the pro's and con's of each, but why would I even look at the competition at all? Because they have some major features you don't. When I hear software developers say Coming Soon™, I assume it's at least a year or more away. That makes me want to look at the competition even more for the next game I run.

Just my honest feedback, two cents, whatever it's worth to ya'll.

https://www.plan-nine.org/images/fg.jpg

[ddavison]

We are not quite at the "light at the end of the tunnel" stage with development of FGU. We all wish that we were, but we are simply not there yet. We've been balancing development on FGU with development of updates and new content releases for the current version. Because the content will be backward compatible, these updates and new content also apply to FGU. Any projected dates I would have posted last year or even earlier this year would have been wrong and we would have disappointed users with nothing gained. Instead of doing that, we plan to just keep the resources working on it moving forward in their areas. We have shifted Moon Wizard over to focus on FGU. Furthermore, we are looking to expand our team to get yet another resource to help finish up parts and pieces of it. We did this at the start of 2017 already, but that work was not able to address our needs and we had to take a step back and re-evaluate some things. A massive amount of work has already been completed and some of the stuff that's there is pretty awesome. I don't even want to show it off at the moment, though, because we still have plenty of unknowns on our schedule for other components that need to be working well before we get there.

I'm very proud of what FG can do today and I am happy with how we stack up against the competition. We don't beat the competition in every single category, but I am happy with the number of places where we do. Once we complete FGU, this should become even more pronounced.

[Waldbaer]

I'm very proud of what FG can do today and I am happy with how we stack up against the competition. We don't beat the competition in every single category, but I am happy with the number of places where we do. Once we complete FGU, this should become even more pronounced.

There's no need to convince all and also no need to beat the competition in every single category. Just choose the correct ones :) And the videos and promotion I have seen of FGU it looks like that you're working on the right fields. So nevermind - out of my perspective as stated earlier, this thread is great for brainstorming and delivering maybe things to the developers they did not thought of before. But it leads nowhere until FGU is ready to go the next step.

I believe this will not end talking about price terms or bad mood because someone thinks he's not treated well as a customer - but we're circling kind of the topics again and again :)
Just my 2cents today,

[Nylanfs]

Well we are gamers, talking about minutia are kinda what we do. Especially if it gives us an extra +1 to hit or damage. :-)

[poppy_thompson]

I'm very proud of what FG can do today and I am happy with how we stack up against the competition. We don't beat the competition in every single category, but I am happy with the number of places where we do. Once we complete FGU, this should become even more pronounced.

You should be. I think it is a superior product to the competition. The monologue about the estimate value per hour that I have gotten out of the software wasn't intended to denigrate the software cost, at all. I made a decision based on the product as it stood against the competition at the moment of purchase. I will continue to use the software and encourage my regular Roll20 Sunday group to use it, as well. Because I made the decision to purchase the license outright, that $/hour value will continue to drop. I look forward to it dropping to Zacc levels.


Stop thinking this is a rip off or anything else.
We paid for FG3. We paid for a product we have received already. Any discounts being talked about are ALL ABOUT LOYALTY to the customer and making sure that we all get a great value out of the license.

With that said, I would like to address this fallacy of 'loyalty'. I am not loyal to FG. I am invested in FG. I am a customer that made a decision that the product was worth the price quoted. Smiteworks must provide me with a reason to continue to spend my money on their product. I will not blindly continue to do it without justification. I will make the same assessment when FGU is finally released, if there is a cost associated with the upgrade. How does it stack up to the competition? Does it give value for money? Will I (and my group) use it enough without issue to warrant the upgrade? Included in that assessment will be the current version of FG.

Counter to that, Smiteworks isn't loyal to their customers. They are beholden to their customers, just like every other business. They have a responsibility to their owners and staff to continue to provide a service that is marketable. If they didn't provide a valuable service, their customers would find it somewhere else. Even the most ardent customers.

Thankfully, there appears to be a balance between the investment of the customers and Smiteworks ability to provide a valuable service. Long may it reign.

[ddavison]

Loyalty is earned each and every day for a business. We can certainly build up trust or erode it with our choices and actions. Hopefully we make the right ones and it validates your investment and encourages you to continuing investing with us. We certainly try not to take any of our customers for granted.

[Nylanfs]

Unless they are a rock golem, then you can take them for granite...

[badula]

What i like of fg is:
Works offline
Once bought is yours
Storage depends more on your hd than a fee


I could stand a one time fee 4 the upgrade... not a subscription... i'm not even playing online but using it as an offline tool. What i'd like and where i would probably spend money is tiles and objects packs for making my own maps like dundjinni but game integrated!

[Nylanfs]

Have you seen Carl's tile concept? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJBXbxfTwB4)

[badula]

Have you seen Carl's tile concept? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJBXbxfTwB4)

If you refer to the video where they lay down a river using tiles yes

[dulux-oz]

Unless they are a rock golem, then you can take them for granite...

Let me guess - you're a father, ain't you - cause that's one of the worst "Dad Jokes" I've ever read!

I mean, it must have been made from paper - because it was "tearable"!

[Tabulazero]

I think it is in everyone's best interest that Smiteworks makes a return on the work it has done porting Fantasy Ground to the Unity engine. It is also in everyone's interest that they keep supporting the game with the level of dedication we have grown to appreciate. Frankly, I cannot wait for this to happen.

That they would considering some form of discount for the people that have recently bought the license is rather nice. It is not something they are obliged to do. For instance, I do not remember trading in my physical copy of D&D 3.0 for a discount for 3.5 when the latter was published 3 years latter. In my case, it was even worse: I bought 3.0 3 months 3.5 came out...

*facepalm*

[Erin Righ]

For instance, I do not remember trading in my physical copy of D&D 3.0 for a discount for 3.5 when the latter was published 3 years latter. In my case, it was even worse: I bought 3.0 3 months 3.5 came out...

*facepalm*

Actually, WotC offered trade in discounts on 3.0 PHBs when 3.5 came out

[dellanx]

I am just looking forward to Unity!

[poppy_thompson]

Loyalty is earned each and every day for a business. We can certainly build up trust or erode it with our choices and actions.

I like the word trust much better. SW has gained my trust in various ways. First, the owners and staff are constantly trying to make a superior product better. That passion is on display for all to see. It goes along way. Secondly, the character of the owners and staff is amazing. I have reached out for help to you specifically in the past. It seemed you took a genuine interest in the problem and provided resolution quickly. In person, it was on display even more. It was GenCon 2015. You stood and talked to me about the product for, what seemed like, an hour or more. I was going on about what I like about my experience, what I would like to see, etc. You even allowed me to talk to others about the product as they approached. People might say this is what an owner and employee should do in this type of market. The owner should be passionate about their product. The company should handle all customers as if they are interested in making sure they are satisfied. Conventions are for interacting with existing and potential customers. Word of mouth from an actual satisfied client is golden in selling to a new client. No owner or employee should shut that down. You would be right. But, these traits aren't always seen in other companies.

On a more personal note completely unrelated to the product or services of SW, Doug showed more character away from the booth during that same Con than anything mentioned above. On the last day of the Con, he had taken a break to get some food near the front of the convention center. He noticed a young teenager struggling to move one of the chairs over to a table where his family was sitting. He stopped what he was doing and helped him carry the chair to the table while the boy carried his food. That boy was my son, who has a mild case of CP. That will always stick out in my mind when I think about the people that are making this product. I think I have mentioned this on these Forums before, but ... it is worth noting again.


Hopefully we make the right ones and it validates your investment and encourages you to continuing investing with us.

I trust you will. I haven't seen anything that would make me think otherwise.


We certainly try not to take any of our customers for granted.

I have never felt like I was taken for granted. The time you and the others put into addressing questions, comments, criticisms, and anger on this thread alone is evidence of that.

[Frunobulax]

I'm so torn about this issue. I know no decisions have been made and no pricing announced, and that's fine. On the one hand part of me says "hey, I paid a one-time license for a game and a deal is a deal, I should get the upgrade free." But another part of me is more realistic - I like FG a lot, and SW is certainly entitled to make a profit. This kind of upgrades costs a lot. Employees need to be paid, other expenses, etc. It is a business after all, and if it fails we all lose. They need SOME income stream, and I am doubtful that DLC, the occasional subscription, and sales to new customers will be enough in the long run. Even though people (including me) hate the subscription model, it makes most sense from a business perspective because it means a reliable cash flow. So although technically I bout a one-time license, and I hope they don't force a subscription model on everyone, I certainly would be willing to pay a one-time license fee for the new version, assuming it's reasonable. Me, personally (and I'm NOT speaking for anyone else here, so spare me the "I couldn't afford it!" responses, please) would value a license for a new, updated Unity-engine game at about $50-$60. That's what I pay for a lot of games I buy that I get FAR less entertainment value from. That's assuming that it includes a Linux version, which is very easy to do in Unity, and assuming that new, cool features would be rolled out for ALL rulesets, not just the super-popular ones - on a fairly regular basis. I *might* consider a subscription model if it were very reasonably priced, as in, a few bunks a month for players and maybe $10/month for Ultimate licenses. I mean, hell, I pay so much more than that just for basic cable, lunch at McDonald's, and subscriptions to other games I play far LESS. Don't trash me for the suggested amounts, I just made them up according to my personal situation and the cost versus other things we all buy. Your Mileage May Vary. When you divide it out on a dollar-per-hour-of-entertainment basis, you could pay for months of FG with what you pay to go to one movie or dinner out.

[damned]

Hi dglinder the likely scenario is your one time license will still be valid post FGU but it will not receive any further updates. The product you paid for is yours. FGU will be a new product. That's kinda how Im seeing it.

[ColinBuckler]

Will I upgrade to FGU, the answer will be Yes.

Am I concerned about the cost or the fact there is a charge for an upgrade I have to say No.

It is totally impractical to assume that any product in a comercial environment has free upgrades forever - you have to remember it costs resources/money to maintain a product. At some point FG will get retired in favor of FGU, that again is also to be expectect as it will start to look old compared to the flagship FGU and become more troublesome to maintain coding on rulesets/modules for new features in FGU which will not be compatible with FG.

The cost of the upgrade I think has several users concerned - especially those on tight budgets. I also imagine the FGU upgrades will operate similar to other products:

* Any licenses purchased after date X will be entiled to a free upgrade. This is to ensure users will not be disappointed with their recent purchase.
* Upgrade licenses will be at Y. Probably around 50% of a normal license cost. (e.g. Ultimate upgrades at $75, Normal licenses at $20).
* Introductory licences will be at Z to grow the user base for a period of 3 months. Probably around 80% of a normal license cost. (e.g. Ultimate upgrades at $120, Normal licenses at $30)
* Subscription users will just get the upgrade automatically.

Just my thoughts on pricing.

One other option to throw into the ring that has not been mentioned. SW could consider granting all existing ultimate license owners a Normal/Standard license which expires after 3 months during the introduction for them to see if they like the product and to consider their options. This could be extended to run prior to launch for beta testing ?

SW are a very professional company that actively develop their product. They are growing as a company and support for their product is one of the best in the world for a software product.

So I have faith that they will pitch the product at the correct price point making it attractuive for users to upgrade, after all the more users they upgrade the sooner FG can be retired leaving them to concentrate on FGU.

[ddavison]

<snip>On a more personal note completely unrelated to the product or services of SW, ... <snip>

Thanks for the comment. That's one of the things I like about Gen Con. It is gamers gathering to have fun and connect with other gamers.

[ddavison]

One idea that's been bouncing around in my head was replacing the Ultimate $149 option with a cheaper option ($99 or maybe even lower) but requiring an annual maintenance fee of around $10 or $15.

[LordEntrails]

One idea that's been bouncing around in my head was replacing the Ultimate $149 option with a cheaper option ($99 or maybe even lower) but requiring an annual maintenance fee of around $10 or $15.
Be aware (as you probably are) of the potential confusion this will cause.

[ddavison]

Yeah, it's a half-baked (or less thought) at this time.

[Tabulazero]

I like being able to buy my VTT for my friend to play. If I did not owned one, I would have far less friend to play with. I also like the fact that once I pay it is done and dusted. Some kind of hybrid method is a bit confusing in my own pesonal opinion.

[Bidmaron]

The other thing I'd personally wholeheartedly support is a purchase of the license and then a minor fee for step-level revisions (e.g. FG4 you have to pay a minor upgrade fee). As long as these step-level revisions are issued at a frequency that keeps the license purchase plus upgrade fee a bargain relative to the per-month fee, I doubt whether most of us would balk at that.

[Xemit]

@Bidmaron

That opens a whole new can of worms! Now the software company has to maintain each release as separate code bases for the purposes of bug fixes. For example you have users who decide to stay with FG3 and are OK with not having the new features of FG4. They do, however, still want the defects in FG3 fixed. Those who buy the upgrade get everything (upgrades and updates/patches).

And then what happens when new features require changes to DLC (that never happens) and makes the DLC incompatible with the older version?

These things can be handled, but at the cost of higher complexity and much more work. This takes resources away from new innovations, or the costs have to increase enough to pay for that work.

At the software company I worked at, we keep the current product path open, plus the last two 'releases', where we continue to provide patches (and occasionally minor features). Yearly, we release a new 'current' version and drop the oldest prior version.

For decades we only ever charged for the original purchase and all upgrades and updates were free. That was not commercially viable.

We eventually started selling maintenance contract subscriptions. The subscription provided the customer with all upgrades and updates for the whole year at no additional cost. Without the subscription, you were permitted access only to patches to your current version (for two years). Most customers buy this subscription, but not all. Some like to keep their product at a consistent and predictable level. They only upgrade when they actually need new functionality that is offered in the newest release.

We are now evaluating changing that model again. New plan is purchase product with current version and that entitles user to no additional charges on any fixes or minor features for the next two years. After the two years, there will be no more updates/fixes to the purchased version.

Now, I will admit our software is used in an industry where the user wants high reliability foremost (including timely fixes for functional defects) and generally are not too interested in new features until they are starting a new project. Projects may run for decades unchanged, except for possible minor maintenance.

[Bidmaron]

I don't see the issue. It is the model most companies, including Microsoft, used for many years, and it is simple. If you want the latest features, you had to buy the upgrade at a reduced cost. If not, you locked-in where you were. You recognized that at some point you would want data files with the new features, and you'd upgrade.

Will there be minor bugs in the version you locked-in with? Of course, but so what? I don't think I've ever owned software where there weren't bugs. If the bugs were fatal, they'd issue a hot-patch just like they do now, and that would happen before the major upgrade that cost money.

Anyway, not trying to start an argument. I think the model is viable. However, one thing I am sure of: whatever they decide, I will be right there with them. If they give me a non-subscription option, I will certainly use it, but I will do whatever they decide. The product is fantastic, and the company and support is even better. Somehow, they deserve to make money while doing it. Exactly how, I don't really care that much. I am not living from paycheck to paycheck, however, so I may not be the typical user (however, I suspect I am more typical that you might think because a good deal of those on tight budgets who gripe about spending less on a product than the pizza for two or three game sessions are on Roll20 forever).

