Fantasy Grounds Unity engine

[dberkompas]

Well, the GTX 1080 is okay for now, but you're going to want to upgrade probably in 2025 or so.

[mattekure]

Okay... ordered this puppy so i'd have no issue for the future. Pray tell i'm okay...

XPS 8930 basic
Safety / Environment and Regulatory Guide (English / French Multi-language)
DW1810 drivers
Memory 16GB DDR4 Dual Channel to 2666MHz
SSD 256 GB PCIe x4 + DD 1TB 7200 rev / min
US Power Cord
Module, card, graphic, GTX, 1080.8930, EM
Integrated with Pro WAVE MaxxAudio
1x1 802.11ac WiFi and Bluetooth 4.1
XPS 8930, main frame (460W)
Intel Core i7-8700 8th generation 6 cores (up to 4.6 GHz, 12MB cache)
Processor Intel Core i7 label

Hmmm, needs more cowbell!

[dulux-oz]

Hmmm, needs more cowbell!

**Everything** needs more cowbell!

[LordEntrails]

**Everything** needs more cowbell!
Even this?
https://scontent-ort2-2.cdninstagram.com/vp/b011b63a33c8bba521f3a4388f64bb73/5C929314/t51.2885-15/e35/s480x480/37760719_206210033571677_8687114227141312512_n.jpg

[Patou]

Awesome!! I'm good! :)
Now I need to get me some cow bell. Does Christopher Walken come with that.. hehehe

[Nylanfs]

They could be hitting it with a smaller cowbell

[Trenloe]

Okay... ordered this puppy so i'd have no issue for the future. Pray tell i'm okay...

XPS 8930 basic
...
Memory 16GB DDR4 Dual Channel to 2666MHz
...
What's the maximum you can upgrade the memory to?

[Xemit]

Oh no! You should have held out for a notebook with the RTX 2060!! The GTX 1080 is so last year! [SARCASM]

[mattekure]

What's the maximum you can upgrade the memory to?

For the XPS 8930 basic, 64GB according to the DELL website. they dont list the exact motherboard, so cant look it up there.

[Patou]

What's the maximum you can upgrade the memory to?

I didn't ask.... I figured 16GB ram was plenty enough in comparison to my current 4GB.

[Trenloe]

I didn't ask.... I figured 16GB ram was plenty enough in comparison to my current 4GB.
Well, it's more than your current 4GB that's true, but will it be plenty enough for the future? You asked "...have no issue for the future. Pray tell i'm okay..." The future will be 64-bit Fantasy Grounds which will allow you to use a lot more memory than the just-less-than 4GB FG limit now, plus all of the other applications you may be running alongside FG into the future. Being able to add more memory would be a key thing I'd look at.

[Patou]

Well, it's more than your current 4GB that's true, but will it be plenty enough for the future? You asked "...have no issue for the future. Pray tell i'm okay..." The future will be 64-bit Fantasy Grounds which will allow you to use a lot more memory than the just-less-than 4GB FG limit now, plus all of the other applications you may be running alongside FG into the future. Being able to add more memory would be a key thing I'd look at.

Noted.. I'll look into it for sure

[lostsanityreturned]

Noted.. I'll look into it for sure

16gb will be fine for a long while yet. Don't worry about it too much, if the time comes you can always swap the modules out for larger ones even if DELL filled all the slots.

But if FGU starts using that much memory by default something has gone horribly wrong with the FGU approach :p. (In short, more memory is useful but unlikely to be necessary for a few years I wager)

Just close your browser in advance so chrome or firefox don't gobble 4-8gb all on their own ;)

[Patou]

I also have the graphics card that has another 8GB there where as my current 4GB in the laptop is overall...hehe. i can't wait to get it. Now the wait till February 4th.

[whiteTiki]

This is my fourth year in a row checking out this thread, and usually each October I posted something like "let’s hope next year we can have the new version". 2018's october went through and I forgot to make my yearly post, now I’m 3 months late but all I can say is: "let’s hope this year we can have the new version".

Before my Fantasy Grounds life, I was a Roll20 user and I remembered switching to Fantasy Grounds because I saw this thread. I actually told the players on my game: “we’re switching platforms but don’t worry, dynamic lighting and all this stuff is coming soon just like in Roll20”. Little did I know the meaning of the word “soon”.

Anyways, now its 2019 and even though I still don’t have dynamic lighting and some other cool features Roll20 has since it was basically created, I don’t regret my choice in any way. My experience has been better in many ways and the community is greater than ever before! So just to say that I’m convinced that Fantasy Grounds is really a fantastic software as its name says, and the support from all the people involved is better than any other software support I’ve known in my entire life.

[Trenloe]

16gb will be fine for a long while yet. Don't worry about it too much, if the time comes you can always swap the modules out for larger ones even if DELL filled all the slots.

But if FGU starts using that much memory by default something has gone horribly wrong with the FGU approach :p. (In short, more memory is useful but unlikely to be necessary for a few years I wager)
It's good to have the option. Because... maybe someone gives you a huge map that takes lots of memory to display in FGU (you should reduce the size, but you don't because you want to display that massive world in depth and, hey, FGU is 64-bit so you *can*); or you build up a very detailed map using lots of graphical assets on different layers; or you open lots and lots of modules, or... Displaying lots of graphical material takes a lot of memory - that's not a bad approach by FGU or something gone horribly wrong, it's simply a fact of using and displaying a lot of graphical content (which is the main thing that uses memory in FG now, and why image and map sizes in commercial products have stringent size restrictions).

Whereas I agree 16GB is *OK* for now. It's good to know what Patou can expand the memory to if needed - that's what I was asking. So Patou will be able use FGU in all it's glory without worrying (i.e. going above 4GB use, but not going too crazy), have those many browser tabs open for quick reference RPG material, a few RPG PDFs open, have comms, video, music, etc., etc.. That would soon use up 16GB of RAM.

You know that as soon as the 32-bit 4GB limit is removed some people are going to go nuts!!!

[Nylanfs]

This is my fourth year in a row checking out this thread, and usually each October I posted something like "let’s hope next year we can have the new version". 2018's october went through and I forgot to make my yearly post, now I’m 3 months late but all I can say is: "let’s hope this year we can have the new version".

Before my Fantasy Grounds life, I was a Roll20 user and I remembered switching to Fantasy Grounds because I saw this thread. I actually told the players on my game: “we’re switching platforms but don’t worry, dynamic lighting and all this stuff is coming soon just like in Roll20”. Little did I know the meaning of the word “soon”.

Anyways, now its 2019 and even though I still don’t have dynamic lighting and some other cool features Roll20 has since it was basically created, I don’t regret my choice in any way. My experience has been better in many ways and the community is greater than ever before! So just to say that I’m convinced that Fantasy Grounds is really a fantastic software as its name says, and the support from all the people involved is better than any other software support I’ve known in my entire life.

I believe they are using this definition of soon (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RealSoonNow)











Legal Warning: TV Tropes link

[Patou]

It's good to have the option. Because... maybe someone gives you a huge map that takes lots of memory to display in FGU (you should reduce the size, but you don't because you want to display that massive world in depth and, hey, FGU is 64-bit so you *can*); or you build up a very detailed map using lots of graphical assets on different layers; or you open lots and lots of modules, or... Displaying lots of graphical material takes a lot of memory - that's not a bad approach by FGU or something gone horribly wrong, it's simply a fact of using and displaying a lot of graphical content (which is the main thing that uses memory in FG now, and why image and map sizes in commercial products have stringent size restrictions).

Whereas I agree 16GB is *OK* for now. It's good to know what Patou can expand the memory to if needed - that's what I was asking. So Patou will be able use FGU in all it's glory without worrying (i.e. going above 4GB use, but not going too crazy), have those many browser tabs open for quick reference RPG material, a few RPG PDFs open, have comms, video, music, etc., etc.. That would soon use up 16GB of RAM.

You know that as soon as the 32-bit 4GB limit is removed some people are going to go nuts!!!

I don't really run anything else when running a FG game. I run the music off a little 2in1 mini laptop via wifi. The main computer is connected to my 1100mbps internet.

Maybe with the tower I'll run it all off it. TBD.

[mattekure]

I don't really run anything else when running a FG game. I run the music off a little 2in1 mini laptop via wifi. The main computer is connected to my 1100mbps internet.