[spite]

Much as I dislike the idea of paying again, that's entirely rooted in the fact that I am a student. Were my financial situation be different I'd not be mentioning a thing. Over the last two years I've gotten way more than my money's worth from fg when breaking down the hour per dollar, it smokes the hell out of any game or anything comparable.

The fact that you won't be losing the current iteration of FG also makes it better in my book. Unity will be enough of a core change that it necessitates another purchase.

Don't want to pay? Keep using the program that you paid for when you bought lifetime license.

It's still going to be the fg you knew you were getting. Hell, 95% of us will have seen massive increase in functionality on that original purchase as it is.

[Blurr]

I purchased an Ultimate License many years ago, and I'm super happy with it. When the Unity upgrade comes out, I would be happy to pay full price again for the new engine. Key features for this purchase for me, include the fact that it's a one-time-only payment, and that I can host games for any number of free/demo users. It's much easier to convince my friends to start using FG when there's no cost involved for them. For myself, I'd much rather pay a full upfront cost and avoid monthly or yearly fees. Recurring payments are just one more thing to worry about, and I'm already purchasing modules, etc. from the shop. I think if there was a recurring fee I'd be less likely to purchase add-on packs, modules, etc.

I know it's already been talked about, but I also wanted to say that a big point of deciding to upgrade is the fact that I'll be able to carry over all my modules and purchases to the new engine (hopefully with little effort). That's a big selling point for me.

[Erin Righ]

Well I grabbed an Ultimate Subscription some time ago. So, I've been using it for more than a year now, and would've saved a few bucks if I'd have bought it outright but I didn't want to invest in a product that I didn't know for certain that it was going to be useful in face to face games. Then after using it for 6 months, it became integral, and I should've bought it, but there was talk of FGU and no talk of discounts for new owners of FGC, and I thought maybe 6 months before FGU, so I might save a few bucks by sticking with my subscription. Which brings us to now. In the last month, Doug has tossed around some ideas which have piqued my interest. Knowing that there will be backward compatibility, I have purchased many PFRPG modules from SW, all the ones they have for which I also own the book and/or PDF, and I have decided to plunge in and buy Ultimate on the hopes that the good folk at SW will take that into account if FGU comes out in the next 6 months.

[Erin Righ]

Actually, I found where to look that info up and I have only been subscribed to ultimate since Feb. So I went ahead and bought it, almost 200 CAD, but worth every penny.

[Cailore]

Be aware the reason why I use Fantasy Grounds instead of your competitor is completely because of 'service fees.'

[spite]

Be aware the reason why I use Fantasy Grounds instead of your competitor is completely because of 'service fees.'

and I'm entirely sure there are many others (myself included) that would balk at yearly fees on top of the product purchase.
I'm confident that Smiteworks will come up with a good system, or at the very least, listen to feedback after launching it and try their damnedest to reach a compromise that works for everyone. They've done it before, so they have my trust.

[Aircop]

so I paid full price for FG and now I am going to have to again?

[Aircop]

so after I Have already paid close to $150 how much more will I have to pay now?

[Aircop]

I have paid $150 already, now I have to pay again or more?

[ddavison]

so after I Have already paid close to $150 how much more will I have to pay now?

You can keep using Fantasy Grounds for years to come. We are talking about a new version of the software that while backward compatible with DLC purchased for Fantasy Grounds, it will include a number of significant enhancements. If those features interest you enough and the price is right for you, then you can upgrade. You won't be forced to.

[Aircop]

oops so sorry, for some reason it posted my comment several times, my bad

[Wintermute]

I have to add my two cents in here. I have never regretted my decision to purchase the ultimate license. For me, the ability to host free games was the primary selling point. After doing the math, it works out to about $0.22 an hour of game time for pathfinder. Fantasy Grounds was worth every penny.

As for updating to Unity, I'd be happy to pay a upgrade fee of $75. To be honest, I'd pay full price again, but that option sucks for long time users. Make the upgrade fee less than full amount for customer appreciation.

Now that we can buy D&D and Paizo modules, I know that I'll be gladly giving them an extra $300 this year. I hope they look at that revenue when they figure out the ultimate upgrade fee. I just bought $100 worth of D&D and I am anxiously awaiting Carrion Crown 5 and Strange Aeons 5.

Bottom line is yes, I'll upgrade to Unity and I have faith that SmiteWorks will come up with something fair for everyone.

[Ernoldo]

Ive been also using Ultimate license for years now. And the hourly cost for games is just pennies. I would gladly make a one time payment of 100$ to continue using my ultimate license in year to come with the new engine.

[g0ntzal]

I will pay if Unity version comes with better networking efficiency and it runs without overheating my Mac :)

[damned]

I will pay if Unity version comes with better networking efficiency and it runs without overheating my Mac :)

try turning off Cross Compatibility Mode (or similar) in your FG settings and see if you Mac calms down a little.... it was added for Macs but it seems most dont require it.
as for the networking... you will have to wait on that one!

[g0ntzal]

try turning off Cross Compatibility Mode (or similar) in your FG settings and see if you Mac calms down a little.... it was added for Macs but it seems most dont require it.

I’ll follow your advice. Honestly, last version of FG for Mac is running much better (on High Sierra).


as for the networking... you will have to wait on that one!

I can wait. If first connections to a campaign are less time demanding and without ruleset or xml errors I’ll be a full satisfied customer.

Another new features are welcomed but smooth performance and retro compatibility are key features for me.

[not_so_there]

A upgrade fee makes sense to me as a way to keep users while paying for development of a new system. It's what historically was done with Windows or Office upgrades. But If I'm reading the last bit of this thread correctly I think we're coming to a point of asking how to maintain development. We've all seen that even the best Android app developers seem to still need to ask for donations to keep the app up to date.

As a consumer I like to outright buy things, but expectations from end users have also has reached a point of wanting continuous release updates which are unmaintainable based on sales of the initial product. FG seems to have some flexibility based on also selling content but I assume the margins on the best selling items from the Coastal Wizards are rather slim.

You may be stuck having to go the way of Microsoft and offer both a stand alone and a subscription version which while sharing a base offer different features. So what optional features would users be willing to pay for without it reaching the dreaded point of making everything DLC? I think the key is keeping them as 'nice to have' rather then required. Of course when you add a nice to have you then also have more maintenance work.

I think there may be a market for a sever version and optional hosting. FGU Server or Hosted Server & FGU. I would pay extra up front to be able to run my own hosted version, and others may be willing to pay service fee to have a SaaS version hosted. In theory the same base software could run all 3. It would give you an edge over competitors by offering hosting with a better streamlined client than a browser.

You could also tie automation of new mechanics to their respective releases while then offering them as optional stand alone additions for those who want to use them without the source book. But I don't know how often that really happens.

What about something like buy in for new features to fund them like kick-starter on a small scale? Or trying something more radical like selling stocks in a feature to fund development where investors get a % of the feature sales? Feature buy based on game types? I would only have paid for 5e for example but then as my groups are talking about playing other things more I might buy Pathfinder or pay a discount for all ruleset automation. However as you focus development based on demand you can end up losing some users as their focus does not develop as fast since it's lacking subsidizes from the high demand item sales.

[Frunobulax]

Sure, people who play MMOs also get great value, because that's the nature of these games. You spend a lot of time on them. I used to play MUDs that charged by the hour, that was a bad scene. I digress.

People are different. I would probably play LOTS more MMOs if it weren't for the high monthly fee. Sometimes I go months between when I feel like playing. I'd gladly pay a (small!) hourly rate to play, with the standard subscription price being the "unlimited" plan. I often am in the mood to play for a few hours but don't want to drop $15 and then have to remember to unsubscribe. So I don't play.

[Cailore]

My biggest objection to the monthly fee structure isn't even the price, it's the fact that when those companies decide to fold, or that they just aren't into us anymore, we can't use the software anymore, despite the hundreds of dollars and thousands of hours we've invested in the product. I much rather 'own' the system I use and not have to worry about if the Smiteworks staff has all moved to a beach somewhere.

[Nylanfs]

Well, technically Doug already did move to a beach (He bought a house in Florida last year, just in time for Hurrican season. :)

But since Smiteworks has been around for almost ten years now I think your purchases are safe, plus should they ever have to fold I'm confidant that they won't leave their user base in the lurch. Except maybe the subscription users.

[damned]

Well, technically Doug already did move to a beach (He bought a house in Florida last year, just in time for Hurrican season. :)

But since Smiteworks has been around for almost ten years now I think your purchases are safe, plus should they ever have to fold I'm confidant that they won't leave their user base in the lurch. Except maybe the subscription users.

My guess is - unless something catastrophic happened - there would be a final engine update that removed licensing checks so your license would just work...

[ddavison]

Well, technically Doug already did move to a beach (He bought a house in Florida last year, just in time for Hurrican season. :)

But since Smiteworks has been around for almost ten years now I think your purchases are safe, plus should they ever have to fold I'm confidant that they won't leave their user base in the lurch. Except maybe the subscription users.

It was just in time for Hurricane Matthew last year and Hurricane Irma this year.

I understand the basis for the concern. In general, I think ongoing revenue severely mitigates concerns of any sort of abandonment for any company. Those companies know that if they don't keep supporting the product or service, then people will stop subscribing and buying things. On the other hand, if a company received a spike of money all at one time and then new sales & revenue dwindled down to a level that didn't cover ongoing expenses or development, I think the abandonment would be more likely. I don't think either one of those categories applies to us here at SmiteWorks.

Whether or not we have subscriptions, we should be able to continue. Subscriptions just ease the ability to predict future income and budget expenses, staff hiring, advertising, etc compared solely with sales of new products. We have a mix of the two. I find that I use the monthly subscription revenue as a more fixed income level and this makes me feel comfortable budgeting that money for salaries and other fixed expenses. I make much more conservative estimates of future revenue based on new license and DLC sales.

[Sigil]

I was just wondering how the development of Fantasy Grounds Unity is going? I am not asking about a release date. Just curious if SW is still spending more dev time on 5e than FGU? Since I backed Tabletop Connect I am really looking forward to FGU's similiar features!!

Great work on FG!!
Scott

[Talyn]

Just curious if SW is still spending more dev time on 5e than FGU?

Most of the 5E content is done by the DLC Devs these days, not SmiteWorks (that applies to the other rulesets too) unless there's something that needs fixing within the ruleset itself. I know Carl and John are busy with Unity every day, not sure who else is on the Unity side of things. They were looking to hire a Unity 3D developer a few months ago; I don't recall hearing how that job search went.

[Sigil]

Thanks for the reply Talyn.
I hear what you are saying. I just remember reading ddavison saying that SW had pulled people off of FGU to work on their major revenue maker, 5e stuff. So I was hoping now people have been shifted back to FGU.

I only hope for good new sooner than later, but for now patiently waiting.

[damned]

Thanks for the reply Talyn.
I hear what you are saying. I just remember reading ddavison saying that SW had pulled people off of FGU to work on their major revenue maker, 5e stuff. So I was hoping now people have been shifted back to FGU.

I only hope for good new sooner than later, but for now patiently waiting.

There is a balancing act going on.
All new features that appear in FG are features built for FGU and then added in here. Of course a lot of what they are doing for FGU is the base engine and a lot of stuff is things that wont work on the current engine.

[ddavison]

Most of the content dev is handled by other resources and managed by James and me. His focus is on the image UI, user interface controls and rebuilding subsystems to work in the proper Unity way. Carl has been full time on Unity dev since he joined and remains so. We added Zeph (shifted over after the early 5E stuff - PHB/MM/DMG) to work on networking, the lobby and dice for FGU. The bad news is that we hit some roadblocks on networking and re-shifted this to John at the end of the summer. We shifted Zeph back to ruleset dev now for Starfinder and John's made some good headway in the networking. Networking is the big push at the moment. Once that is done, John will stay on FGU to work on integrating in the chunks of code from Zeph for the lobby, dice and some advanced networking. Some pieces go through rewrites or revisions during that process as well.

[JimSocks]

Awesome- thanks for giving us a peek behind the curtain on that!

[Sigil]

Thanks for taking time to let up know a little bit, whats happening with FGU!! I know how busy you guys are!! Keep up the good work!!

[Wolfheart]

Yes, a little info is appreciated :)
Thanks.

[skj310]

Howdy developers ... am very curious on the dynamic lighting that is being worked on and to that end I have a question. I know that moon wizard was mentioning complexities with dynamic lighting here:
https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?9526-FG-2-FOW-and-lighting-effects&p=68728&viewfull=1#post68728

Even reading that I am still wanting to ask the question. With the lighting being implemented am curious if the following is in the picture:

Is each player's perspective is based on their character's light source (i.e. torch, lantern, darkvision, etc.), for example a player with a 10 ft light source will only see 10 feet via their FG client, whereas player2 has a light source with 120 ft, and therefore player2 via their FG client is able to see 120 ft?
Players with darkvision, is the lighting for filtered so the battlemaps look more grey-ish/washed out?

[Bidmaron]

Is each player's perspective is based on their character's light source (i.e. torch, lantern, darkvision, etc.), for example a player with a 10 ft light source will only see 10 feet via their FG client, whereas player2 has a light source with 120 ft, and therefore player2 via their FG client is able to see 120 ft?

If the players are in the same party, they would all see 120 feet, or, if more sophisticated, each light source would illuminate out to its radius.

I don't get why people care so much about this. In the real world, people don't see to x number of feet perfectly and see absolutely nothing beyond that. Are we now going to expect them to model that too? What about smell? Couldn't that guard dog smell the orcs around the corner? Are we expecting SW to model that too?

[Qoff]

We'll need to pay for the unity upgrade and that's ok, but we'll need to pay for the modules again as well?

[damned]

We'll need to pay for the unity upgrade and that's ok, but we'll need to pay for the modules again as well?

In most cases the answer is No - your content will continue to work on the new platform.
I say most cases because there are older products that are being completely revamped by newer devs and they may (which I think is probably fair) charge for newer versions of those.

[Qoff]

In most cases the answer is No - your content will continue to work on the new platform.
I say most cases because there are older products that are being completely revamped by newer devs and they may (which I think is probably fair) charge for newer versions of those.

I use FG mostly for 5e, there are such cases in 5e?

[damned]

I use FG mostly for 5e, there are such cases in 5e?

Nah. And this is conjecture on my behalf.
The second part that is - the part about the DLC/Content continuing to work is something SmiteWorks are working very hard towards.

Some of the older content in smaller rulesets possibly deserves an upgrade fee or something for devs to go back and rework it - thats mostly just my opinion :)
Say for Castles&Crusades PHB which is currently 4e. If it were updated to the current printing and to Reference Manual... Id pay for it again.

[Qoff]

Thank you!

[pindercarl]

If the players are in the same party, they would all see 120 feet, or, if more sophisticated, each light source would illuminate out to its radius.

I don't get why people care so much about this. In the real world, people don't see to x number of feet perfectly and see absolutely nothing beyond that. Are we now going to expect them to model that too? What about smell? Couldn't that guard dog smell the orcs around the corner? Are we expecting SW to model that too?

I walk through a simplified explanation of line-of-sight (LOS) and fog-of-war (FOW) in this thread. https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?37761-Fog-of-War/page2

In short, lighting restricts LOS: 1) Calculate the potentially visible area (LOS) 2) Apply restrictions, view distance, lighting, etc. (vision) 3) Concatenate new vision with existing FOW.

It is a complex topic that is further complicated by what is possible, what is practical, and how the options are handled. Users' opinions vary from "I'm not interested," to "yes, thank you, more please." The features are very much still in development and I don't want to directly comment on or promise features that may or may not make the final cut. I will add, though, that lighting and special vision types are frequent requests and are not being ignored.

[Talyn]

In most cases the answer is No - your content will continue to work on the new platform.
I say most cases because there are older products that are being completely revamped by newer devs and they may (which I think is probably fair) charge for newer versions of those.

"So far" that is not the case. If we are cleared to do a remaster then that DLC is transferred to us, which means we only get commissions from new sales. It's a free update for everyone who had already purchased it. Possibly one reason there's only... what, two of us off the top of my head who have agreed to remaster anything so far? :) I can see where you say it's fair to charge for the remasters but I think for most consumers, myself included, that could be seen as "double dipping" and SmiteWorks has been too classy to do that.

Oh, and your C&C Players Handbook v7 is nearly done... for free. :)

[damned]

"So far" that is not the case. If we are cleared to do a remaster then that DLC is transferred to us, which means we only get commissions from new sales. It's a free update for everyone who had already purchased it. Possibly one reason there's only... what, two of us off the top of my head who have agreed to remaster anything so far? :) I can see where you say it's fair to charge for the remasters but I think for most consumers, myself included, that could be seen as "double dipping" and SmiteWorks has been too classy to do that.

Oh, and your C&C Players Handbook v7 is nearly done... for free. :)

Yeah I know... but even if $3 was charged for such a major update and split 3 ways you'd get something... Of course that works if you charged 6/9/12 etc too :)
Its a lot of work for a meager sale...

[skj310]

If the players are in the same party, they would all see 120 feet, or, if more sophisticated, each light source would illuminate out to its radius.

I don't get why people care so much about this. In the real world, people don't see to x number of feet perfectly and see absolutely nothing beyond that. Are we now going to expect them to model that too? What about smell? Couldn't that guard dog smell the orcs around the corner? Are we expecting SW to model that too?
Because how often do the players stay grouped together when exploring, and i'm not talking about a party split. Let's take a urban setting at night with a dark alley. The character with the lantern stays at the alley entrance because a lantern also means "here i am, shoot at me!" (yes, yes, "hooded lanterns", i know), the darkvision characters venture into the alley to explore.

You can see in dim light within 60' of you as if it were bright light, and in darkness as if it were dim light. You can't discern color in darkness, only shades of grey.

So the characters move forward, armed with their darkvision, and the alley splits, so each characted decides to go 10' into each branched alley. It would be ideal if the players were NOT able to see what the other players were seeing and would therefore have to verbally explain what they are seeing. It would add more depth to the RP. Instead they all see the revealed map equally and do their best to pretend that they don't see what they can clearly see.

Yes I know this is Fog of War ... but the dynamic lighting i'm thinking about is the distance revealed that each player sees on the map, and the black&white they see because there's no colour with darkvision.

This is where I was coming from with my 2 bullets earlier. I just felt that this would make the RP that much more intense, because the visual component is now gone and the players must communicate audibly until they can position their characters. Can you imagine the RP that'd happen when a player is blinded and their battlemap goes black (or unconscious). They would be totally reliant on their buddies to get them outta that fix. So in essence my question around the dynamic lighting and fog of war was just about changing the depth of immersion into Roll Play, and increasing the suspension of belief.

I hope I've clarified my point and where I am coming from. Cheers!

[Bidmaron]

I understand your point but where does it stop? Why not vr helmets?

I think there is room for healthy debate here but I am in the camp of repose playing is theater of the mind and for me the line stops at per person views. For that to work you would have to be at different screens.
Of course you could say “fine I just won’t use that feature” but these things take development time that I would rather see used on better ruleset automation.
Let those who want this go to maptools or something else. But that is just my opinion of course

[damned]

Hah. Its more complicated than that again though.
If I had a light source with 30' radius and you had one with 60' radius and we each walked 10' in different directions Id probably get to see 40' one way and 80' the other way while you would still see 60' in both ways. Assuming no other obstructions. I can see what your light illuminates too...
But yes - I understand the point and it will certainly be cool if/when it is implemented.

[damned]

In response to Bidmaron - I think that one of the synergies that SmiteWorks envisaged when they brought pindercarl onto the team was his strength in these fields... I think we will see some of this - and maybe a whole lot more.

I too go with TotM more often than not but dynamic lighting, line of sight, fog of war and 3d maps will appeal to many.

And for me, after networking features, Id rather see more rulesets than more automation of the existing ones... but Ill take what I can get.

[Bidmaron]

The point is folks will never be happy. Next it will be vr. And as I said before what about odor? Hearing? Shouldn’t we have 3d sound based on our aural acuity of the characters? What about the player who plays two chatracters? How do you keep him from only seeing what each cajaracter should?

This is a rabbit hole with no bottom.

[celestian]

The point is folks will never be happy. Next it will be vr. And as I said before what about odor? Hearing? Shouldn’t we have 3d sound based on our aural acuity of the characters? What about the player who plays two chatracters? How do you keep him from only seeing what each cajaracter should?

This is a rabbit hole with no bottom.

I was just about to mention audio. I REALLY love to have ambient sounds and music for certain situations. For me it's a big boost to immersion.

I'll take what I can get and work up from there at this point. FGU I hope will open a lot of options.

[dulux-oz]

I was just about to mention audio. I REALLY love to have ambient sounds and music for certain situations. For me it's a big boost to immersion.

Shameless Self-Plug time - for all your ambient sound needs use the DOE: Sound Extension by Dulux-Oz! :p

[Callum]

It can't even be calculated just on an individual basis, because if Merlin is holding a torch and Thor is further down the corridor, out of the torch's illumination radius, he can still see everything that Merlin can. Until he goes round a corner. Unless Merlin comes up to within the torch's radius of the corner - but then Thor would only be able to see some of what Merlin can. So you would have to be calculating all sorts of line-of-sight, illumination radius, and personal vision capability intersections for every PC.

[Ken L]

https://i.imgur.com/EZwd3ka.jpg

[gaara6666]

Here is the awesome thing folks. Fgu is a secondary iteration and when you mention rabbit holes and features you specifically don't want the stick with the non fgu version. If you are really desperate for a feature the. I would suggest trying to put in some effort and make it like a lot of our community does. The guy is a completely voluntary purchase that is not going to reset on what we have now. So I for one am going to let Carl and the other professionals and members of the team do what they think is best

[celestian]

Shameless Self-Plug time - for all your ambient sound needs use the DOE: Sound Extension by Dulux-Oz! :p

Love what you've done but for me it's just to much work to get it all in place. I applaud those that have ;) I'm also really disappointed in the discord sound quality when trying to use things like this (see that long thread on the topic).

I am jealous of those guys that have the sounds setup for misses/hits/death/etc and hope that with FGU it'll be a lot less work to implement as a DM.

I'm actually hoping that we can change ambient sounds as people move through a dungeon based on player/token position. So if the player is near a water source they can hear it... if they are near a fire, they can hear it/etc. I used to make some really immersive sound layouts in NWN and NWN2 when building for those and hope I can do it again in FGU.

But, wishful thinking! we'll see what we can do ;)

[Mellock]

I always thought I'd just need a character sheet and some virtual dice to get by. Then we got a DM that uses voice, and sound effects and streams background music. It's amazing and I never want to go back XD

[dulux-oz]

Love what you've done but for me it's just to much work to get it all in place. I applaud those that have ;) I'm also really disappointed in the discord sound quality when trying to use things like this (see that long thread on the topic).

I am jealous of those guys that have the sounds setup for misses/hits/death/etc and hope that with FGU it'll be a lot less work to implement as a DM.

I'm actually hoping that we can change ambient sounds as people move through a dungeon based on player/token position. So if the player is near a water source they can hear it... if they are near a fire, they can hear it/etc. I used to make some really immersive sound layouts in NWN and NWN2 when building for those and hope I can do it again in FGU.

But, wishful thinking! we'll see what we can do ;)

You can do those things now (just have them set up beforehand). There are also a couple of libraries available of DM's Guide with a lot of the set-up work done. And yes, Discord is a pain, that's why I use Teamspeak, but either way, it only adds a couple of minutes to my pre-time to include the sounds (cause I use the pre-built libraries). :)

[LordEntrails]

You can do those things now (just have them set up beforehand). There are also a couple of libraries available of DM's Guide with a lot of the set-up work done. And yes, Discord is a pain, that's why I use Teamspeak, but either way, it only adds a couple of minutes to my pre-time to include the sounds (cause I use the pre-built libraries). :)
Do I dare ask why I didn't hear anything a couple of nights ago? *G*

[dulux-oz]

Do I dare ask why I didn't hear anything a couple of nights ago? *G*

Because a couple of nights ago I was nose deep in non-RPG stuff and almost cancelled because of it - the same reason the inventory list wasn't in the system at that time. :p

[LordEntrails]

Because a couple of nights ago I was nose deep in non-RPG stuff and almost cancelled because of it - the same reason the inventory list wasn't in the system at that time. :p
Real life? How dare it interfere with play!

[JohnD]

Real life? How dare it interfere with play!

Indeed.

[Erin Righ]

That's why I retired! (actually I retired because a damned Mazda MPV ripped my leg off and crushed my arm, but lots of play time is a side benefit)

[dulux-oz]

That's why I retired! (actually I retired because a damned Mazda MPV ripped my leg off and crushed my arm, but lots of play time is a side benefit)

Ouch!

[Bidmaron]

Dang, Erin. Sorry to hear, buddy, but sounds like you have managed to overcome.

[knucklehead]

The point is folks will never be happy. Next it will be vr. And as I said before what about odor? Hearing? Shouldn’t we have 3d sound based on our aural acuity of the characters?

You've said this like, three different times already, as if any of these are actual concerns. Was there a point to this? Or are you just kind of indirectly saying "I don't need a feature others are asking for, so I'm going to ask why FG doesn't also handicap my golf scores, reconcile my bank statements, and use idle time to identify new prime numbers?"

[Bidmaron]

Knucklehead, we try to avoid flame wars here.

No one has refuted my assertion that it never ends and where do you draw the line.

I responded to your desire with my view. Yes, I do think it is a waste for reasons cited. Some level of what you are requesting will no doubt get done. I am just trying to do what I can to encourage not wasting too much development effort on the eye candy.

Since you attack rather than answer my concern with a viable counter, can we just drop this so there is no flame war?

[knucklehead]

Knucklehead, we try to avoid flame wars here.

No one has refuted my assertion that it never ends and where do you draw the line.

Sorry, didn't intend to flame. I tend to not associate the argument *as I interpreted it* ("Nobody needs this feature, and new features mean persistent, developer-intensive rollouts of increasing complexity for every conceivable corner case. If you start with that feature, you're doomed to an eternity of writing even more") with the person ("Bidmaron") who I'm assuming happens to be passionate about this product and wanted to make sure a presumed obvious/intended meaning was derived from a statement they'd repeated a few times.

I simply meant to say that taking things to a logical extreme isn't really argument against a feature or tool -- it's just an easy argument to make when you'd rather push attention elsewhere. It's a refutation, and it was just poorly presented, much like the original concern.

But if you actually wanted an answer to some of the feature concerns you had:

Unity has some pretty amazing stuff baked right in, and some of those include positional audio, lighting, and cameras for views. I don't think any of the features you listed would actually be difficult to implement, because the maths/physics emulation/hardstuffs are already done. If you've got a player (token/figure/object) and a game map (coordinate system) and you've got a sound coming from another map object (troll_with_pneumonia) and you've got a game that has positional sound baked in, implementing that "ridiculous feature" could be pretty trivial, actually.

The engine would simply check the distance (through troll and player object locations), just like it would with positional lighting (which means, presumably, that code was already implemented, probably in the engine itself, not even at SW/FGU), then when troll_with_pneumonia coughs, the engine itself will check to see who was close enough to hear it, and change the volume or fail to play the sound at all.

Likely the only things they'd need to glue it all together would be to figure out how to let content developers determine what volumes would reach what distance in a given game system. I'd say adding walls makes it more complex, but chances are pretty good *SOMEBODY* has thought that out before, and much of it is built into the engine itself, and again not a concern of FG. I'm quite sure that "sounds are muffled through doors" and "sounds can't be heard through stone walls" and even the much more complex "sounds are heard in proximity to a door if you're close enough to it, even if a line directly from you to the source passes through a brick wall, because verisimilitude is cool, but the physics of waves, absorption, diffraction, and generally acoustics sucks" functions and features are mostly tools **already implemented in the framework**

Not to say there's NO complexity, because they'd have to handle converting say, RPG distances (measured in feet, or yards, or parsecs, or whatever... I don't know who's listening at a distance of parsecs but... you get what I mean right?) and convert it to whatever default units are in Unity (IIRC, that's measured in feet, or perhaps just generic units) if they wanted to let rulesets determine how hard it is to hear somebody down the hallway, but again, that's pretty trivial scale conversion.

As for lighting? The hard part appears done. I've seen plenty of uses of "you can see a light source coming from a hallway 50 feet ahead of you" or "intervening darkness between two light sources" in games for the last two decades or so. I'm imagining it's a matter of small adaptation concerns rather than trying to come up with how to perform it from scratch.

[Bidmaron]

Hey this is great discourse.

As i originally said it is a question of where do you draw the line? I never claimed it could not be done.

We have had cries for better fow and or los lighting for as long as I have been here. You raised it to another level i have not seen before (could have missed it but i am here a lot) when you wanted it on a per player basis. That proves my point that there is no bottom to the rabbit hole.

As I said, there is room for healthy debate about where you draw the line of what is good enough what you consider an edge case now will be demanded next. (E.g. wait, my wizard just cast a Noxious Cloud. How come this stupid program still thinks I can see 60 feet?)

You are absolutely entitled to your want for the program. But so am I. I just would rather resources be spent in what I believe are more fruitful areas like fixing networking to work with ip6 and not having to summon a CISSP to get the game working)

Thanks for staying civil. That is what we are all about around here.