Maybe with the tower I'll run it all off it. TBD.

Hmm, I run a bunch of stuff when I play. I usually have FG open in one window, syrinscape open, chrome open to use cleanfeed to broadcast the music out to players and occasionally realmworks for campaign world info that I dont have in FG.

[Patou]

Hmm, I run a bunch of stuff when I play. I usually have FG open in one window, syrinscape open, chrome open to use cleanfeed to broadcast the music out to players and occasionally realmworks for campaign world info that I dont have in FG.

You above 16GB?

[mattekure]

You above 16GB?

My system has 32GB, but even fully loaded for FG I dont think I currently go above 16GB. Even when FGU comes out I dont plan on bumping up the usage that much because of my players limitations. Some are on older hardware, so I keep them in mind for maps and stuff.

[Three of Swords]

This is my fourth year in a row checking out this thread, and usually each October I posted something like "let’s hope next year we can have the new version". 2018's october went through and I forgot to make my yearly post, now I’m 3 months late but all I can say is: "let’s hope this year we can have the new version".

Before my Fantasy Grounds life, I was a Roll20 user and I remembered switching to Fantasy Grounds because I saw this thread. I actually told the players on my game: “we’re switching platforms but don’t worry, dynamic lighting and all this stuff is coming soon just like in Roll20”. Little did I know the meaning of the word “soon”.

Anyways, now its 2019 and even though I still don’t have dynamic lighting and some other cool features Roll20 has since it was basically created, I don’t regret my choice in any way. My experience has been better in many ways and the community is greater than ever before! So just to say that I’m convinced that Fantasy Grounds is really a fantastic software as its name says, and the support from all the people involved is better than any other software support I’ve known in my entire life.

This is hilarious. I went through the same thing, telling my players that Dynamic Lightning and other features we're used to from Roll20 are coming soon when I convinced them to switch. It just wasn't as long ago. I didn't realize until a few months ago that this thread was four years old.

I still don't regret the conversion, but I'm not holding my breath on Unity coming out any time soon, if ever. After 4+ years of development, they might just scrap it and start over on a different engine. Other developers have done similar things in the past.

[BrettM]

This is hilarious. I went through the same thing, telling my players that Dynamic Lightning and other features we're used to from Roll20 are coming soon when I convinced them to switch. It just wasn't as long ago. I didn't realize until a few months ago that this thread was four years old.

I still don't regret the conversion, but I'm not holding my breath on Unity coming out any time soon, if ever. After 4+ years of development, they might just scrap it and start over on a different engine. Other developers have done similar things in the past.

I'm a recent convert from Roll20 as well (Oct/18). I think it's also important to note there are a lot of things in FG that Roll20 is just getting to, or haven't even implemented as well -- so similar comments can be made on both sides. For example, Roll20 just (where "just" = 2 days ago) released Xanathar's Guide to Everything. If I'm correct they haven't released DMG, and only released PHB & MM last year. (To say nothing of the FG add-ons on DMs Guild for D&D players, that based on Roll20's platform doesn't seem as easy to do?)

Finally, re: FGU, I believe Doug mentioned in the Dec.8 FG weekly video (https://youtu.be/W3pXhhoTQwM?t=1745) that, although he had planned and hope for FGU by the end of 2018, it obviously didn't happen. However they have internal (non-public) timelines for a closed alpha.

So, although I'm not holding my breath either, I would like to think we're closer then further away...

[skippern]

As a Mac user, I had a lot of problems with the current FG (the wine wrapper used through Steam seems somewhat unstable, at least on error messages from extensions and modules), and have for a long time been eying for FGU. I believe a native Mac build from Unity would allow for a much stabler platform than a wine wrapped windows executable.

If any FGU developers are interested, I am more than willing to do Alpha and Beta testing of a Mac build of FGU, and have experience so if necessary can compile the builds myself.

[damned]

As a Mac user, I had a lot of problems with the current FG (the wine wrapper used through Steam seems somewhat unstable, at least on error messages from extensions and modules), and have for a long time been eying for FGU. I believe a native Mac build from Unity would allow for a much stabler platform than a wine wrapped windows executable.

If any FGU developers are interested, I am more than willing to do Alpha and Beta testing of a Mac build of FGU, and have experience so if necessary can compile the builds myself.

Native Mac and Linux clients are very much a core aim of FGU.

[Trenloe]

I had a lot of problems with the current FG (the wine wrapper used through Steam seems somewhat unstable, at least on error messages from extensions and modules)...
Are you saying you get error messages? If so, report these error messages (not in this thread). If FG is raising error messages then this is more than likely not due to running on a Mac, but due to running incompatible/out of date versions of extensions (and maybe an old ruleset) in your Mac installation.

[teak421]

I asked about the Unity version on Steam about a year ago and it was said that an alpha would be released by the end of 2018. That's not happened. Do we have any ACCURATE time-line as to the new version? It seems that this company has been talking about a "new" version for literally years.

[BrettM]

teak421 - FG provided a bit of info on this recently. I posted (https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?22089-Fantasy-Grounds-Unity-engine&p=422779&viewfull=1#post422779) about it above.


Finally, re: FGU, I believe Doug mentioned in the Dec.8 FG weekly video (https://youtu.be/W3pXhhoTQwM?t=1745) that, although he had planned and hope for FGU by the end of 2018, it obviously didn't happen. However they have internal (non-public) timelines for a closed alpha.

So, although I'm not holding my breath either, I would like to think we're closer then further away...

[damned]

I asked about the Unity version on Steam about a year ago and it was said that an alpha would be released by the end of 2018. That's not happened. Do we have any ACCURATE time-line as to the new version? It seems that this company has been talking about a "new" version for literally years.

No. It will be ready when its ready.
In the meantime - the company releases major upgrades to the current engine every 2-4 months. In addition they make minor upgrades, patches and updates pretty much every Tuesday of the year. In addition if you are on the test channel you might multiple updates a day.
The fact that Unity is taking far longer than anticipated is not a reflection on the activity or productivity of the team nor on the status of the application.
The current application is very actively developed and supported and improving.

[teak421]

No. It will be ready when its ready.
In the meantime - the company releases major upgrades to the current engine every 2-4 months. In addition they make minor upgrades, patches and updates pretty much every Tuesday of the year. In addition if you are on the test channel you might multiple updates a day.
The fact that Unity is taking far longer than anticipated is not a reflection on the activity or productivity of the team nor on the status of the application.
The current application is very actively developed and supported and improving.

OK. We'll see. But, that's not what I asked. I asked about an accurate time-line... Software development does indeed take time, but a good development shop will be able to provide some reasonable time frames. Its been 5 years.

[damned]

OK. We'll see. But, that's not what I asked. I asked about an accurate time-line... Software development does indeed take time, but a good development shop will be able to provide some reasonable time frames. Its been 5 years.

We dont always get the answers we want.

The answer is it will be ready when its ready, and they will tell us when they are ready to tell us.
They are not selling FGU, they havent sold anyone FGU, so they are not under any obligation to tell us their dates/timing if they dont want to.
'
The job was more complex than they envisaged.
The scope of the project has grown.
They are porting to a platform that was new to them.

During the same time they have increased the content available in the application by around 500%.
During this time they were the first VTT to convince the Wizards to license their products.
They release Wizards products on the same day that the Wizards release them .
They have released 24 new program versions/updates.
They have moved to a weekly update schedule for their DLC.

The team size has more than doubled.

Its not a simple linear equation.
Life is complex.

[teak421]

We dont always get the answers we want.

The answer is it will be ready when its ready, and they will tell us when they are ready to tell us.
They are not selling FGU, they havent sold anyone FGU, so they are not under any obligation to tell us their dates/timing if they dont want to.
'
The job was more complex than they envisaged.
The scope of the project has grown.
They are porting to a platform that was new to them.

During the same time they have increased the content available in the application by around 500%.
During this time they were the first VTT to convince the Wizards to license their products.
They release Wizards products on the same day that the Wizards release them .
They have released 24 new program versions/updates.
They have moved to a weekly update schedule for their DLC.

The team size has more than doubled.

Its not a simple linear equation.
Life is complex.

Correct, they do not need to tell me... but, it makes business sense if they do. I would like to leave Roll20 because of the management, but I would prefer to use the latest version because of the features its promising. In any event, I will most likely take the plunge here... I hope if I purchase content, I can use on the new version.

Right, life is complex...life is not a simple linear equation...but, sound business practices are to provide a stable and semi-firm timeline for major software upgrades that have been promised for literally years.

Again, I am NOT talking about their current version... why do you keep bringing things up that I am not saying? I'm talking about FGU.

You are simply a fan-boy who takes my legitimate concern and discounting it with excuses. You are rude / condescending with your duh comments like life is complex.

[LordEntrails]

There is not a public timeline for release of FGU. All DLC or optional content that is purchased for for FG will be useable on FGU.

[iotech]

Hi teak421, Welcome to the FG community!

We all feel your frustration, even Damned, that FGU is not released yet and that there hasn't been more communication from Smiteworks on this. I've been in this community for a pretty long time, first as a lurker and more recently an active poster. I spent a few years on the R20 side, and understand fully your concerns there too.

I would also like to say that even though you took offense at Damned's delivery, his message is solid... because he's repeating what we HAVE heard from Smiteworks countless times and what we (the community) have said to users inquiring about this countless times. I've known Damned for a couple of years now, and I can assure you - he did not intend to come off as rude... that just isn't him.

Be that as it may, I can address a couple of your points directly, just keep in mind I am NOT a moderator nor a Smiteworks employee... just someone like you who wishes we had...more.

You mentioned that "I would like to leave Roll20 because of the management, but I would prefer to use the latest version because of the features its promising." The response, not intended to be cheeky, is... you ARE using the latest version. There IS NO FGU at this time. Whether or not that makes it vaporware in your mind is not for me to decide, but the FGU version is not done and therefore is not the latest version. I hope you don't feel I'm picking nits in your post; it's not my intention... just clarifying the things you said Damned did not address.

You also said " I hope if I purchase content, I can use on the new version.". Smiteworks has stated multiple times that this is a huge priority for them. I myself have bought over $1000 worth of content.. if I couldn't use it in FGU, that wouldn't be disappointing, it'd be a BETRAYAL. Fortunately, Moon Wizard, Smiteworks lead developer, has assured us multiple times that content willl be able to be migrated to FGU, including licensed DLCs such as that for sale here.

In real life, I am a software development manager and project manager. Your statement that "sound business practices are to provide a stable and semi-firm timeline for major software upgrades" is simply not a best practice in the industry. Yes, some companies do it, and more often than not, it bites them in the *** at some point. Is there an "internal" timeline and roadmap? Sure! A public one? Only in the broadest sense.. and the reason is simple - if you give such a thing to your customers, they treat it as a "promise" and get upset if it doesn't work out that way. Smiteworks has actually been more open about it than I think they should have been, even suggesting that an Alpha release would happen in 2018. Well, obviously that did not occur. Or if it did, I wasn't invite to be and Alpha tester (hey, Doug, what's up with that!?!?). Point is, now people are upset because there was no public Alpha in 2018. YOU are upset because you asked some reasonable questions and feel like you got a canned nonsense response.

I get it, I feel you. So does Damned. So does Doug, and Moon and the whole Smiteworks crew. Do you think FGU has been delayed because they WANTED to punish YOU? Because they thought it would be fun to watch us "suffer", or because they thought it would be a "sound business decision" to delay a product that will make them more money?

No, it's a sound business decision to LIMIT the amount of info that gets released, to NOT make promises, and foremost, to NOT release until the product is feature-complete and stable. This they have done.

You complained about Damned giving you info on the CURRENT version, but that is all we have. He was trying to demonstrate that Smiteworks has not abandoned FGC ("classic") and has actively supported it, added hundreds of DLCs, and even hired more employees (dont know what your concept of them as a company is, but I think they now have employees... a very very tiny team really... that is supporting a current product, adding new DLC constantly, supporting over 1000 DLC products, and oh yes... trying to get FGU out the door in a condition that will not disappoint all of us out here.

"Correct, they do not need to tell me... but, it makes business sense if they do." Clearly, it does NOT make sense to tell you. Or us. Your response to Damned demonstrates exactly WHY. I'd rather have the developers working on FGU than in the forums defending the company and their decisions.

Lastly, you said "You are simply a fan-boy who takes my legitimate concern and discounting it with excuses. That's not cool and if you are like everyone else in this community, this is not good... people need to have an open mind. And, you are rude / condescending with your duh comments like life is complex. Again, not cool. " See, this is what I'm talking about. I didn't perceive what Damned said as rude, but you did. Differing perspectives, and that's OK. But in calling him rude, you minimized him, insulted this entire community, and even resorted to name-calling. And HE is the rude one?

Anyway, my post may trigger you too since I didn't provide you the information you seem to believe you are entitled to. But I did address a couple of your specific concerns, answered one of your questions directly, and did not dwell upon the current version vs FGU. And while I do not agree with your suppositions or your delivery, we in this "not cool" community and open to discourse, even disagreements, as long as everyone stays respectful. We don't swing the Ban Hammer for questioning authority like some other forums do.

So again, Welcome. You might not be getting the answers you want, and neither are we. If you do ask specific questions here, someone will try to answer. Giving an answer you don't like isn't being a fan-boy. It's being honest.

Peace out,
Gerry

[Edit: Words. Words are hard.]

[teak421]

Thanks Gerry for your response... I've worked in the software development arena as well and things do change, you bet. But, having a road map and communicating said road map does not mean that 100% of the time they will hit it. We as a consumer need to know the vision...know the steps to achieve said vision (NOT in detail)...and...start to execute it. You know this as a software developer that without a clear vision that has been communicated with end-users (and feedback provided) the product may completely miss the mark. Now, perhaps they have a panel of end-users they can work with to get excellent feedback? That I do not know.

Good point about version number, I should have said future version.

I do not believe I am entitled to anything. I believe as a potential customer it would be in their best interest to communicate their vision and their steps on achieving said vision. Once they start with communication, then start publishing milestones that have been hit. Then, people will see progress and stupid people like me won't be asking questions all the time. I do not believe what I am suggesting above would violate what you suggested above about software development procedures...communication is key.

Cya.


PS: They do not need to defend their position here on the forums if they had a nice document that outlined milestones that have been met. When people see progress, with deadlines actually met, they will shut up.
PPS: With the Roll20 crud that went on about three months ago, that is a HUGE opening for FG. Show progress...get people excited about the FGU product. Do more highlights... how about short demos... anything!
PPPS: <grins> What's being a fanboy is saying silly life statements. That is quite rude.

[iotech]

For what it's worth, there have been some "tech demos" released, though the last what quite awhile ago. And we're talking videos, not a playable demo. On YouTube, search up Fantasy Grounds Unity for some teasers... that will simultaneously show you what theyre aiming for and make you more frustrated that it isnt in our hot little hands yet LOL

Take care, and again, welcome. Please dont stop asking questions!

[teak421]

For what it's worth, there have been some "tech demos" released, though the last what quite awhile ago. And we're talking videos, not a playable demo. On YouTube, search up Fantasy Grounds Unity for some teasers... that will simultaneously show you what theyre aiming for and make you more frustrated that it isnt in our hot little hands yet LOL

Take care, and again, welcome. Please dont stop asking questions!

Already saw, from mid 2017. Pretty basic looking.

[Trenloe]

See the Unity FAQ for detailed info here: https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?43254-Fantasy-Grounds-Unity-FAQ

Keep in mind that the main goal for the initial Unity is to move the current engine (supporting the current DLC and community add-ons) to a Unity environment with better networking and graphics capability, multi-platform capability and the larger memory space that 64-bit brings.

Sure, there will be some other nice things in the first release, but it's not a complete re-write of the current application with a host of new bells-and-whistles. Hence why you're not seeing lots of "look at this new FGU feature" videos or announcements.

The development of FGU is taking a lot longer than Smiteworks envisaged, as it *has* to be backwards compatible and there can very often be unforeseen roadblocks that have to be overcome - something that is less time consuming in a completely new application - where decisions can be more easily made about functionality/architecture without the constraints of supporting DLC created 10 years ago. Hence why you won't see any official announcement regarding any timelines until they can be guaranteed.

I support this approach - for me it's much better than getting people excited with demos and then missing milestone dates that can't be met due to any number of unforeseen issues/other commitments. From your statements, you obviously don't agree with this, and I doubt anything people say on this forum will change your mind. That fine, it's OK to civilly disagree.