[knucklehead]

You are absolutely entitled to your want for the program. But so am I. I just would rather resources be spent in what I believe are more fruitful areas like fixing networking to work with ip6 and not having to summon a CISSP to get the game working).

I didn't ask for more lighting or sound features. :)

I'm just saying they're reasonable requests for a wish list, and they're within reach Someday(tm)

It'd be pretty cool, though, if lighting and vision were as robustly supported in the engine itself that rulesets could define and depend on things like: "Is there line of sight?" "Lighting level of target?" "Is vision obscured?" "Am I in darkness?"

A 5E ruleset, for instance, could then define their own concept of lighting levels by translating Unity to FG and back again as necessary. Like maybe there's 100 million levels of luminosity in Unity, but all we care about is NO light, dim light, and regular light. So the 5E ruleset could say these ranges of lighting are dim, these are normal.

Now the artistic types can add whatever gloom/cheer they want for their atmospheric maps, and the ruleset can take full advantage of lighting and visibility w/r/t a particular token on the map and apply ad/disad automatically.

Taken a step further, if you went with more abstraction, and added like a generic "proximal senses" functionality that considered things already implemented in the engine, like walls/obstructions, then you might even be able to allow rulesets to create their own senses.

I don't need much support for smell, either... but then, maybe it'd be really nice.

See, I stop and think about perception checks and abilities like "Scent" in Pathfinder. Or what if the next big RPG is "Bloodhound: The Hunting" or whatever?

With that horribly-named theoretical Proximal Senses functionality, maybe rulesets could define a sense, the range, the FG built-in properties that affect that sense (this is a wall, this area is dark, this obstacle is permeable, this effect spreads rather than radiates), and then handle the game specific impact on characters and their abilities, if they're even inclined to do so.

Now you could implement "True Sight" in the ruleset and just have it illuminate and expose everything but still stop at real walls. Or Scent by having it ignore obscured/concealment (whatever those might mean to your ruleset) and lighting altogether. No engine tweaking, just an endpoint to define/implement your ruleset of choice.

Basically I think being given a framework and tools to express the rules of your choice is a super awesome thing. I won't even get started on my ideal "Give us an environmental layer to "paint" on and map effects to) because you don't want more rabbit holes. :) Short version, give us the ability to define environments, properties of objects on the map, behaviors like radiate vs. spread, and rulesets could then define senses using those three properties, and with a few sensible defaults you could probably create any sense, aura, climate (exhausting or damaging heat/cold, vacuum of space, etc) you could think of, or care to implement in your ruleset. Whether that's just coloring an area for easy reference, or a much more complex check to see if the target of your sense ability will require traversing running water or the stench generated by a pile of dead troglodytes)

5E has a good conceptual model for this that isn't nearly that bad to wrap your head around with their tag or descriptor system. Attach descriptors with no mechanics of their own, and any exceptional mechanics that use them can take advantage without a lot adding a lot of overhead.

About networking: Yeah, networking needs to be solid -- You could have the ultimate VTT and if people can't connect or distribute assets without major headaches it's doom.

On that note, I'd LOVE to see the support to roll your own asset delivery (images, sounds) in like, a docker container you could spin up on AWS or Digital Ocean or something that the host client could upload to, and permit connected player clients to access and DL from. Nothing crazy like managing mechanics or any real game data, just static assets that each client could pull down at their ISP's download speed upon connection and/or GM client prompt -- that'd apparently free up a GM from a lot of the content creator's limitations on image and file size.

No headaches for maintaining a cloud service, but you'd have the foundation there if ever there came a time where there was an influx of users and gobs of subscriber cash started rolling in. Headache introduced would be maintaining that "roll your own asset delivery service" image, but I think it'd be mitigated by using a long term, stable platform that's more or less just replying to requests with some sort of auth token and serving image and sound assets.

Basically, "Player Client: Hey GM client, can I get images and sounds from somewhere else?" "GM Client: Yep, open a socket here, if that fails, fetch it from me directly." "Player Client: Thanks, I got some pretty amazing 4k maps and tokens without taking six hours to download from you, and my user is already ranting about how awesome it looks on reddit and discord."

/rabbithole

[Famine]

Unity has some pretty amazing stuff baked right in, and some of those include positional audio, lighting, and cameras for views. I don't think any of the features you listed would actually be difficult to implement, because the maths/physics emulation/hardstuffs are already done.

Words that will get your foot shot off here.

Yes, Unity is a authoring engine basically. You don't really control the source, you just author what you want it to do through scripting. Lots of features are baked in for you to manipulate. But, that does not mean you can throw a blanket statement that everything is so easy you can just add it next week! Lots of things go into actual game development that can turn something easy into a backlog you won't get to until next year.

Stop armchair developing and just express your wishes without trying to tell everyone else how it can get done. That's not your job.

Just my opinion from a lurker following this thread.

[gaara6666]

Let's try to keep it positive people. I'd like to see this thread go 6 pages without people sniping at each other and someone like Dulux having to step in. Opinions on implementation on both sides should be shared without trying to dictate how valid or invalid someone's point is.

That being said I think unity has a lot of asset control to mitigate and work through in order to evolve this product further yet at the same time the product we have is already great and we can just enjoy all of that existing goodness while we wait for the next iteration of FG to become available

[Full Bleed]

The point is folks will never be happy. Next it will be vr. And as I said before what about odor? Hearing? Shouldn’t we have 3d sound based on our aural acuity of the characters? What about the player who plays two chatracters? How do you keep him from only seeing what each cajaracter should?

This is a rabbit hole with no bottom.
To be fair, though you've responded to invite meaningful discourse after-the-fact... you opened with a ludicrous statement. Like the things people are discussing is equivalent to something like "smell-o-vision." If you don't want hyperbolic responses then perhaps it's not the best idea to set the parameters of the discussion with it.

As for VR, which you threw out as something to be considered absurd... Tabletop Simulator already has had a working beta for it for over a year (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAiKoK7iTIE). And, not suprisingly, TTS is Unity based. So support for VR goggles and camera positioning within FGU is not nearly as absurd as you've indicated it might be. In fact, people willing to spend $500-$1000 for VR gaming setups, per person in a party, are the kind of open-wallet customers a platform like FG should not be ignoring. The technology is moving fast, adoption is growing, and Unity allows for support.

You are right though... the rabbit hole has no bottom. And good thing. FG is a far better beast now than it use to be... and its future is bright. But it's got some catching up to do before it can lead. And, hopefully, that's where FGU comes in.

[LordEntrails]

To think back when my friend got a 2400 baud modem it was crazy to think we could play RPGs with play by post on a bulletin board. A few years laters MUDS were crazy popular (relatively!) and GM directed play was another dream. Now we have MMORPGs and VTTs that let us share characters sheets, maps, die rolls and more real-time.

Thats just on the digital side, other technologies have enhanced gaming too. Think of mimeographs so we could duplicate character sheets, print maps, or even duplicate graph paper.

The technology for VR and AR gaming is here and full sensory immersion gaming is something that will be possible before I die. It doesn't mean it will or should replace face to face gaming across a table. But the ability for technology to enhance gaming is a good thing.

The rabbit hole will never end, but, we also have to consider that technology for the sake of technology is not always advantageous. Their is another name for the Leading Edge of technology, it's called the Bleeding Edge*G* Doug has always been exceptional at using the very limited resources of SmiteWorks in a way that has served us all well. I look forward to the future, but I also trust Doug to use his resources wisely.

[Bidmaron]

To be fair, though you've responded to invite meaningful discourse after-the-fact... you opened with a ludicrous statement. Like the things people are discussing is equivalent to something like "smell-o-vision." If you don't want hyperbolic responses then perhaps it's not the best idea to set the parameters of the discussion with it.


You are partially right. I was not intending to be hyperbolic on the vr. I know that is here (when I was CO of DALLAS I frequently monitored my junior officers using vr goggles to practice driving the submarine, and that was 17 years ago [hyper-expensive at the time, and we only had one vr trainer on the whole east coast at the time]). Smell-o-vision was hyperbolic, and I should have worded that differently.

They have a name for what you are looking for: video game.

In my personal opinion, FG should never be a video game. Let the Bethesda's of the world, with their much deeper pockets, approach role playing from the realism standpoint. FG should stick to what it is good at, with incremental improvements on the eye candy aspect of things, but focusing on running a cooperative game.

Like LordEntrails, I also trust SW to strike the right balance. However, I think that balance is a healthy and appropriate discussion among the SW faithful.

Forgive me when I came across inappropriately. It won't be the last time I have to apologize for that, but I don't think you will catch me starting a flame war. (at least I hope not).

[Full Bleed]

In my personal opinion, FG should never be a video game.
I think TTS has proved that playing with VR isn't a video game. It's just using a different interface and tools to see and interact with the table from a more realistic perspective (whether it be from the Token's point of view or more from the view you'd see standing/sitting next to a real table.) In fact, when looking at TableTop Connect (which is what FG poached Carl from), it's not much of a leap to see how a VR interface could have been incorporated. There were a number of videos showing the table from near token perspective.

In the broader picture, I actually think RPG gaming (in general) and VTT gaming (in particular) is, inherently, an relatively unhealthy activity. Typically it involves sitting in place for long hours with minimal movement. And you have to add many additional hours for the GM's in prep. New research suggests spending 15-30 minutes of each desk-work hour standing or moving around... which means that people either need adjustable standing desks or a platform that encourages/allows them to play healthier. So, for me, the idea of VR has nothing to do with playing a video game (most of which encourage you to sit in place for long hours, too). It's an opportunity to create immersion, more intuitive interaction with the table, and a healthier gaming environment. I know I'd be open to gaming more if that was the case.

[Bidmaron]

We will just have to disagree. I have never done anything but agree that all this could be done. I just don’t want it to be done. Even smell o vision is not that far off.
If you do this to the level we have been discussing, you will fundamentally change the nature of the game. Heck, i would love a cooperative Skyrim as much as the next guy. I just don’t want it to be my VTT.

[Honken]

I will repeat what I have said before. I would rather see tools and features that include a broader variety of rulesets, then something that only will be implemented in 1 or 2 rulesets.

/H

[Beerbelly]

Since this thread has been going for over 3 full years now, and there is still no idea what FGU will actually be able to do, here's what I would love to see: FGU RELEASED WITH NO ADDITIONAL FEATURES (IF NEED BE). To explain: let's end this thread, release FGU and when updates are ready, release them. Even if there is no content, release it and let people who are willing to purchase/use it do so, and see what it can do as the updates are ready. I know this will be an unpopular opinion, and I understand that. However, I think that the ideas, the teasers, and such, that have been hinted at for FGU are going to make it just like the Star wars prequals. Simply put, 30 years of anticipation meant that nothing would live up to what the fans wanted. We now have over 3 years of anticipation, and no release date in site.

So, let's get it out, with whatever is ready. Test it with real users. Then release updates one at at time, when they are ready. If no one buys it right away, so be it. There will be those of us who do, and we'd be the guinea pigs, so to speak.

Just my 2 cents.

[damned]

Since this thread has been going for over 3 full years now, and there is still no idea what FGU will actually be able to do, here's what I would love to see: FGU RELEASED WITH NO ADDITIONAL FEATURES (IF NEED BE). To explain: let's end this thread, release FGU and when updates are ready, release them. Even if there is no content, release it and let people who are willing to purchase/use it do so, and see what it can do as the updates are ready. I know this will be an unpopular opinion, and I understand that. However, I think that the ideas, the teasers, and such, that have been hinted at for FGU are going to make it just like the Star wars prequals. Simply put, 30 years of anticipation meant that nothing would live up to what the fans wanted. We now have over 3 years of anticipation, and no release date in site.

So, let's get it out, with whatever is ready. Test it with real users. Then release updates one at at time, when they are ready. If no one buys it right away, so be it. There will be those of us who do, and we'd be the guinea pigs, so to speak.

Just my 2 cents.

This thread was not started by SmiteWorks. It is a thread started by an interested player/user who wanted to share some thoughts and ideas.
FGU is not ready. When its ready they will share it with us.
As has been said many times before:
Buy the software for what it is today
The current software continues to be developed and evolved
The range of products available on the platform continues to grow and many of the products themselves have evolved and improved
FGU will be ready when its ready
FGUs primary focus at day 1 is to preserve backward compatibility and deliver a better engine that will allow them to do more in the future
As of now - all of that is still valid and accurate.
Im sure they are wrapt that the fans are looking forward to FGU but that wont allow them to deliver it any earlier and it certainly doesnt make them want to deliver t before its ready.

[ddavison]

I think we all wish we could just release it and then work to expand it. We are trying to get it into this sort of state so we can take that sort of approach. It's a surprisingly large number of things that had to change just to get where we are today and we still are not quite there. Proof of concepts are generally very easy to spit out. Fully commercial ready software takes a significantly larger percentage of time to achieve. Thankfully we have a good team of people that understand this and are capable of delivering it. There are times when I wish I could clone them, but that technology hasn't come along yet.

[LordEntrails]

Doug, I did request something like a year ago that you clone Moon Wizard. That is the one place you have let me down :(

But, I guess I shouldn't really blame you :)

[Ken L]

I think a single stickied topic with periodic updates (quarterly) would help sate some appetite. Things usually get buried and eventually someone asks the same question again.

[Waldbaer]

I think a single stickied topic with periodic updates (quarterly) would help sate some appetite. Things usually get buried and eventually someone asks the same question again.

I think this is a good idea because this prevents people from thinkin that it might become a neverending story. As they see development and tension will grow until you finally release the game to a drooling community :)

just my 2cents

[Willot]

I blame all the people who keep developing all the fantasic extensions and modules for the old FG. Doug probably keeps seeing them and telling Moon he wants this in the New FGU

(of course Moon just sighs and adds it to to the list)

Stop making great extensions PEOPLE!!!! Your slowing down FGU development!!!!!


(j/king of course. Keep making thoses extensions.....PS one from proper inventory containers would be nice :D )

[dulux-oz]

I blame all the people who keep developing all the fantasic extensions and modules for the old FG. Doug probably keeps seeing them and telling Moon he wants this in the New FGU

(of course Moon just sighs and adds it to to the list)

Stop making great extensions PEOPLE!!!! Your slowing down FGU development!!!!!


(j/king of course. Keep making thoses extensions.....PS one from proper inventory containers would be nice :D )

Working on it.

[kaffien]

Will FGU be online like roll20 or still stuck with this whole annoying server / client model that is a royal pain in the arse?

[Qoff]

Will FGU be online like roll20 or still stuck with this whole annoying server / client model that is a royal pain in the arse?

If they agree with this model (https://fg2app.idea.informer.com/proj/fg2app?ia=110467) it would be possible to host online.

[Bidmaron]

Server/client.
But we think it will use more modern networking api, including ipv6.

[LordEntrails]

If it goes online like Roll20 (SaaS) then I will not use it.