[teak421]

See the Unity FAQ for detailed info here: https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?43254-Fantasy-Grounds-Unity-FAQ

Keep in mind that the main goal for the initial Unity is to move the current engine (supporting the current DLC and community add-ons) to a Unity environment with better networking and graphics capability, multi-platform capability and the larger memory space that 64-bit brings.

Sure, there will be some other nice things in the first release, but it's not a complete re-write of the current application with a host of new bells-and-whistles. Hence why you're not seeing lots of "look at this new FGU feature" videos or announcements.

The development of FGU is taking a lot longer than Smiteworks envisaged, as it *has* to be backwards compatible and there can very often be unforeseen roadblocks that have to be overcome - something that is less time consuming in a completely new application - where decisions can be more easily made about functionality/architecture without the constraints of supporting DLC created 10 years ago. Hence why you won't see any official announcement regarding any timelines until they can be guaranteed.

I support this approach - for me it's much better than getting people excited with demos and then missing milestone dates that can't be met due to any number of unforeseen issues/other commitments. From your statements, you obviously don't agree with this, and I doubt anything people say on this forum will change your mind. That fine, it's OK to civilly disagree.

Forget the road map stuff I suggested above, that's fine. Don't talk about the future, that's fine. I'll concede that in this case, what you suggest makes sense. Given the fact that we're going into the 4th or 5th year of hearing rumblings about a Unity version how about just sharing the progress that has been made on completed milestones. Not FUTURE, but completed.

Let's say that the Unity version is 45 percent completed... Well, show it. Let people see the progress and be crystal clear that this is what is done NOW. We've still got a lot to do... and... ask for feedback on what has been displayed. Make a council of end-users (not sure, might be one??) and get feedback.

What we have now is just rumblings...that's it. Unless 2.5-year-old YOUTUBE videos count? We can agree to disagree, that's great. My suggestions is just that, a suggestion. If I invested in this company with my own money, I would demand a different communication approach...but, I don't have any money into this project, so...I'm just a dude on a forum that is not entitled to anything.

[LordEntrails]

ok, well look, if you want to know more than what we know, you're in good company. It's also not going to happen. SmiteWorks has made that clear time and time again.

They have also made many aspects of FGU clear, including the FAQ, the old demo's, some plans (such as the 2018 alpha), and what their goals for FGU are (see FAQ). They have also repeatably made clear that if you invest in FG today, then do so because what FG is today, not what it will be tomorrow.

[lostsanityreturned]

The latest video from from march last year dude.

Don't get me wrong, I also believe the project hasn't had enough communication as we were given estimated dates which were way off and then just passed without any statement. Which is worse than given no date.

HOWEVER, it is a tiny project that is understaffed and developed in parallel to that of the version they are making it backwards comaptible with. It doesn't make it better that we still don't have a timeline, but it is what it is at this point.

I just want better drawing tools, it is such a huge flaw with the current program. Dynamic lighting and 64bit is going to be nice... But better drawing/layering tech is what is going to impact my games the most.

[teak421]

The latest video from from march last year dude.

Don't get me wrong, I also believe the project hasn't had enough communication as we were given estimated dates which were way off and then just passed without any statement. Which is worse than given no date.

HOWEVER, it is a tiny project that is understaffed and developed in parallel to that of the version they are making it backwards comaptible with. It doesn't make it better that we still don't have a timeline, but it is what it is at this point.

I just want better drawing tools, it is such a huge flaw with the current program. Dynamic lighting and 64bit is going to be nice... But better drawing/layering tech is what is going to impact my games the most.

My apologies...11 months, not 2.5 years on one of their most important software projects... Must have missed it...dude.

[gtw2017]

One of the interesting things since I began getting involved in using and making content for FG - is the amount and quality of additional add-ons created by users who strongly believe in the merits and potential of FG - which allows a considerable amount of customization and back-end access to create custom tools that suits users needs and those of the wider community. From extensions to coding packages, to map packs and super tables, to tokens, home brew modules and modules that make every users life much much easier inc. a college dedicated to teaching classes and bringing new people into the community. Any short-comings from comparisons to Roll20 are in my opinion made up for by the huge community that works together and dedicates and volunteers a ton of its time and energy into making things they often share freely that make FG better.
Dynamic lighting and more memory resources might be nice - but at the the end of the day they are aesthetic presentations that don't improve the abiiity of a DM to tell a story - they give you some wow factor, sure - but if you're not a solid DM that wow factor is not going to go far. FG as it is right now is more than capable of allowing a DM to tell a wicked story. I've Dm'd over 50 one shots in the space of 5 months and I haven't had any issues providing my players with a fun time with dynamic effects, the ease of automated coding, lots of resources and the FG's powerful story template and table functions is just superb. Even after 5 months and being a teacher of FG I am still learning more about it on a regular basis and find something more about how deep and malleable this program in almost every class when I am taught something new or a new way to do it.
There's everything here already to run amazing games if you're a good DM - and new bells and whistles from software don't/won't make your games more exciting, that's your job.

[teak421]

One of the interesting things since I began getting involved in using and making content for FG - is the amount and quality of additional add-ons created by users who strongly believe in the merits and potential of FG - which allows a considerable amount of customization and back-end access to create custom tools that suits users needs and those of the wider community. From extensions to coding packages, to map packs and super tables, to tokens, home brew modules and modules that make every users life much much easier inc. a college dedicated to teaching classes and bringing new people into the community. Any short-comings from comparisons to Roll20 are in my opinion made up for by the huge community that works together and dedicates and volunteers a ton of its time and energy into making things they often share freely that make FG better.
Dynamic lighting and more memory resources might be nice - but at the the end of the day they are aesthetic presentations that don't improve the abiiity of a DM to tell a story - they give you some wow factor, sure - but if you're not a solid DM that wow factor is not going to go far. FG as it is right now is more than capable of allowing a DM to tell a wicked story. I've Dm'd over 50 one shots in the space of 5 months and I haven't had any issues providing my players with a fun time with dynamic effects, the ease of automated coding, lots of resources and the FG's powerful story template and table functions is just superb. Even after 5 months and being a teacher of FG I am still learning more about it on a regular basis and find something more about how deep and malleable this program in almost every class when I am taught something new or a new way to do it.
There's everything here already to run amazing games if you're a good DM - and new bells and whistles from software don't/won't make your games more exciting, that's your job.

Respectfully, what does anything you wrote above have anything to do with what I am talking about?

Your last sentence is a duh...like what someone wrote about life is not linerar or something silly like that. Yes, these are TOOLS that make life easier for the DM. And, even with said tools, one can suck being a DM. And?

This thread is about the UNITY version... And, that topic is what I have been discussing.

[Zacchaeus]

I think this particular discussion can be drawn to a close please. I think the points have all been made - no need to keep going over the same ground.

[whiteTiki]

Respectfully, what does anything you wrote above have anything to do with what I am talking about?

Your last sentence is a duh...like what someone wrote about life is not linerar or something silly like that. Yes, these are TOOLS that make life easier for the DM. And, even with said tools, one can suck being a DM. And?

This thread is about the UNITY version... And, that topic is what I have been discussing.


Ok. understanding things easier, and just to be clear:


I'm a regular, normal, ordinary user like you
I was a R20 user before and I changed to this software because I heard of FGU about 4 years ago
I then realized that FGU wasn't going to happen soon and after a lot of research, seeing how the community works, its support, their periodical updates, their work throughout the years, etc. I decided FG was a good company to invest my money in (this is just my opinion of course)
I was and still am convinced that they're going to deliver what they've mentioned before
I got to this conclusion: in my opinion since I switched from R20, FG has been the best VTT software. So, anything they do to improve it, doesn't matter if its just a small step or a huge leap, is going to make it even better…. So for me its a simple equation: best software right now + upgrade = best software still
My players enjoy our sessions, we all like the software as it is right now, we have no issues with the software
I'm actually pretty OK with the software as it is


So, being stated my experience and opinions about the software, let's get to the FACTS about FGU as we know them:


A lot of years have passed and all we know is that they're working on it
We know all the FAQs Trenloe posted before about backwards compatibility, licensing, the engine capabilities, etc etc.
We're NOT going to have a date until they decide to make it public
We're NOT going to know more than we already know until they decide we can know more
We're NOT going to see more features until they decide to release more features
No ordinary user like you/me is going to receive special treatment and information about the development of FGU other than the public info


So final conclusion:


In my opinion THIS is my best option today
In my opinion, taking into consideration what I know about the best FG competitor and their plans for 2019; they're not going to make an improvement such, that will actually make me want to switch again
Although it HASN'T BEEN CONFIRMED I can tell you (based entirely on my perception, my research, my interpretations) some version of FGU is actually going to be released in 2019, and this is the first time I (a simple user) believes this is going to be true since 2015.


I strongly believe the 3 points stated above, so that being said, why would I switch to other platform, or not invest in the platform, or not use and enjoy the current version of it?
I'm not answering any of your questions I know, I just want you to understand my point of view and only if you share it, you should just face the facts and accept them as they are (just like I did), because the real situation is you already have a great software (best), great community and great support (best).

[teak421]

Found a development log that could work nicely for FGU... Just a thought, not saying its a must. But, its cool.

https://foundryvtt.com/pages/features.html

[teak421]

Ok. understanding things easier, and just to be clear:


I'm a regular, normal, ordinary user like you
I was a R20 user before and I changed to this software because I heard of FGU about 4 years ago
I then realized that FGU wasn't going to happen soon and after a lot of research, seeing how the community works, its support, their periodical updates, their work throughout the years, etc. I decided FG was a good company to invest my money in (this is just my opinion of course)
I was and still am convinced that they're going to deliver what they've mentioned before
I got to this conclusion: in my opinion since I switched from R20, FG has been the best VTT software. So, anything they do to improve it, doesn't matter if its just a small step or a huge leap, is going to make it even better…. So for me its a simple equation: best software right now + upgrade = best software still
My players enjoy our sessions, we all like the software as it is right now, we have no issues with the software
I'm actually pretty OK with the software as it is


So, being stated my experience and opinions about the software, let's get to the FACTS about FGU as we know them:


A lot of years have passed and all we know is that they're working on it
We know all the FAQs Trenloe posted before about backwards compatibility, licensing, the engine capabilities, etc etc.
We're NOT going to have a date until they decide to make it public
We're NOT going to know more than we already know until they decide we can know more
We're NOT going to see more features until they decide to release more features
No ordinary user like you/me is going to receive special treatment and information about the development of FGU other than the public info


So final conclusion:


In my opinion THIS is my best option today
In my opinion, taking into consideration what I know about the best FG competitor and their plans for 2019; they're not going to make an improvement such, that will actually make me want to switch again
Although it HASN'T BEEN CONFIRMED I can tell you (based entirely on my perception, my research, my interpretations) some version of FGU is actually going to be released in 2019, and this is the first time I (a simple user) believes this is going to be true since 2015.


I strongly believe the 3 points stated above, so that being said, why would I switch to other platform, or not invest in the platform, or not use and enjoy the current version of it?
I'm not answering any of your questions I know, I just want you to understand my point of view and only if you share it, you should just face the facts and accept them as they are (just like I did), because the real situation is you already have a great software (best), great community and great support (best).

My sub runs out in Feb at Roll20... Yes, I spent a ton of cash there, but I'm still moving here. The pricing structure is fair and like you said, the current version is great. Downloading free version to get the hang of it.

[LordEntrails]

My sub runs out in Feb at Roll20... Yes, I spent a ton of cash there, but I'm still moving here. The pricing structure is fair and like you said, the current version is great. Downloading free version to get the hang of it.

Welcome aboard.

[whiteTiki]

Found a development log that could work nicely for FGU... Just a thought, not saying its a must. But, its cool.

https://foundryvtt.com/pages/features.html

Just checked it out. It's impressive what this guy is doing actually. What I could see by playing with the pre-alpha version of it, besides noticing that it is web-based just like Roll20, is that it has a mixture of Roll20 interface with FantasyGrounds interface... but its mostly a refurbished Roll20, well thought indeed and nice plan.
I don't think (personally) that a fully stable version of this is going to be ready even in 2020. Probably up to the beta, and when that happens, I'm pretty convinced we will all be enjoying FGU by then.

[teak421]

Just checked it out. It's impressive what this guy is doing actually. What I could see by playing with the pre-alpha version of it, besides noticing that it is web-based just like Roll20, is that it has a mixture of Roll20 interface with FantasyGrounds interface... but its mostly a refurbished Roll20, well thought indeed and nice plan.
I don't think (personally) that a fully stable version of this is going to be ready even in 2020. Probably up to the beta, and when that happens, I'm pretty convinced we will all be enjoying FGU by then.

Yeah, hard for a single person to keep up...but, I was more commenting on how he's sharing his roadmap. 2020 sounds about right. Plus, he has to get content... I just saw how FG discounts pricing... Roll20 doesn't. Great value!

[Nylanfs]

Plus the bundle pricing, Note IF you plan to complete a bundle only buy in one place, either Steam or the site store. DLC isn't tracked between them.

[dellanx]

Looking forward to FGU, hopefully sooner then later. At the moment don't feel like putting any new content in, have plenty at this moment. Hopefully before I do, FGU will be at least in Beta. If not maybe I will buy some pre-made APs.

[Trenloe]

Looking forward to FGU, hopefully sooner then later. At the moment don't feel like putting any new content in, have plenty at this moment. Hopefully before I do, FGU will be at least in Beta. If not maybe I will buy some pre-made APs.
FGU will be backwards compatible, so any new content you put in FG now will be usable in FGU.

[teak421]

I've purchased the Ultimate with the D&D Essentials Pack and of course, LMoP and I have to say, I am greatly impressed. There are so many things that this program does better than Roll20... Dynamic Lighting is minor compared to the quality of life features FG has.

Like someone said above... if FGU ships or doesn't ship, this is still a fantastic program.

teak

[Bidmaron]

You won’t regret it, teak. It really is an amazing thing.

[dellanx]

FGU will be backwards compatible, so any new content you put in FG now will be usable in FGU.

I understand that, I am just burnt out in making content. Taking a break. Just doing one game a week.

[Patou]

My system has 32GB, but even fully loaded for FG I dont think I currently go above 16GB. Even when FGU comes out I dont plan on bumping up the usage that much because of my players limitations. Some are on older hardware, so I keep them in mind for maps and stuff.

I got my monitors and keyboard and the tower i pickup tomorrow!! i can't wait. I'm going to move my questions to the "Healers" section as i need to look into re-installing FG and transferring my stuff tomorrow.

Yeah baby!!

[Patou]

Came across another competitor today "Dungeonfog" which made me wonder if SmiteWorks was aiming for FGU to roll out somewhere within the next 3 to 4 months. Dungeonfog looks interesting but is once again a online only software with limited Gig storage for assets. Hoping that the SmiteWorks team will keep their data format as is:)

Man I can't wait. Feels like all these competitors are racing in fear of FGU because it's the VTT to beat. This is still the ultimate VTT for any DM and player as far as i'm concern. Too many pluses all around.

[Qoff]

Came across another competitor today "Dungeonfog" which made me wonder if SmiteWorks was aiming for FGU to roll out somewhere within the next 3 to 4 months. Dungeonfog looks interesting but is once again a online only software with limited Gig storage for assets. Hoping that the SmiteWorks team will keep their data format as is:)

Man I can't wait. Feels like all these competitors are racing in fear of FGU because it's the VTT to beat. This is still the ultimate VTT for any DM and player as far as i'm concern. Too many pluses all around.

They said once they would tell us 3 month before release.

[DwightLee]

I keep watching... and hope for the best. I have looked at other products, and FG seems ( to me ) to be the way to go... looking forward to FGU

[Qoff]

Honestly? I feel FGU is taking too long, the other products on market are advancing very quickly, I love FG, hope it doesn't get behind.

[Mathizsias]

Came across another competitor today "Dungeonfog" which made me wonder if SmiteWorks was aiming for FGU to roll out somewhere within the next 3 to 4 months. Dungeonfog looks interesting but is once again a online only software with limited Gig storage for assets. Hoping that the SmiteWorks team will keep their data format as is:)

Man I can't wait. Feels like all these competitors are racing in fear of FGU because it's the VTT to beat. This is still the ultimate VTT for any DM and player as far as i'm concern. Too many pluses all around.

Foundry VTT seems like the best of both worlds between FG and Roll20.. FGU can't come soon enough for most of my players.