One of the three key reasons I bought FG was that it was a client-server architecture. There are many benefits and compromises to both architectures. The two most important benefits to a client-server architecture for me are:
1) I do not need internet access to develop my content or (in many cases) to play.
2) If the hosting company goes out of business, not only do I not lose everything I bought, but everything I have developed.

[ddavison]

It won't be an online only model but it also won't have any need to do port forwarding.

[Varsuuk]

The Master of Guts doth spake sooth ‘n stuff.

FG being Client/Server is a huge part of why I chose it and spent what I have on it.

One of the reasons I no longer buy OReilly books is they killed the store and went to online view only. Now only O books I get are on Humble Bundle :(. That said, bought many books from Manners my, Informit and Prag Programmer this November/December.

[spite]

I like the server/client thing, but I wish it allowed for a host client and then the ability to connect to it as a DM from another location so I can take my laptop around and run games/leave games running full time on the desktop for persistant PbP style games.
I live and dream.

[Moon Wizard]

Just to clarify, we are looking at a model to give you the option to host locally on your machine, or via a cloud server. The GM machine will still control the cloud server and handle all communication. If you use a personal server, it will work similar to today (requires port forwarding, but tries UPnP to auto configure). A game management server will be used to publish game information based on your FG user name.

This is the current prototype we are working with. It may evolve over time.

Cheers,
JPG

[spite]

I guess that's a step in the right direction at least :P

[Ken L]

If they can duplicate something like Skirmish VT's connection model I'd be happy.

D20pro has a 'listed server' approach, akin to game lobbies which also works. I'm thinking the listed server model but a hidden list would be better. Load up your campaign, and have people join on a direct name hit. Don't let two servers list the same name. Easy Peasy.

Of coarse if there are settings configured for port forwarding, use those over others. I'd picture this like Table-top Simulator's hosted model in that regard.

[Einheri]

If it goes online like Roll20 (SaaS) then I will not use it.

One of the three key reasons I bought FG was that it was a client-server architecture. There are many benefits and compromises to both architectures. The two most important benefits to a client-server architecture for me are:
1) I do not need internet access to develop my content or (in many cases) to play.
2) If the hosting company goes out of business, not only do I not lose everything I bought, but everything I have developed.

THIS. This is one of the key points that made me chose FG over Roll20. I don't want to have invested that much money only to find out one day that I can't use it anymore. Were SmiteWorks to go out of business tomorrow (definitely hope that won't be the case xD) I could keep using FG with my friends. There would also be a huge community that could keep improving it and adding new rulesets, mods, etc. In the case of Roll20 we'd just get to see an ad in the page to buy that domain, so no, thanks. I really don't want that model.

[Jiminimonka]

Any news on progress?

[Zacchaeus]

Any news on progress?

Nope

[epithet]

One thing I really hope that FGU will be able to do is to draw a better looking hex grid. Because of the way the diagonals are drawn on a hex grid currently (jagged as hell) I have been using a square grid for my outdoor battle maps, which makes my inner grognard grumpy.

[Tovrin]

Not sure if this has been asked (new to FG and the discussion), but will licences be transferable to the update?

[LordEntrails]

Not sure if this has been asked (new to FG and the discussion), but will licences be transferable to the update?
Yes it's been asked. Statement made earlier in this thread is that their is expected to be an upgrade fee. The details of what that might be have not been announced (or probably even decided).

So, expect a cost to upgrade, but we don't know how much. It is likely (as indicated by SmiteWorks) that the cost will be dependent upon how long ago your license was purchased. But again, nothing specific is known at this time and given SW policies, it is unlikely to be officially announced until the official product announcement is made. And the official product announcement will not be made until the new version is functional and a release date can be reliably kept. SW is very opposed to announcing a date and then missing it.

[Tovrin]

I hope there's some kind of grace period then. I only just bought the Ultimate licence a couple of weeks ago and am hesitant to spend a heap again so soon.

[Kanbie]

I hope there's some kind of grace period then. I only just bought the Ultimate licence a couple of weeks ago and am hesitant to spend a heap again so soon.

I wouldn't worry Tovrin, I've been using FG every week in some capacity or another and my players love it. Don't let unity not being here stop you from using the ultimate license.

[LordEntrails]

I hope there's some kind of grace period then. I only just bought the Ultimate licence a couple of weeks ago and am hesitant to spend a heap again so soon.
SmiteWorks has always taken care of their customers. I suspect they would do something like a 6 month grace period and then some sort of incremented discount/cost from there.

Besides, we don't know when FGU might come out. Everyone hopes it is soon, but no promises that it will even be this year. But as Kanbie says, no reason to not use FG as it is now. It keeps getting improved and is, imo, the best VTT available as is.

[Laramie Wall]

Came to check on updates. Sounds like we're all here, patiently waiting, which is cool. That said, I kind of assumed there would be an upgrade cost. I for one am ok with it. I bought my license in 2011. I'm confident I've gotten my money's worth in updates, and the amazing things they have promised with unity, I'll happily buy another license. (Especially because I loathe subscription service. I'll gladly spend once though.)

Stay awesome everyone!

[Dracones]

Besides, we don't know when FGU might come out. Everyone hopes it is soon, but no promises that it will even be this year.

My guess is when Smiteworks can see the development end in sight, they'll start to promote it. Screenshots, FG Friday videos, tour of new features, etc. They'll be itching to show off all their hard work.

So, probably a good ways off. I'm sure they're slammed with all the success they've had with official 5e, Pathfinder and soon Starfinder.

[Nylanfs]

Have you seen the tile and layers video?

[CatoThe1stElder]

Have you seen the tile and layers video?

I have! If you are referring to this https://youtu.be/4FjwaYqdAbM"]one (https://youtu.be/4FjwaYqdAbM) that came out a while ago, then yes. It really has a lot of potential going for it. I can't wait!

[KSchade]

Would be nice if they did a FGFriday just to showcase whatever progress has been made on FGU. I'm pretty sure that none of us would care *what* the actual progress is, if we could just get something more recent to slaver over. Also, wow, it's been a long time since I posted on here last...

[Trenloe]

I'm pretty sure that none of us would care *what* the actual progress is...
I think that's the thing - a lot of people do care what the progress is and it would create many questions, discussions (complaints), etc.. Better to start showcasing it when it is much closer to being released, IMHO.

[LordEntrails]

Plus how much time do we want to spend showcasing FGU and answering the questions rather than actually developing it?

Sure, part of me wants to know more. But a bigger parts wants FGU sooner rather than later.

[Bidmaron]

Well, a roughly monthly update seems a reasonable compromise.

[CatoThe1stElder]

Plus how much time do we want to spend showcasing FGU and answering the questions rather than actually developing it?

Sure, part of me wants to know more. But a bigger parts wants FGU sooner rather than later.

Couldn't have said it better myself. By the way, what feature are you looking most forward too? I am still quite new to Fantasy Grounds, so from my perspective, it seems that Dynamic Lighting and better map features will be the most important. Anyhow, with all this said, I have been wondering if Fantasy Grounds will have the feature to allow players to set how they wish to view their tokens. To explain, recently I have been encountering the divide between player's preferring to see portraits as there tokens vs. player's who prefer top down tokens. In all, I hope this feature is implemented!

[Bidmaron]

Welcome to the forums, GrandUbermensch. I have to say I just do not get the drive to see the tops of everyone's heads. I personally have no use for top-down stuff. You get so much more detail and character from a front-on pog. Since it isn't like the VTT is 3d, I just don't get the top-down things. (and they aren't even really top-down but kind of 10 degrees down, which itself cries out the weakness of the format)

[LordEntrails]

Couldn't have said it better myself. By the way, what feature are you looking most forward too? I am still quite new to Fantasy Grounds, so from my perspective, it seems that Dynamic Lighting and better map features will be the most important. Anyhow, with all this said, I have been wondering if Fantasy Grounds will have the feature to allow players to set how they wish to view their tokens. To explain, recently I have been encountering the divide between player's preferring to see portraits as there tokens vs. player's who prefer top down tokens. In all, I hope this feature is implemented!
64-bit architecture is the most important thing I'm looking forward to. Though I'm good at managing memory now, I would like to not be restricted by a technical limitation. Second is networking architecture, both for the little impact this will have on me, but more largely on the benefits to the community, especially new users.

Dynamic lightning and mapping effects/tools will be cool, and something I will probably use, but it's "fluff" to me. It won't make or break playing for me. It will have a big "sales" impact and combine with network architecture, will severely limit critiques from Roll20 and other VTTs.

Top down or portrait styles can be used for any PC or NPC, but everyone sees the same image (because it's just an image). For some people to see a given creature as a portrait and others a top down would require a significant architecture improvement. No idea if such is intended, but you should check the wishlist (https://fg2app.idea.informer.com/)and add the idea there.

[CatoThe1stElder]

Welcome to the forums, GrandUbermensch. I have to say I just do not get the drive to see the tops of everyone's heads. I personally have no use for top-down stuff. You get so much more detail and character from a front-on pog. Since it isn't like the VTT is 3d, I just don't get the top-down things. (and they aren't even really top-down but kind of 10 degrees down, which itself cries out the weakness of the format)

Morning, Bidmaron!
Thanks for the warm welcome! Anyhow, I think I will have to respectfully disagree. While portraits are undoubtedly better at displaying the detail of a character, there are definitely top-down token authors (e.g. Devin Night) who make exemplary, distinguishable tokens (https://adobe.ly/2DU0jpA). All in all, I think it just comes down to a matter of taste between players. As such, considering it would only be an option, nothing more or less, I think this would be a very beneficial feature to implement.

EDIT: Thanks for the tip to about the checklist! I will definitely add it in. By the way, yeah, I am quite aware of how significant of an architecture improvement would be required to even come close to this capability, especially if would start so late the development. Anyhow, like you said yourself, this all simply 'fluff.'

[Ken L]

I'd like to leave the circa 2004 at some point hopefully. Multi-threading is probably the biggest gain to prevent sharing maps/modules from freezing clients or hosts in wait routines.

The current 20s fad is memes, so I memed it.
https://i.imgur.com/lBFKzD0.jpg

[CatoThe1stElder]

:D Haha, I am glad to know that members of the forum have exquisite taste for modern meme culture

[Bidmaron]

To each their own. I do agree having the option for either would be great. I just wish I could get devin to do some front-on pogs. He'd make some more sales. I gotta believe he is using 3d models, so the incremental level of effort to do front-ons would be minor. Oh, well, it saves me money at least.

[Mellock]

I gotta believe he is using 3d models, so the incremental level of effort to do front-ons would be minor.

I just ordered 4 tokens from Devin, and I'm pretty sure he hand draws everything instead of using 3D models. He always sends rough sketches first of all tokens.
Also, he did some illustration work for me as well, so if you want front-facing pogs, you might be able to just commission him for it. Prices are always reasonable, but there's usually a bit of a waiting list.

[damned]

I just ordered 4 tokens from Devin, and I'm pretty sure he hand draws everything instead of using 3D models. He always sends rough sketches first of all tokens.
Also, he did some illustration work for me as well, so if you want front-facing pogs, you might be able to just commission him for it. Prices are always reasonable, but there's usually a bit of a waiting list.

Agreed - his tokens look nothing like the ones created on/with 3d models.

[epithet]

I tend to be dismissive of the “pog” style of token, and I regard them as nothing better than placeholders awaiting a better looking “top-down” token to be added before dropping an npc onto the combat tracker. To be fair, though, the true top-down tokens I’ve seen aren’t very good; the best tokens are more accurately described as isometric, looking more like Diablo II or III characters, or units from WarCraft.

[CatoThe1stElder]

I tend to be dismissive of the “pog” style of token, and I regard them as nothing better than placeholders awaiting a better looking “top-down” token to be added before dropping an npc onto the combat tracker. To be fair, though, the true top-down tokens I’ve seen aren’t very good; the best tokens are more accurately described as isometric, looking more like Diablo II or III characters, or units from WarCraft.

Do you mind providing a specific example? I am little confused by what exactly is your preferred style.

[dulux-oz]

Agreed - his tokens look nothing like the ones created on/with 3d models.

For the record we commissioned Devin to do all the Tokens in the new 13th Age CoreRules and Bestiary Modules (ETA = Soon(TM))

[Trenloe]

I'd like to leave the circa 2004 at some point hopefully. Multi-threading is probably the biggest gain to prevent sharing maps/modules from freezing clients or hosts in wait routines.
We need to manage people's expectations here. FGU will *not* be 100% multi-threaded. Some info here: https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?38475-The-road-forward-64-bit-multithreading&p=339564&viewfull=1#post339564

[celestian]

I tend to be dismissive of the “pog” style of token, and I regard them as nothing better than placeholders awaiting a better looking “top-down” token to be added before dropping an npc onto the combat tracker. To be fair, though, the true top-down tokens I’ve seen aren’t very good; the best tokens are more accurately described as isometric, looking more like Diablo II or III characters, or units from WarCraft.

Hum, I really prefer the flat/round "pog" style. I find the top down 3d ones harder to see on the map and harder to tell what they actually are. Is it an orc or a gnoll? a giant or a ogre? When you use the "face" type ones I can see the type of creature more often than not.

That said I'd LOVE to have actual 3d tokens and view either in firstperson, ***-cam or isometric modes.

[CatoThe1stElder]

We need to manage people's expectations here. FGU will *not* be 100% multi-threaded. Some info here: https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?38475-The-road-forward-64-bit-multithreading&p=339564&viewfull=1#post339564
Good call. Last thing Fantasy Grounds Unity needs is to be over-hyped beyond belief by its fan base. Don't want to have a No Man's Sky disaster!

[epithet]

Do you mind providing a specific example? I am little confused by what exactly is your preferred style.

I like the tokens made by Ray Gaustadnes, and the newer tokens (made within the past several years) made by Devin Knight. They have some degree of isometric perspective, whereas some of the tokens made from 3d models are truely top-down, so that you can only see the top of the head and the shoulders. I don't like that style.

What I would really like would be isometric tokens that would switch among 4 images based on token facing, kind of like a character token in Baldur's Gate. If the token faces South, you see the front of the character from above. If it faces North, you see the back from above, and the same goes for the side perspectives. I don't see much benefit to quarter turn perspectives, since this isn't a video game.

Speaking of video games, I would love it if one of these isometric games (Diablo III, Sword Coast Legends, or even the soon to be released "enhanced" edition of Neverwinter Nights) would support exporting a character image as a png.

[Trenloe]

Speaking of video games, I would love it if one of these isometric games (Diablo III, Sword Coast Legends, or even the soon to be released "enhanced" edition of Neverwinter Nights) would support exporting a character image as a png.
Some do - do searches for the various different games. The D&D games have resource export apps available that allow you to export the character images and portraits.

[Valacar]

Having been a backer of Carl's tabletop connect Kickstarter and using it up until the acquisition by FG, the dynamic lighting within his 3D mapping world was a joy to behold (as seen on some of his old videos). I didn't have to worry about masking and then unmasking, the character with the light source could see what was visible in the lighting range set up for the torch...yeah that shadowy corner Looks shadowy enough to hid in :)

Oh and Carl if your reading these occasionally, my players tried to surprise me with going to Undermountain a couple months agp and all I had to do was load up tabletop connect (I was using the entire level 1 map in his program to see how big was too big) and project it onto the TV on the game table and it wow'd those that had never seen it. to see it in 3D. Just want to tell ya I'm still using it, still a lot of fun! :)

[pindercarl]

I do read these posts. Surprised and glad to hear that you are still using Tabletop Connect.

[merkvah]

One of the reasons I came searching for these changes was because I'm about to go full boar into the StarFinder stuff through Fantasy Grounds, and probably spend way too much money getting everything through FG that I can. it would be wonderful to be able to have a FG moble app for my tablet (or phone) that I could take with me to an actual gaming table, so that I wouldn't have to purchase physical copies of those resources as well. I realize there will be PDFs I can download, but it would be amazing to be able to have my characters in a moble app form as well, especially since D&D Beyond is doing that very thing. I'm happy for the 5e players, that's a wonderful bonus there, but 5e isn't my game. Path/Starfinder is.

Anyway, mostly just want to say thank you to the devs working so hard. We truly do appreciate all that you are doing.

[Valacar]

I didn't try to open up another window to project the player game on the tv, just had them looking at my DM's side as we moved the minis in the Undermountain dungeon on the tv. I did the same for the Phylund lodge map I had created with the 2 story building they could move around through and see the visuals.
I don't think the servers for tabletop connect are active, correct?

[pindercarl]

I don't think the servers for tabletop connect are active, correct?

The servers are still up. I haven't fired up Tabletop Connect in ages, but I just checked and I was able to connect and transfer data.

[Tovrin]

One question: Will we see a dynamic lighting feature similar to RollD20?

One suggestion: I've found finding windows on my 1080p laptop really difficult and time consuming during a gaming session. What we need is a good window management feature. One of my players suggested having the ability to merge windows and being able to select tabs across the top. That would make things really managable.

[Zacchaeus]

One Answer: Probably but maybe not at initial release.

One Suggestion: this has come up a number of times. Check the wish list and cast your vote.

[badula]

One question: Will we see a dynamic lighting feature similar to RollD20?

One suggestion: I've found finding windows on my 1080p laptop really difficult and time consuming during a gaming session. What we need is a good window management feature. One of my players suggested having the ability to merge windows and being able to select tabs across the top. That would make things really managable.

I do not care 2 much for dynamic lightning since i have no intention on setting vectors on my existing collection of 2d maps BUT...

i STRINGLY agree with the second proposal, we DO need something to cycle through open windows, also fully editable story and notes sections.

[dberkompas]

Stringly

https://wiki.c2.com/?StringlyTyped

[Zacchaeus]

also fully editable story and notes sections.
Story and notes are fully editable at the moment. Or do you mean something else?

[damned]

One question: Will we see a dynamic lighting feature similar to RollD20?

One suggestion: I've found finding windows on my 1080p laptop really difficult and time consuming during a gaming session. What we need is a good window management feature. One of my players suggested having the ability to merge windows and being able to select tabs across the top. That would make things really managable.

Hi Tovrin - everyone has their own way of doing things. For me - I minimize the number of windows open. All the time.
Player manage their own stuff. I almost never look up anything in the PHB - thats players job. If I want to check or clarify what an ???? that a player is using I get them to look it up and link it in chat.

I have one map open with all the pins on it.
I click on one or two stories only.

I drag all my main recurring maps to the hot keys.
I drag the main story links to my hot keys.

I have the chat window and combat tracker and maybe 3-5 other windows.

As I said - everyone does it differently and some like to have lots of resources open and ready.

[badula]

Story and notes are fully editable at the moment. Or do you mean something else?

I should re-check it but sometimes i cannot delete a linked object (those button-type links). it's not a locked frame.... select and canc doesn't work also backspace...
Am i doing something wrong?

[damned]

use ctrl+1 to change it to normal text and then delete it

[badula]

use ctrl+1 to change it to normal text and then delete it

Will do! this could save me a lot of trouble! I use FG to help me organize my PnP campaign, so my story/notes aren't well organized but the product of Improvisation! Being able to fully edit after the session would make me really happy!^^

[damned]

try ctrl+1, ctrl+2, ctrl+3, ctrl+4, ctrl+5, ctrl+6

[Zacchaeus]

Will do! this could save me a lot of trouble! I use FG to help me organize my PnP campaign, so my story/notes aren't well organized but the product of Improvisation! Being able to fully edit after the session would make me really happy!^^

Or right click over anything and select from the context menu.

[Trenloe]

Shortcut keys for formatted text here: https://www.fantasygrounds.com/wiki/index.php/The_Basics#Formatted_Text_Fields

[lostsanityreturned]

I do not care 2 much for dynamic lightning since i have no intention on setting vectors on my existing collection of 2d maps BUT...

i STRINGLY agree with the second proposal, we DO need something to cycle through open windows, also fully editable story and notes sections.

Relating to Dynamic lighting, the way it has been suggested it works is by having a mask image loaded in. Being that this is a client/server structure the mask should be sent to each client (as the image is now) meaning you aren't sending vector data over at all.
I am sure they will add in a similar option to the roll20 masking. But what has been talked about so far is vastly superior.

For instance, I can make a mask for pretty much any released WotC map in less than 5min and require little stress... Tracing out vectors of a large map would take me 1+ hours though.

Given then that it would remove the need for me to hop in and out of masking when using battle maps or even navigation maps I make. I look forward to it.

[Ken L]

https://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/540/658/5e8.jpg

[Andraax]

Given then that it would remove the need for me to hop in and out of masking when using battle maps or even navigation maps I make. I look forward to it.

I just stay in masking mode most of the time while I'm GMing...

[ddavison]

Relating to Dynamic lighting, the way it has been suggested it works is by having a mask image loaded in. Being that this is a client/server structure the mask should be sent to each client (as the image is now) meaning you aren't sending vector data over at all.
I am sure they will add in a similar option to the roll20 masking. But what has been talked about so far is vastly superior.

For instance, I can make a mask for pretty much any released WotC map in less than 5min and require little stress... Tracing out vectors of a large map would take me 1+ hours though.

Given then that it would remove the need for me to hop in and out of masking when using battle maps or even navigation maps I make. I look forward to it.

Carl is working on finalizing some of the masking considerations now. In addition, we focused attention on module creators for our content workflow and for it, a separate mask image that can be created in photoshop or another imaging program is probably the fastest. Carl is working on the piece that will recognize the existence of a 2-color mask image and will use that to build out the occluder geometry. You should be able to work in either method - provide a mask image or trace out your lines. Carl has lots of ideas for making both of those as efficient as possible.

[Honken]

https://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/540/658/5e8.jpg

I agree...

/H

[Arthreas]

My group would very much enjoy the product a lot more with dynamic lighting. I don't mind any method so long as it is capable of different and unique sight lines for each player. Such as those with darkvision and those without. It's pretty much the reason why I haven't moved exclusively over to fg over roll20.

[IamGrays]

This is a really interesting thread, thank you everyone for contributing. Do we have a timeline for when we will see the new Unity based product?

[Zacchaeus]

Nope

[ddavison]

Sorry. It's a long thread, so we often see the same questions and answers over and over.

Short Summary

Work is progressing steadily but there is a small team working on it. 1.5 full time developers on average.
SmiteWorks itself is a small team of 4 full-time people with lots of contractors and commissioned devs and content people
New content and ruleset updates continue to be released for the current version of FG but since these are going to be compatible and usable within FGU, it allows us to essentially have more than 1.5 developers worth of progress getting made on the final version of FGU.
We won't share any estimated release dates until we think we are within 3 months of a public beta test release.
SmiteWorks as a company is growing very well year over year with the current version of FG. We expect the current version to live on for years to come with support eventually dropping off as FGU becomes the dominant platform.
(NEW) We are looking into recompiling the current version of Fantasy Grounds as a 64-bit version to give us a little more breathing room on memory utilization but we don't plan any other major changes or updates like line of sight.

[dulux-oz]

(NEW) We are looking into recompiling the current version of Fantasy Grounds as a 64-bit version to give us a little more breathing room on memory utilization but we don't plan any other major changes or updates like line of sight.

Question: Does this include an IPv6 aspect, or is that something that will definitely be held for FGU?

Great work as always, BTW :)

Cheers

[ddavison]

Question: Does this include an IPv6 aspect, or is that something that will definitely be held for FGU?

Great work as always, BTW :)

Cheers

I don't believe so. That sounds like it would be a much bigger change.

[Moon Wizard]

We're looking into 64-bit client for FG Classic, but I won't know if it's possible until we verify we can rebuild all the libraries and updater to support. We're still discussing how that fits into our priorities.

IPv6 requires a complete network library replacement, and is outside the scope for FG Classic.

Cheers,
JPG

[bawsr]

64 bit was the top of my request list :) It would be nice to have dynamic lighting but 64 bit would mean that I could more of my tokens and maps!

[Varsuuk]

I want all the bits!

;)

Yeah, 64 but access to those of us with 8, 16, 32 (sweet spot) or higher is an awesome win.

I’ve had to convert many a C++ app to 64 bit back in the day. Heck, when I started I used to program Cellular and Pager carrier paging/texting using Cisual Studio 1.52. We kept our exe 16 bit since many of the end users were not the types who kept on top of tech and didn’t carriers didn’t want to exclude business.

[damned]

Guys, please, please, please be aware of your players setups too.
If you think that having 64bit and using up 10GB of RAM on your local side is a good idea...
Just wait till your first player with 4GB RAM on the PC connects...
You are not operating is isolation from your players - a good chunk of your memory usage will pass on to the players.
64bit will ease some of the bumps but it will not allow you to open slather...

[Topdecker]

open slather

My first exposure to this term - Google went wild :)

I'll return things back to the regularly scheduled yearning for FGU...

[damned]

My first exposure to this term - Google went wild :)

I'll return things back to the regularly scheduled yearning for FGU...

hahaha - it does appear to be a largely Australian term...

yes - my hope is that FGU will be better at memory usage as opposed to just giving us access to lots more.

[Varsuuk]

Guys, please, please, please be aware of your players setups too.
If you think that having 64bit and using up 10GB of RAM on your local side is a good idea...
Just wait till your first player with 4GB RAM on the PC connects...
You are not operating is isolation from your players - a good chunk of your memory usage will pass on to the players.
64bit will ease some of the bumps but it will not allow you to open slather...

For my local game it rocks. My wife’s pc is smallest with 16 (not counting son’s 8gb laptop but he won’t use that for this) and his is 32 as is mine. My MacBook is also 16 if we have another in person player because no more PCs in the den. I’ve killed a few when I got moved to smaller room. Wait, forget the Linux server I share my second monitor with that one. It’s 32gb but haven’t loaded it with FG yet.

So, there are definitely use cases and memory always becomes more standard every 6 months to year anyhow.

[celestian]

Guys, please, please, please be aware of your players setups too.
If you think that having 64bit and using up 10GB of RAM on your local side is a good idea...
Just wait till your first player with 4GB RAM on the PC connects...
You are not operating is isolation from your players - a good chunk of your memory usage will pass on to the players.
64bit will ease some of the bumps but it will not allow you to open slather...

I guess I'm fortunate. Most of my players all have 10+, some 16+. I have 16 myself.

I really want to have larger maps... and the "rip" icon work properly ;)

[Myrdin Potter]

Pretty reliably, people have 8 these days. Effectively it is less because most of the lower end machines share regular memory with the graphics chip, but 8 is a pretty good bet. Someone with 4 risks crashing all the time now once the OS and other overhead is added in.

[IamGrays]

Thanks for the candid update. I'm glad Smiteworks and FG is doing well and continue to grow but I'm really looking forward to the Unity product.

Keep up the great work.... just do it faster :D

[Bidmaron]

With SSDs the amount of physical memory isn’t as important as it was. You must remember that a computer has virtual memeory that is limited only by available static memory (disk or SSD) and the width of the address bus. As time goes on SSDs will be almost a given.

[notrealdan]

With SSDs the amount of physical memory isn’t as important as it was. You must remember that a computer has virtual memeory that is limited only by available static memory (disk or SSD) and the width of the address bus. As time goes on SSDs will be almost a given.

SSDs should not be used for virtual memory. Each cell in an SSD can only be written to a finite number of times. Frequent write operations wear them out and cause the cells to fail, and using them for virtual memory is a great way to make that happen quickly. More modern SSDs aren't quite as susceptible to this, mostly because they do things like wear-leveling, but the problem is not completely gone even on newer ones.

Besides, even though they're faster than HDDs, SSDs are nowhere as fast as actual RAM. I wouldn't want to run a game with FG operating from virtual memory. Performance would be a serious problem.

[Bidmaron]

If all you have is SSD, you have no choice where virtual memory goes (unless you shut it down). I use VM all the time on FG, and I am sure there is a performance hit, but it seems very responsive to me (until users connect and a bunch of stuff has to get transferred).

[nebbiolo]

Just curious how much memory is consumed by FG when you run your campaigns? I'm mostly new to FG but over the last 4-5 sessions my FantasyGrounds.exe process has never consumed more than 900MB RAM. So plenty of GBs left. And I'm running Curse of Strahd. Just curious why lots of people are complaining about memory issues. Perhaps when my campaign will have run for dozens of sessions? So far so good...

[Moon Wizard]

It usually has to do with one of these things:
a) Adding large quantity of tokens (both quantity and/or resolution)
b) Using very large map images (resolution) (such as those provided directly by artist)
c) Sharing GM modules (DMG, MM, adventures) with players

Player memory usage is higher than GM memory usage, so that can have an impact. Most people don't share everything and load it up with all sorts of custom images, so the typical user doesn't see the limits as much. (unless they have bought a LOT of DLC and load it all)

Cheers,
JPG

[ddavison]

The other thing to watch is as campaigns run for a year or more, people don't ever unshare stuff. All that stuff adds up and the way FG works currently is that the images are still loaded into memory taking up room. Unsharing content on campaigns is a good way to keep the memory usage down to a reasonable level. You can see everything that is shared by toggling the current window (such as in Images & Maps) from All to Shared. Click on the P = Public icon to unshare it and free up some memory the next time your players join your game.

[Moon Wizard]

Also, you can use the /flushdb chat command to reset sharing within your campaign.