[Patou]

Foundry VTT seems like the best of both worlds between FG and Roll20.. FGU can't come soon enough for most of my players.

I'm going to stick it out. FG still has too much to give. Makes my life so much easier with prep set up and all. I have to admit Foundry looks cool but far from ready.

[damned]

Foundry is still in pre-alpha.

[Patou]

Foundry is still in pre-alpha.

Exactly. Plus I just upgraded for the future:)26232

I'm ready baby!!!!

[CrawlingChaox]

Foundry is still in pre-alpha.
It is, so it’s still a long way from being functional the way FG is now, and that it’ll keep the promises is something that remains to be seen.

However, it’s certainly promising all the right things, which is why I’d be wary of it as a competitor for FGU. Foundry is still in early development, but until FGU is out of the limbo, for all users care, the difference in dev stage doesn’t matter. There’s virtually no difference between a product that’s almost ready and one that’s a long way coming, if can’t use neither and have no definite timelines.

Also, the one advantage it does have is the GitLab thing where people can keep up with the progress of individual features. Stuff like that keeps the perspective buyers engaged. What we have, instead, is a 132-pages-long forum thread. It’s wise to be wary of the dangers brought by too much transparency, but there’s probably a happy medium to be struck somewhere too.

[lostsanityreturned]

Yeah, I am happy to see other VTT being developed. But currently nothing is offering or looking to offer the sort of functionality that I want other than fantasygrounds and FGU.

FGU won't be perfect either, but it is a damn sight better than the competition for my use case scenarios.

[celestian]

I've added this to the pile of feature requests but...

When implementing the line of sight blocking features please make sure that we can have multiple types of them. Meaning a wall, a door and a secret door type.

That way when we place them we can have features attached to those sections. Such as player can click on a visual for a "door" section and remove the LOS and now see through. Players would not see the "secret" versions as anything other than a wall and only the DM could click to toggle them on/off as desired.

[Qoff]

Would be nice to know how much % the FGU is right now tho.

[Nylanfs]

<100%, but >10%

[Three of Swords]

<100%, but >10%

You're being optimistic with the >10% portion!

I kid. Hopefully.

[Nylanfs]

Well I'm assuming it compiles, which is definitely greater than 10%. After all Pindercarl showed off the layer possibilities with a development build. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJBXbxfTwB4)

[Ampersandrew]

Yes, it would. But, they haven't ever really been forthcoming with that kind of detail, I don't expect them to start now.

Andrew. Waiting patiently, kind of.

[Qoff]

Yes, it would. But, they haven't ever really been forthcoming with that kind of detail, I don't expect them to start now.

Andrew. Waiting patiently, kind of.

Waiting patiently for the past 4 years.

[damned]

Waiting patiently for the past 4 years.

You werent here 4 years ago?

[Qoff]

You werent here 4 years ago?

I'm not sure when I registered here, but since I bought it people used to tell me about how FGU will be awesome haha.

[Trenloe]

I'm not sure when I registered here...
See "Join Date" in your user info to the left of your post...

[LordEntrails]

I'm not sure when I registered here, but since I bought it people used to tell me about how FGU will be awesome haha.
Almost 4 years...
26237

[Three of Swords]

You werent here 4 years ago?

His Join Date says June of 2015. Are you really taking him to task for being a few months short of 48 months?

[Qoff]

His Join Date says June of 2015. Are you really taking him to task for being a few months short of 48 months?

Even before I registered here and wasn't a FG DM I used to hear about the so called FGU

[Ram Tyr]

That moment when someone tries to score a point for someone else claiming to have been waiting patiently for four years for FGU when that someone else hasn't been on the forums for a full four years... in a thread about FGU started on September 14, 2014...

We can do better!

[jasonthelamb]

Just wondering why people are ripping on a guy's join date in a FGU discussion? Just because I don't sign up for something immediately doesn't mean I haven't heard of it (or have been waiting for it) before that "join date".

Really shocked at some of the names attacking that guy.

[Trenloe]

Just wondering why people are ripping on a guy's join date in a FGU discussion? Just because I don't sign up for something immediately doesn't mean I haven't heard of it (or have been waiting for it) before that "join date".

Really shocked at some of the names attacking that guy.
I don't think anyone's actually attacking qoff. I see one post that could be construed as being a little "off", but I read that as an off-the-cuff remark in jest.

You seem to think that multiple people are attacking qoff? How? Where? Are you referring to LordEntrails and me who were responding to Qoff's post about not knowing when he joined, helping him see his "join date"? I hardly see that as an attack - it's providing assistance.

It's very easy to take things written in a forum the wrong way. No one is attacking anyone else. It's good to come to someone's defence if they really are being attacked - but that is not the case here. So please can everyone calm down.

[lostsanityreturned]

I remember a guy on the conan kickstarter during a vote on whether they should create a fg or roll20 ruleset arguing about how fgu was ccoming soon -laughs-

Now, that is actually a company I judge for being so delayed. I regret backing that kickstarter now, the bait and switch with the leatherbound version and typos were bad enougn but boy do Modiphius feel like they took the money and are just focusing on other licenses now.

[damned]

That moment when someone tries to score a point for someone else claiming to have been waiting patiently for four years for FGU when that someone else hasn't been on the forums for a full four years... in a thread about FGU started on September 14, 2014...

We can do better!


Just wondering why people are ripping on a guy's join date in a FGU discussion? Just because I don't sign up for something immediately doesn't mean I haven't heard of it (or have been waiting for it) before that "join date".

Really shocked at some of the names attacking that guy.

Seriously - the number of people getting offended on behalf of someone who responded with Haha.
Qoff posted the 4 years first. This was not a beard measuring contest.

Yeah I think we can do better...

I wrote a light hearted response to what I saw as a tongue in cheek post from Qoff.
Qoff - I apologise if you are offended by my post.

[YAKO SOMEDAKY]

My fist is punching the air while I scream FGU! FGU!
Now I got a job, smite you can release the FGU :D

[Valacar]

I’m waiting cause I know Carl does quality work as his TabletopConnect 3d vvt was great and fun to build with...still is! Thanks Carl...still using it :)

[celestian]

I’m waiting cause I know Carl does quality work as his TabletopConnect 3d vvt was great and fun to build with...still is! Thanks Carl...still using it :)

About 2 years ago I found FantasyGrounds because of Carl's project. I didn't get a chance to use it but the previews and then finding out he was hired by FG is why I began poking around.

Looking forward to checking out his work in action someday ;)

[Davinci522]

I know there isnt much info out on FGU but I was wondering if we might be able to get the ability to upload animated maps. I know that animations of water, rain, and clouds were teased But I am seeing these awesome map videos being made with birds, changing lights, leaves blowing in the wind kind of thing and I think it would be awesome to be able to upload this as a repeating video to put a grid over it.

[teak421]

Now that I've been messing around with FG for a few weeks I am amazed at the level of automation... I wonder what type of automation FGU will bring with 1.0? I hope its released with the same level... And, then start adding additional features as the months / years go by. Even if FGU comes out, if it doesn't have the automation, I'll probaly just stick with FGO. <--- Can't believe I am saying this..! lol

teak

[lostsanityreturned]

FGU will have feature parity with FG3 upon release at minimum.

It won't be adding a heck of a lot of automation other than dynamic lighting and such.

The benefits that FGU provide are both bigger and less obvious in many cases, while also opening up a lot of design avenues for the FG team going forwards.

[Targas]

I hope due to Unity, we would have a chance to see FG on iPad. It‘s much more convenient for a GM to read/prep through his adventure in advance using it.

[Egheal]

Every time i see a new post in this thread i have goosebumps, "this is it, it must be it, the release date announcement" :(

[dulux-oz]

Every time i see a new post in this thread i have goosebumps, "this is it, it must be it, the release date announcement" :(

I have no direct knowledge, but I suspect that when SW is ready to announce FGU they'll start a brand new thread (if not a brand new forum).

[Gaddiel]

Forgive if this has been covered, but my question is regarding the planned dynamic lighting implementation. I've noticed on other (unnamed) VTTs, when an area is revealed, once a player steps out of the room, the fog of war is reinstated to that area and it goes dark again. This has never really made sense to me. Once an area of the map has been seen, a player would remember it. Do we know if the Unity implementation will allow for previously revealed areas to be seen on the map?