Regards,
JPG

[Guoccamole]

The latest 2018-03-16 “Fantasy Grounds Fridays with Special Guest Matt Colville” interview contains an ‘update’ to the status for FGUnity. As one of FG’s biggest fans, Matt Colville was kind enough to ask Doug Davison about the ETA for Fantasy Grounds Unity, and Doug’s answer seemed to be: 1) wishful thinking last year was beta by end of 2017 (but no joy), 2) (wishful?) thinking this year is beta by end of this year (2018), and (earlier in the show) 64-bit is getting close to release (months?). Interview posted here: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_OqUOpHf8B4 with key FGU Q&A at 54:40.

[CatoThe1stElder]

The latest 2018-03-16 “Fantasy Grounds Fridays with Special Guest Matt Colville” interview contains an ‘update’ to the status for FGUnity. As one of FG’s biggest fans, Matt Colville was kind enough to ask Doug Davison about the ETA for Fantasy Grounds Unity, and Doug’s answer seemed to be: 1) wishful thinking last year was beta by end of 2017 (but no joy), 2) (wishful?) thinking this year is beta by end of this year (2018), and (earlier in the show) 64-bit is getting close to release (months?). Interview posted here: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_OqUOpHf8B4 with key FGU Q&A at 54:40.

Hoorah! Looks like I am not the only one who caught that conversation. While of course none of the information is definite, its gives me a glimmer of hope! :D

[Patou]

Super stuff!!!

[RoleforFun]

Hello everyone, I just convinced my group to switch over from Roll20 (we started VTT's on there but I believe this is a better option for many reasons). I'm about to go all-in with the Ultimate license and purchasing all available WotC 5e content and modules. That being said, I'm concerned that I may have to pay more when the new Unity version of FG is released. So my questions, is there going to be an upgrade charge from the current version of FG to the new version? Also, if I have purchased existing campaign modules, are they going to be updated to take advantage of new available features by the developers? Are official modules going to have LoS and other features built-in or are they going to need to be done by the user? I haven't seen anyone ask those specific questions with definite answers; sorry if I am repeating any questions. Thanks all, I'm glad to be a member of this community!

[damned]

Hello everyone, I just convinced my group to switch over from Roll20 (we started VTT's on there but I believe this is a better option for many reasons). I'm about to go all-in with the Ultimate license and purchasing all available WotC 5e content and modules. That being said, I'm concerned that I may have to pay more when the new Unity version of FG is released. So my questions, is there going to be an upgrade charge from the current version of FG to the new version? Also, if I have purchased existing campaign modules, are they going to be updated to take advantage of new available features by the developers? Are official modules going to have LoS and other features built-in or are they going to need to be done by the user? I haven't seen anyone ask those specific questions with definite answers; sorry if I am repeating any questions. Thanks all, I'm glad to be a member of this community!

Hola Catalyst20XX

There is nothing definitive about pricing just yet but plenty of indications as to where SmiteWorks are heading with their thinking...
So dont take as gospel - but likely a good indication...

If FGU were to be released within a short time of your purchase the upgrade would be free.
If FGU were to be released (my timeframes) 6-18 months after your purchase you might pay a (my values) 25-35% upgrade fee.
18-30 months a 50-65% upgrade fee.
30+ months a 75-100% upgrade fee.
This applies to base license only.

DLC would upgrade for free.

5e would get the most/fastest attention for adding new features.
Line of Sight would be an Engine feature - but it would require the maps in particular to be updated. I imagine all the Wizards stuff would get the full treatment sooner or later after the release of FGU.

SmiteWorks are very supportive and appreciative of their community and whatever they decide in the end will prove to be pretty fair.

They have invested somewhere approaching 10,000 hours into the FGU project - so it is going to cost something for most of us.
Im a long time user so I expect my upgrade cost to basically be buying the new version at full price.

[ddavison]

Damned is pretty close. Those things might shift a bit and there might be a minimum upgrade fee for all but the most recent orders -- probably 30 days. We are very conscious of the expense for people just now buying in, though, and we will have plenty of information out once we get closer to release. You can pretty much guarantee that you'll have at least a 3 month notice before it is planned for beta release. It will likely be in beta for a certain amount of time after release as well. When FGU releases, FG Classic (as we are calling it) will still be the predominant platform people use for playing for a while.

For DLC updates, the FGU software will support enhancing the maps for LOS and FOW immediately upon release if you add those to the maps yourself. We will be going back through the content and doing weekly updates to bring many of these up to support that level. We have something like 900 DLC products, though, so it may take a while for the majority of our back catalog to get enhanced. In addition to that, we will be wanting to focus attention on new modules that really utilize all the new features.

[ddavison]

We will be showing some teaser videos from FGU today during our livestreamed event on Twitch. Join us at noon EDT (23 mins from now) over at https://www.twitch.tv/fantasygrounds.

[RoleforFun]

Thanks @damned and @ddavison for the quick, informative responses!

[gaara6666]

https://www.twitch.tv/videos/244771775 fun time teaser FGU clips start at 29:00 mark. Good lord does this look sexy

[LordEntrails]

https://www.twitch.tv/videos/244771775 fun time teaser FGU clips start at 29:00 mark. Good lord does this look sexy
Yea, and Doug said that since John was out of town Doug could go ahead and promise all sorts of things! But unless you watch, you won't learn what those are! (Cuz I'm not going to tell!!)

[MarianDz]

Thank you for this FGU News.

[Xydonus]

Only thing that I thought was strange is the idea of using Kickstarter as a marketing platform for FG. Not sure how I feel about that... I may support it though, especially if it's to add extra bells and whistles on Unity.

[Stormhound]

I look forward to seeing the podcast, though when I tried last night it took me half an hour to see the first minute...I guess I wasn't the only one wanting to watch.

[Kanbie]

Damned is pretty close. Those things might shift a bit and there might be a minimum upgrade fee for all but the most recent orders -- probably 30 days. We are very conscious of the expense for people just now buying in, though, and we will have plenty of information out once we get closer to release. You can pretty much guarantee that you'll have at least a 3 month notice before it is planned for beta release. It will likely be in beta for a certain amount of time after release as well. When FGU releases, FG Classic (as we are calling it) will still be the predominant platform people use for playing for a while.

For DLC updates, the FGU software will support enhancing the maps for LOS and FOW immediately upon release if you add those to the maps yourself. We will be going back through the content and doing weekly updates to bring many of these up to support that level. We have something like 900 DLC products, though, so it may take a while for the majority of our back catalog to get enhanced. In addition to that, we will be wanting to focus attention on new modules that really utilize all the new features.

Not to request feature bloat, this request comes from me creating my own maps. Does or will FGU Chroma-Key for automatic walling? It would be trivial for me to pass all of my maps through Photoshop and create obstructions for walls that way.

How will the workflow look?

[pindercarl]

Currently, the occluders are generated for a map by tracing the alpha channel of PNG file. This largely due to my being lazy and it is the quickest way to create the data without the development of a full UI for creating and editing the occluders. Some similar mechanism should be available in FGU for tracing images to derive the occluders. Whether or not that is a "chromakey" is TBD. The tracing routine uses the alpha value of the image. The final version may read a black-and-white mask.

FGU will include tools for creating the occluder data within Fantasy Grounds without relying on externally authored images.

[Erin Righ]

sweet thanks Carl

[Tovrin]

Currently, the occluders are generated for a map by tracing the alpha channel of PNG file. This largely due to my being lazy and it is the quickest way to create the data without the development of a full UI for creating and editing the occluders. Some similar mechanism should be available in FGU for tracing images to derive the occluders. Whether or not that is a "chromakey" is TBD. The tracing routine uses the alpha value of the image. The final version may read a black-and-white mask.

Question (based on not entirely understanding the answer), if I have a scanned in map with a grid baked in, how will that work?

[pindercarl]

Question (based on not entirely understanding the answer), if I have a scanned in map with a grid baked in, how will that work?

Not well. Grids, in particular, do not work well with image processing techniques. While you or I may look at a map and be able to easily distinguish the grid as not being "part of the map," computers aren't quite so discerning. With image tracing, something as simple as loading the scanned map into MS Paint and slathering a color where the walls should be will likely be sufficient.

[donpaulo]

Question (based on not entirely understanding the answer), if I have a scanned in map with a grid baked in, how will that work?

It can be somewhat time intensive a process to line the grid up, but it can be done.

Spoofer has had very good results doing that so you might want to ask him. He taught me how to do it but as with most things if we don't use it regularly things get a bit hazy over time. Besides since I mostly play with him why learn to do something he is already very capable at ? Better to branch off and learn something new right ? :)

Thanks to Philip I put all those extra tokens into a mod file which worked out fantastically ! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOC6icDH03U

So both Spoofer and I benefit.

Regarding the FGU as a long time user of the "classic" platform I have no issue paying full freight for the upgrade. FG and Smiteworks have been such a joy and pleasure to use, not to mention the community here which is so responsive and supportive. I cannot imagine how I would be doing RPG without this place. Very thankful.

If kickstarter brings more eyeballs and users to the platform than I am all for it and will be backing that as well.

[epithet]

I'm planning to upgrade from "full" to "ultimate" when FGU comes out, so as long as the upgrade price is available I'm good.

[notrealdan]

While you or I may look at a map and be able to easily distinguish the grid as not being "part of the map," computers aren't quite so discerning.

Sounds like SmiteWorks should pause development of FGU to work on an AI to process this stuff! /s ;)

[Henrique Oliveira Machado]

Where can i get more information on that? Seem like a very good project but it seems it is very old. Will it be finished or they gave up?
Will i still be able to use my license on the Unity program?

i am very new here, i am sorry.

[damned]

Hi Henrique there is lots of info about but if you are looking for a single announcement that spells out everything you want to know about FGU there isnt one.

SmiteWorks is a small company.
FGU has had approx 10,000 hours invested into it.
It is well and truly aliive but also not yet ready.
When its ready ir very nearly so is when they will really start to talk about it.

FGC (Classic - todays program) will continue to work.
All DLC will continue to work.

There will be an upgrade charge to go from FGC to FGU and it will scale - lowest price for the newest users - full price for older users.
All FGU DLC will be upgraded to FGU without additional cost.

[Henrique Oliveira Machado]

Hi Henrique there is lots of info about but if you are looking for a single announcement that spells out everything you want to know about FGU there isnt one.

SmiteWorks is a small company.
FGU has had approx 10,000 hours invested into it.
It is well and truly aliive but also not yet ready.
When its ready ir very nearly so is when they will really start to talk about it.

FGC (Classic - todays program) will continue to work.
All DLC will continue to work.

There will be an upgrade charge to go from FGC to FGU and it will scale - lowest price for the newest users - full price for older users.
All FGU DLC will be upgraded to FGU without additional cost.

Oh, so it is an Update about graphical content, is that right?
What kind of additional tools we will be able to use that the classic does not have?

Also, did i get that right? newest users like me will pay less than the old ones that use FGC for years? Or did you mean the first ones to buy it will pay less than the ones that buy it later?

[LordEntrails]

Oh, so it is an Update about graphical content, is that right?
No. FGU is a complete re-write of the software engine that make FG does it's thing. All content (modules, rulesets, etc) will be compatible, but behind the scenes everything will be new. If you want the most recent discussion on it, you can see some teasers on last week's Fantasy Grounds Friday. You can find the video on the FG channel on Twitch or on You Tube; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOdUcSCx1-U



What kind of additional tools we will be able to use that the classic does not have?
Nothing promised except a more capable networking model and engine. That said, as you can see from the video above, it seems like FGU will indeed have new things included in it. But, as I said, nothing promised.


Also, did i get that right? newest users like me will pay less than the old ones that use FGC for years? Or did you mean the first ones to buy it will pay less than the ones that buy it later?
Again, nothing promised, but if you bought FG more recently you will pay less.

[damned]

New users will get a substantial discount.
Old users will need to buy again to get FGU.
And there is some middle ground.

Fantasy Grounds has provided scores of program updates and revisions over the last 14 years - all for the initial purchase price.
The product is always getting better.

FGU is a complete rewrite which will allow many more things to happen over time.
Initially better memory and networking engines.
Over time lots of great features.

Some good stuff in that video from about the 28min mark.

[Henrique Oliveira Machado]

Seems really good.

Well i know i'd be very upset if i had to pay a whole new license to get it after buying it the week before lol.

[damned]

If you bought it the week before it would be a free upgrade.

[LordEntrails]

Seems really good.

Well i know i'd be very upset if i had to pay a whole new license to get it after buying it the week before lol.
Since I've been here, every experience I have had, and heard about, has been that SmiteWorks takes care of their customers. If anything, they sometimes might be too generous.

But, that's the position I would want to be in and the reputation I would want to have if I sold a consumer product like they do. So, they are right where I think they should be :)

[Henrique Oliveira Machado]

Since I've been here, every experience I have had, and heard about, has been that SmiteWorks takes care of their customers. If anything, they sometimes might be too generous.

But, that's the position I would want to be in and the reputation I would want to have if I sold a consumer product like they do. So, they are right where I think they should be :)

Absolutely.
I am not here for long, but i noticed fast how they work and how many quality they have.
I wonder if they get enough money by making this model of pay once and have support for eternity.

[Nylanfs]

Well it's been working for them for more than 10 years. :)

[Valyar]

I hope Fantasy Grounds and Realm Works never adopt the "as a service"/subscription business model. Can be used for support services such as cloud storage or hosting (the VPN issue we have today :) ), but not to be the main way of consuming the product. This is the plague of the software for home/personal use today and every person I know quickly bailed out of this locking dubious scheme from bad companies unable to deliver a proper product and stimulate users to upgrade their versions.

[Stormhound]

Absolutely.
I am not here for long, but i noticed fast how they work and how many quality they have.
I wonder if they get enough money by making this model of pay once and have support for eternity.

They must, as they're still in business. I'd say a considerable amount of their ability to operate this way depends upon how well they're able to keep expanding their customer base (as well as sales of DLC)...and a quality product and quality QS go a long way toward doing that. It's very much a word-of-mouth type business, and a lot of gamers aren't shy about voicing their opinions (positive or negative).

Though it sure would be something to see a SmiteWorks ad during the Super Bowl. ;)

[damned]

SmiteWorks have managed to do it in the past but that is no proof that it will continue to work.
FGUnity should be a paid upgrade and should give the company a nice little boost.

[shadzar]

FGUnity ... upgrade

except there is nothing to upgrade, FGU will be its own software built on a new core, it isn't upgrading anything. it will just be built in a way to beholden to existing content, which i might say it outdated.

Would be much better if the rewrite included a converter to a new format to modernize the whole platform with a better coding base.

Saying it is an upgrade sounds like it is just going to overwrite your existing file to the newest version when the "Check for Updates" button is glowing red, but that isnt the case at all, its a full new program and the term "upgrade" seems to be confusing many people on streaming sites.

[CrawlingChaox]

There's a few very permissive positions here, which is understandable. Yet, let's keep in mind a few hard facts concerning pricing:
- Not everyone will be jumping out of joy at the idea of having to pay again full price for the Unity version. The system that's been hinted at so far sounds reasonable, but it would be important to give a discount (no matter how small - even just 5% would be something) to the clients who own the ultimate license, no matter how long it's been. Those are the people who have been keeping the software afloat by getting new people on the platform and buying supplements. I would say even a small gesture goes A LONG WAY to make those people feel like they're getting a sweeter deal.
- Secondly, and this is a deal-breaker for me, the reason I bought Fantasy Grounds was the pricing model. I will not be getting anything that is locked behind a monthly payment. I can also assure (as the moderator of a FG community) that more will do the same. People are finally starting to realize that pricing is one of FG's biggest advantages over the competition. Not having that available would mean for some to stick to FG Classic.

Yeah, we all love Fantasy Grounds and the people who work on it. That's why I'd be careful with giving them the impression they can do anything and it will work. It will for some in here, but then there's the rest of the world. The future of FG likely rests on how FGU fares, and with that in mind, aggressive pricing strategies (expensive upgrades from FG, subscription-only model) definitely risk putting off many potential customers.

[sturtus]

Anybody with a busy career and busy home life (aka kids) is happy to shell out any dollars to save the time required to prep and play. Thank you FG. Your prices are very reasonable.

[damned]

There's a few very permissive positions here, which is understandable. Yet, let's keep in mind a few hard facts concerning pricing:

No one gets excited about paying more money.
Getting Free Upgrades for ever and a day is also unlikely to be a good for ever business model.
All that aside - FGC will either get fewer and fewer updates or none - but it will continue to work.
You dont have to spend any more money on it.

[CrawlingChaox]

What I'm saying is different. I'm saying that the community as a whole is going to want both to transition into FGU (for continued support) and, more importantly, for more people to get into the software. Of course individuals can choose to stay on FG classic, but that won't net SmiteWorks new income, so winning those people over is important. The pricing model is an essential component of all that. If it's too aggressive, SW might retain those users that are already invested in the community (those who, so far, have expressed very lenient opinions concering the price of the new software). But if SW listens to those voices alone, they risk adopting a model that will make it hard to win people over, resulting not only in monetary loss but also in a community that is held back in its expansion by the business model rather than by the qualities of the software itself.

tl;dr it's important, vital I'd say, for SW to strike the "happy medium" with the pricing of FGU in order to expand. A few hardcore fans being too accomodating on this subject risk giving off the impression that the whole community will be as nice and understanding, which is likely not the case.

[ddavison]

it's important, vital I'd say, for SW to strike the "happy medium" with the pricing of FGU in order to expand. A few hardcore fans being too accomodating on this subject risk giving off the impression that the whole community will be as nice and understanding, which is likely not the case.

That is definitely our aim. We won't please everyone, but our success will depend on how well we position it along the "happy medium" scale. :)

[YAKO SOMEDAKY]

I would quietly upgrade this effort to generate a new version of Fantasy Grounds, the Unity version took a lot of time, but I would be very happy to be able to hand it to him in 2018, it would be something incredible..see the videos presented during Twitch stream just made me want this product more :D

[Valyar]

Are those videos accessible on YouTube/Vimeo?

[Nylanfs]

It will be uploaded here.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmUrE2JKrLMzAjnylWlIyyA

[shadzar]

Anybody with a busy career and busy home life (aka kids) is happy to shell out any dollars to save the time required to prep and play.

how does any VTT even FG save time in prep? The only way I can see this is by only playing published adventures. a VTT already adds 10% more work to a DM that creates their own content, and FG seems to add even 10% more to that because all the little bits and pieces it takes.

IS there something most streamers don't know about putting your own content into FG that makes it somehow easier than all the streamers elude to it being?

NPC Engineer, you still have to make the NPC twice, once when writing your game,a nd the second time putting it into NPCE, then you still need to put it into FG, but NPCE does reduce the time for that... Everything else, for any VTT it is still prepping the game twice unless it is a bought published adventure.

to what CrawlingChaox is saying.. if you want to get people to switch from roll20 to FG, you have to make it worth their while. To get people to switch form Classic to FGU you have to make it worth their while also. The fanatics will pay whatever, but the casual people that make up the majority of any market, those who buy something, buy more, hardly see it, but keep buying, are the ones you want. FGU needs to have an "impulse buy" component. "Dynamic lighting" as shown, moving water and annoying rain effects dont seem a good incentive to get FGU unless the system itself is more easy for people to put their own content in without the existing core problems of the unintuitive scripting language, and bloated memory hog that is XML. it is currently like making an adventure for the original BioWare NWN needing those levels of coding to make your own content, as opposed to a DM jsut able to sit down and write on a sheet of notebook paper to play an RPG F2F.

Ease of adding content would surely be an impusle buy.

I am confused why Classic won't make money? is FGU just killing Classic? no more support for Classic, no products, no further updates to fix errors or bugs? it is going to be Unity or nothing, and support for Classic is discontinued? Because that seems like it would make people convert FROM FG to other places. :confused:

[damned]

how does any VTT even FG save time in prep? The only way I can see this is by only playing published adventures. a VTT already adds 10% more work to a DM that creates their own content, and FG seems to add even 10% more to that because all the little bits and pieces it takes.

IS there something most streamers don't know about putting your own content into FG that makes it somehow easier than all the streamers elude to it being?

NPC Engineer, you still have to make the NPC twice, once when writing your game,a nd the second time putting it into NPCE, then you still need to put it into FG, but NPCE does reduce the time for that... Everything else, for any VTT it is still prepping the game twice unless it is a bought published adventure.

to what CrawlingChaox is saying.. if you want to get people to switch from roll20 to FG, you have to make it worth their while. To get people to switch form Classic to FGU you have to make it worth their while also. The fanatics will pay whatever, but the casual people that make up the majority of any market, those who buy something, buy more, hardly see it, but keep buying, are the ones you want. FGU needs to have an "impulse buy" component. "Dynamic lighting" as shown, moving water and annoying rain effects dont seem a good incentive to get FGU unless the system itself is more easy for people to put their own content in without the existing core problems of the unintuitive scripting language, and bloated memory hog that is XML. it is currently like making an adventure for the original BioWare NWN needing those levels of coding to make your own content, as opposed to a DM jsut able to sit down and write on a sheet of notebook paper to play an RPG F2F.

Ease of adding content would surely be an impusle buy.

I am confused why Classic won't make money? is FGU just killing Classic? no more support for Classic, no products, no further updates to fix errors or bugs? it is going to be Unity or nothing, and support for Classic is discontinued? Because that seems like it would make people convert FROM FG to other places. :confused:

I run some games with ZERO prep. I mean ZERO prep. I dont know what the adventure will be until I ask the players some questions. And I do that on FG. So your reality is your reality but its not the only reality.

If you are doing prep why do you have to do it twice? If you are running your game in FG just prep it in FG. If you choose to double prep thats your choice. And when you want to build an Orc Shaman all you do is drag an Orc 15mm and let go, unlock it and edit 3 or 4 fields and relock it. How did that not save you prep time?

I dont think anyone is asking people to switch from one to the other. People will choose the product and platform that works for them. If only product was good there would be only one product.

XML database is hardly a memory hog. Is it the best choice for a database? Whats your criteria? Is it performance, reliability, accessibility, simplicity, cost, what? Whats your alternative?
LUA is the most common scripting language for modding games. The rulesets are written in LUA and XML. Both commonly used, both have large volumes of people with skills and expertise.
And there is a significant amount of content in this format already. Dumping the format... good luck with that.

If you are the style of GM that can and like to start with a blank sheet of paper and design and create things as you go you can do that. You can do that right now. On Fantasy Grounds. There are three generic rulesets that all let you start adding stuff in right now.

Pretty much the only content you cant create for 5e from within FG without any coding at all is a reference manual. Some of the older commercial rulesets dont even have reference manuals. They are nice to have but not required.

And whats with the straw men? Why do you introduce arguments as though you are responding to them?

[LordEntrails]

how does any VTT even FG save time in prep? The only way I can see this is by only playing published adventures. a VTT already adds 10% more work to a DM that creates their own content, and FG seems to add even 10% more to that because all the little bits and pieces it takes.

IS there something most streamers don't know about putting your own content into FG that makes it somehow easier than all the streamers elude to it being?

Don't know what streamers you are talking about. I've never heard a streamer complain about additional prep time, but then I don't watch often.

FG saves me prep time, it doesn't cost me time. If it's costing you time then you may still have things to learn or a workflow to reconsider. Maybe if every creature I used was completely unique from every other creature and I never used parts of one for another they would take more time. But I can make encounters fast. I can make room descriptions even faster (see my signature if you want one way to do it). Creating unique NPCs in FG is no slower than on paper, unless the paper NPC is incomplete in stats (which might be acceptable).

When it comes to time savings with a database, which FG is, it's not about initial data entry. That time doing that is often negligible in saving or costing time (and more dependent upon workflow differences and data quality dependencies). The benefit of a database is data re-use. Anything in the MM, Volos, or that I have created before I can re-use in new ways in seconds. That saves me time.

And, the stuff I create and present in FG is better than what I would in pen and paper; and plays easier, faster and with more opportunity for role playing and not book keeping.



to what CrawlingChaox is saying.. <snip> unless the system itself is more easy for people to put their own content

FG already is massively easier to put in content that Roll20 is. There are a dozen DM's on the forums here who I've heard attest to that. One video I think of in particular, is the recent cost comparison video (DM Dave?), he mentions the thousands of hours he spent coding in Roll20, and was all obsoleted within months of switching to FG (but you have to pay attention, because it's only a passing comment).



in without the existing core problems of the unintuitive scripting language, and bloated memory hog that is XML. it is currently like making an adventure for the original BioWare NWN needing those levels of coding to make your own content, as opposed to a DM jsut able to sit down and write on a sheet of notebook paper to play an RPG F2F.

Ease of adding content would surely be an impusle buy.
No scripting language is intuitive. No programming language is natural language. A specific scripting language might be easier for a particular person to learn based upon what scripting languages they already know.

But to the more important assumption you are making; why do you need to know any scripting language to add content to FG? I don't know any coding langauage and I have no problem creating tons of content for FG within the existing UI. No coding used. Sure, maybe I can't automate the Mystic class without coding, but I can't automate the Mystic class with pen and paper, and I can play a Mystic just fine in FG or with pen and paper.



I am confused why Classic won't make money? is FGU just killing Classic? no more support for Classic, no products, no further updates to fix errors or bugs? it is going to be Unity or nothing, and support for Classic is discontinued? Because that seems like it would make people convert FROM FG to other places. :confused:

Whoever said or implied that FGC "won't make money"? It's pretty easy to see that Fantasy Grounds is doing the best financially it ever has. No one thinks it won't still be able to make money in the future.

Yes, at some point it will be FGU only that is supported. FGC will probably always be available, but it would be a very poor business decision to split resources and maintain two versions of the same application. In a matter of time it would become a matter of competing with yourself. That would be dumb.

I see no reason why people would go from FGC to something not FGU, at least in any appreciable numbers. Those that are adamant not to buy FGU will have FGC they can continue to use, perhaps indefinitely. Besides, Doug has already stated many times that FGU will bring added value over FGC, that SmiteWorks is customer focused, and that no pricing model has been determined.

Truly, there is no reason to get worked up about 'what ifs' and 'maybes' for 'worst case scenarios' that their is almost no possibility of. Certainly make your opinion known, but please, keep calm :)

[Ken L]

I run some games with ZERO prep. I mean ZERO prep.

Creating a blank canvas with the drawing tools is pretty um.. limited? You'd at least need the map.

As much as I dislike Roll20's "Pro" model, for what is offered at the free level, you can drag in images, plop them on a map, hand draw a map with your wacom or mouse, and roll some dice. It's basically all you need for off the cuff running. The bitmap based model for drawing causes some loading issues for large maps as well as making the drawing tool appear gimped compared to vector based drawings/masks.

Regarding some talk about Lua, Lua has been losing traction in the programming community for years, it's only main benefit being easy integration with C/C++. The fact that Lua can't even properly book-keep the length of dynamic tables reeks of C struct pesudo OOP. Changing the scripting language however is a moot point, it-is-the-way-it-is. I do however hate the 1-indexing, a large number of mathematical tricks with 0 indexed collections can't be used.

I feel like there's a ton of heat being directed at shadzar for pointing out some issues. FG does have the highest learning curve among the VTTs,

Heck, take a look at the basic interface sans the map. The buttons and token title text size have scale issues. It took me literally over a year to realize that the 'flag' and the glasses thing were actually the 'select-all ally' and 'select-all foe'. Given how poor the illustration is. I'm aware of the tool-tip but I simply ran my game without until I decided to make some theme adjustments for my sci-fi and dungeon crawler games.
https://imgur.com/eF7emSd.jpg

Many of these will be addressed by unity supposedly hence why there's all this frustration of why it still feels like windows xp or win95.

Oh here's bonus nugget:
https://i.imgur.com/oMfSsAA.png

In short FG has problems, which can be acknowledged and Dave and team have been keen on that point hence why there's a lot riding on the unity build. Gang piling on those who are used to more modern streamlined interfaces for not doing it 'old skool' isn't helping with getting younger players, especially new graduates whom will make the new market.

[Valyar]

If FGU provides tools to import content from another applications that are used in the field such as Hero Labs and Realm Works, it will be tremendous advantage.

For example, I have spend hundreds of hours entering data in Realm Works and I use it as my main campaign manager. The program is providing export feature to XML format, which can be imported into another program. If FGU it is not subscription based and comes with such utility, we might have a deal on day 1.

[damned]

There is no doubt there are things that other VTTs do better than FG.
There is also no doubt that FG does some things poorly.

Its kinda like getting upset because the bus cant carry as many people as the train and then getting upset that the train cant drive down my street like the bus can.
Some things can be changed and some cant.
Some things can be changed but in the big scheme of things wont get changed/fixed until later or even much later.

If Im running a zero prep session and the party decide the bare bones of the adventure I will search for a couple of images to use as props AND battlemaps.
I will do that after they have decided what we are doing.
Absolutely the **drawing** tools is one of the worst **features** of FG.

Token and label scaling is something else that cant be fixed in the current engine (I know you know Ken L, but for the next reader who might not) and that the current implementation is already doing things the engine didnt support - hence the imperfect implementation.

shadzar my apologies if there was too much heat directed at you from me.

[damned]

If FGU provides tools to import content from another applications that are used in the field such as Hero Labs and Realm Works, it will be tremendous advantage.

For example, I have spend hundreds of hours entering data in Realm Works and I use it as my main campaign manager. The program is providing export feature to XML format, which can be imported into another program. If FGU it is not subscription based and comes with such utility, we might have a deal on day 1.

Realmworks apparently have little interest in integration with Fantasy Grounds...

[Valyar]

Realmworks apparently have little interest in integration with Fantasy Grounds...

Any story behind that?