[Myrdin Potter]

You can say Roll20 here. Smiteworks is not afraid of it. I don’t like that you lose where you were as well.

[LordEntrails]

Forgive if this has been covered, but my question is regarding the planned dynamic lighting implementation. I've noticed on other (unnamed) VTTs, when an area is revealed, once a player steps out of the room, the fog of war is reinstated to that area and it goes dark again. This has never really made sense to me. Once an area of the map has been seen, a player would remember it. Do we know if the Unity implementation will allow for previously revealed areas to be seen on the map?
No they have not stated how dynamic lighting will be handled. Their has been discussion that they are aware of this, and of things like different vision types, different characters can see different things etc.

We do not know how they will chose to implement anything in FGU and I don't think they will talk about it prior to release.

[Klandare]

Forgive if this has been covered, but my question is regarding the planned dynamic lighting implementation. I've noticed on other (unnamed) VTTs, when an area is revealed, once a player steps out of the room, the fog of war is reinstated to that area and it goes dark again. This has never really made sense to me. Once an area of the map has been seen, a player would remember it. Do we know if the Unity implementation will allow for previously revealed areas to be seen on the map?

one reason i would think to cover up places you have been with a partial fog (you know the walls and stuff that were there but no longer see things that were in the room) would be to make it so that you don't have to make any monsters as hidden if they are coming through the area. Where currently if you have an area uncovered and you put a monster into it, it shows up for all to see even if they are rooms away.

I wouldn't like it if the whole area becomes a black spot again (where you don't even remember the walls and doors).

[Xemit]

I've seen variants where the room outline stays rendered after leaving the area, the same as would happen if the PCs were drawing it on paper. Any 'surprises' that move into that area after the PCs leave should only be discovered again when they return to the same area.

Mind you the outline also allows for a bit of secret area hints as players can see an area that they have not yet discovered when they see the full outlines. A good DM will modify things accordingly (eg. secret door is stuck, or very hard to find). Highly experienced PCs with good proficiency in map making should be able to notice these kinds of things.

When I played on paper many decades back, the party cartographer would sometimes make 'mistakes' and their map wouldn't always match reality. Making discovery of hidden areas much more difficult, or if the DM likes to have fun, there may not even be a hidden area...

All part of the fun.

I can see there being an option with three choices: Fully hide areas not currently present in; show outlines of visited areas; show everything once visited.

I don't really see anyone using the third option unless it still hides NPCs in those areas, but maybe? Certainly the first two.

To replicate the cartographers making mistakes would be very difficult to implement and just doesn't add enough to the game to be worth the coding work.

[Valyar]

A good VTT will use fog of war rather than completely hide the already revealed area. The idea of the fog is to hide whatever comes after you leave the zone.

[seycyrus]

...This has never really made sense to me. Once an area of the map has been seen, a player would remember it. Do we know if the Unity implementation will allow for previously revealed areas to be seen on the map?

I'm on the other end of the spectrum on this one. I think our experience of "remembering rooms" we have been in is because rooms and such are pretty standardized, and we just compartmentalize "bathroom", "bedroom" "small office" etc. Have you ever been caving, where you quickly passed from one passage to another? To me the game "remembering" rooms for characters is unrealistic.

[st4lk3r87]

I'm on the other end of the spectrum on this one. I think our experience of "remembering rooms" we have been in is because rooms and such are pretty standardized, and we just compartmentalize "bathroom", "bedroom" "small office" etc. Have you ever been caving, where you quickly passed from one passage to another? To me the game "remembering" rooms for characters is unrealistic.

If you are exploring a dungeon and your life is at risk I'm pretty sure you will pay a bit more attention to the rooms :D

[damned]

For me the fog would ideally still show those revealed areas but show them darker and any NPCs active in those areas will be hidden

[seycyrus]

If you are exploring a dungeon and your life is at risk I'm pretty sure you will pay a bit more attention to the rooms :D

Nah, you'd pay less attention. "No orcs here? Roaring crescendo from next room? Who cares what this room looks like."

[LordEntrails]

For me the fog would ideally still show those revealed areas but show them darker and any NPCs active in those areas will be hidden
Agreed, to me, those areas would show much like the GM mask currently shows, but hiding any tokens. Then of course, the GM view would need multiple shades: revealed, explored, & unexplored areas. And, since you got me going, I'm hoping that the various mask colors and transparency settings is configurable :) So maybe I could have 80% grey opaque for unexplored, and 50% blue opaque for explored.

[BrettM]

As a former Roll20 users, their first implementation of FoW was essentially Line of Sight — you only saw what your vision allowed, regardless of what you saw in the past. (Before that it was similar to FG current system — the DM/GM reveals areas.)

About 1 - 2 years ago Roll20 released “Advanced Fog of War” stylized on WoW apparently (I don’t play Wow). This had three (or arguably four) layers...

• Layer 1 was what your vision currently could see (similar to their ‘original’ FoW);
• Layer 2 was ‘static’ areas you had previously seen — hallways, rooms, etc.;
• Layer 3 was ‘dynamic’ items, like NPCs / monsters - they would only appear if in your current vision, otherwise ‘invisible’ to you — think of an NPC around the corner or out of your 60’ darkvision;
• Layer 4 would be the “GM Layer”, where the GM could place anything and it would only be visible to the GM, regardless the PCs vision — think an invisible creature, or a creature on another plane

The Advanced FoW was a memory hog when first released, so our gang didn’t use it after 10 minutes of trying. It was apparently improved, but we ran into other issues (and we’re a pretty technically capable group), so gave up and continued with the ‘original’ FoW.

I hope that helps ��.

[st4lk3r87]

As a former Roll20 users, their first implementation of FoW was essentially Line of Sight — you only saw what your vision allowed, regardless of what you saw in the past. (Before that it was similar to FG current system — the DM/GM reveals areas.)

About 1 - 2 years ago Roll20 released “Advanced Fog of War” stylized on WoW apparently (I don’t play Wow). This had three (or arguably four) layers...

• Layer 1 was what your vision currently could see (similar to their ‘original’ FoW);
• Layer 2 was ‘static’ areas you had previously seen — hallways, rooms, etc.;
• Layer 3 was ‘dynamic’ items, like NPCs / monsters - they would only appear if in your current vision, otherwise ‘invisible’ to you — think of an NPC around the corner or out of your 60’ darkvision;
• Layer 4 would be the “GM Layer”, where the GM could place anything and it would only be visible to the GM, regardless the PCs vision — think an invisible creature, or a creature on another plane

The Advanced FoW was a memory hog when first released, so our gang didn’t use it after 10 minutes of trying. It was apparently improved, but we ran into other issues (and we’re a pretty technically capable group), so gave up and continued with the ‘original’ FoW.

I hope that helps ��.

I'm pretty sure the performance problem this will not be an issue with FG Unity. I hope! XD

[BrettM]

I'm pretty sure the performance problem this will not be an issue with FG Unity. I hope! XD

:)

Roll20 had performance issues with their built-in voice system too, if I remember.

Nothing wrong with Roll20... just obvious differences between Roll20 and FG. Happy to be at FG :) .

[st4lk3r87]

:)

Roll20 had performance issues with their built-in voice system too, if I remember.

Nothing wrong with Roll20... just obvious differences between Roll20 and FG. Happy to be at FG :) .

I think it's ok to do comparison between software. It's a good way to improve too and learn from others :)

[Three of Swords]

As a former Roll20 users, their first implementation of FoW was essentially Line of Sight — you only saw what your vision allowed, regardless of what you saw in the past. (Before that it was similar to FG current system — the DM/GM reveals areas.)

About 1 - 2 years ago Roll20 released “Advanced Fog of War” stylized on WoW apparently (I don’t play Wow). This had three (or arguably four) layers...

• Layer 1 was what your vision currently could see (similar to their ‘original’ FoW);
• Layer 2 was ‘static’ areas you had previously seen — hallways, rooms, etc.;
• Layer 3 was ‘dynamic’ items, like NPCs / monsters - they would only appear if in your current vision, otherwise ‘invisible’ to you — think of an NPC around the corner or out of your 60’ darkvision;
• Layer 4 would be the “GM Layer”, where the GM could place anything and it would only be visible to the GM, regardless the PCs vision — think an invisible creature, or a creature on another plane

The Advanced FoW was a memory hog when first released, so our gang didn’t use it after 10 minutes of trying. It was apparently improved, but we ran into other issues (and we’re a pretty technically capable group), so gave up and continued with the ‘original’ FoW.

I hope that helps .

A few notes on this:


Roll20's Advanced Fog of War was based the RTS (Real-Time Strategy) game Warcraft, not the MMO World of Warcraft.
Almost every RTS uses the same system. Map is completely blanked out until you see a region of it for the first time. Then, if no one is around to see it, it is greyed out, showing only the terrain and not the creatures/units.
It worked fine for my group when I was in Roll20. They have just recently made it more efficient. Or so I've read; I don't play there any longer.
A well-written stand-alone application will handle it much better than a browser. That's the biggest problem Roll20 has when it comes to advanced features: almost everything is more complicated to develop using a browser.

[BrettM]

Thanks Three of Swords. Good to know. Lol - I played the original version of Warcraft. I always assumed WoW when mentioned on the Roll20 forums.

[celestian]

So, I've a question and this might be more for Carl/Moon.

Will FGU have more API for controls like listboxes, radiobuttons, comboboxes, cascading menus or miller type columns? I'm guessing the answer is yes since it's being written in Unity but curious.

One of the things I've ran across at times is when I want to use a standard type of control like a combobox or the like it's actually just a simulated version of it. If we will have access to standard controls I think that will go a long long way to being able to improve the UI.

[st4lk3r87]

So, I've a question and this might be more for Carl/Moon.

Will FGU have more API for controls like listboxes, radiobuttons, comboboxes, cascading menus or miller type columns? I'm guessing the answer is yes since it's being written in Unity but curious.

One of the things I've ran across at times is when I want to use a standard type of control like a combobox or the like it's actually just a simulated version of it. If we will have access to standard controls I think that will go a long long way to being able to improve the UI.

Eheh, Celestian are you experimenting with Foundry VTT ? That's the beauty of web ui development. I'm not expecting that much on that area but maybe I'm just a bit pessimistic.

[celestian]

Eheh, Celestian are you experimenting with Foundry VTT ? That's the beauty of web ui development. I'm not expecting that much on that area but maybe I'm just a bit pessimistic.

I'm watching it, as I tend to do with all VTTs, for tips/ideas to use for my own ruleset here. My questions originate however from evaluating the UI in my ruleset and how to improve it. One of my friends is a UI design/layout dev and he was giving me some advice. Most of which was not something I could do without some of the UI elements I mentioned. Those pieces are in Unity so I expect we could have those controls but I'm wondering if it's on the table.

[st4lk3r87]

I'm watching it, as I tend to do with all VTTs, for tips/ideas to use for my own ruleset here. My questions originate however from evaluating the UI in my ruleset and how to improve it. One of my friends is a UI design/layout dev and he was giving me some advice. Most of which was not something I could do without some of the UI elements I mentioned. Those pieces are in Unity so I expect we could have those controls but I'm wondering if it's on the table.

I'm a UI Dev too. I hope they will answer to this :)

[Nylanfs]

Incase any UI dev's want a side project, PCGen is looking to redo it's UI. :)

[Cluanar]

A few notes on this:


Roll20's Advanced Fog of War was based the RTS (Real-Time Strategy) game Warcraft, not the MMO World of Warcraft.
Almost every RTS uses the same system. Map is completely blanked out until you see a region of it for the first time. Then, if no one is around to see it, it is greyed out, showing only the terrain and not the creatures/units.
It worked fine for my group when I was in Roll20. They have just recently made it more efficient. Or so I've read; I don't play there any longer.
A well-written stand-alone application will handle it much better than a browser. That's the biggest problem Roll20 has when it comes to advanced features: almost everything is more complicated to develop using a browser.


I agree to ignore FGU, most will be burnt out on D&D or at least ready for a long break before when or even if it is released. Certainly not in 2019. They do not have any obligation or so it appears the knowledge to do so with present team to advance it. It works better than most as is so go with that.

[Patou]

I'm curious as to how many users are closely watching this thread for FGU news? I'd be lying if I were to say I wasn't but I definitely am. I also think being part of this community is a sign to being loyal to FG. I'm going to remain positive and eager to see what's to come. Now that we have news of D&D's next book we know there will likely be a big stream in May or before and maybe a door to introduce the new software..... hehehe!

Until then I continue to watch the Amazing Race of VTT's on the web and am still enjoying all the mechanics of FG for the DM! (It's going to be tough to beat).

[Ampersandrew]

I agree to ignore FGU.

Nothing in the message you quoted suggested ignoring FGU. You're either agreeing with something not stated, or quoting the wrong message.

[g0ntzal]

I'm curious as to how many users are closely watching this thread for FGU news? (...)

I'm coming here regularly in order to double check if there are some news about it. I learned to control my anxiety and I'm waiting for official news patiently. I'm enjoying FG running Savage Worlds games. My wishes for FGU is a native 64 bits macOS app with improvements on networking and memory usage but I can wait for it.

[Ampersandrew]

I'm curious as to how many users are closely watching this thread for FGU news?

I'm not closely watching, but I am subscribed and read everything written. Quite looking forward to FGU but trying not to be too impatient.

[Guoccamole]

Any chance of Augmented Reality for Fantasy Grounds?

Watch KS video @ 2:45ff (from a kickstarter): https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/2102378339/game-masters-archive

[Valyar]

What a gimmick

[Guoccamole]

Gimmick or... the future? It shows how you can mesh reality with fantasy which is pretty much the foundation of fantasy games. However, this would mesh painted miniatures with the virtual reality of in-game assets. Since FGU is Unity 3D based, I wonder if this ‘gimmick’ is something FGU already has on their roadmap, or whether it would be a ‘new’ feature? I think it would make it a lot more fun for players who like to paint their own miniatures, to be able to bring those minis into an FGU game... without losing the leverage that digital assets provide (monsters, maps, etc.).

[Xemit]

And all you have to do is view the map area through your tiny phone display and hold the phone in front of you for the several hour long game session...

A TV in the table, or video projector above table make a lot more sense. No, you don't get the 3D aspect, but it is actually usable.

[Three of Swords]

Nothing in the message you quoted suggested ignoring FGU. You're either agreeing with something not stated, or quoting the wrong message.

He was quoting me cuz of my sig. But sigs aren't included in the quote.

[Guoccamole]

I think the interesting bit about it is that the minis and (physical) landscape work for local players, and the video works for remote players (and audience if you publically stream or record for audience). In other words, the system he proposes is a more comprehensive approach for those who would like to mesh physical with digital.

Now for an AI dice reader, and I (we?) can keep using our dice collection(s)!-)

[LordEntrails]

Yes AR will be in the future of RPGs. For some people. But it won't be feasible for at least a decade, and more realistically 3 decades.

The big challenge is not the technology, it is already here if you are willing to pay licensing costs. And licensing costs are not cheap. The second hurdle is content. i.e. walls and tables and chairs. Until the content is readily available for cheap/free, gamers are not going to pay for it or spend 2 hours to model a chair or table. The third, as mentioned, is practicality. AR through a phone or tablet is not something conducive to long play sessions. When holo projectors become reasonable and effective, then you can have a play environment that is conducive to AR.

As for AR in FGU, not for many many years. Their is so much else that is so much more important and provides a better ROI.

[DwightLee]

However, VR ( not AR ) can and is starting to be done now. Not in FG but for Table Top RPG's

[chopkins779]

Considering the first post was made in 2014, I wouldn't hold your breath. Sad part is they took in Tabletop Connect and it pretty much disappeared.

[Bidmaron]

It was just a demonstration. Making it actually work in a game environment is ultra tough. Remember, even WoTC with the relatively bottomless pockets of Hasbro couldn’t pull it off (the reason they created 4th edition in the first place was to have a simple enough ruleset to make their VR DND engine work).

We are probably two decades away from VR in working tabletop role playing if for no other reason than because only a small fraction of the relatively small VTT crowd have internet speeds that can support streaming of 3d content to their players, and if you think anyone can afford the server farms on the order of World of Warcraft so the bandwidth can come off the DM’s machine-well, I will believe it when I see it.

Move on, guys. Years and years off. Let’s focus on the playability and

[DwightLee]

That depends on what you expect, you could also say that Tabletop D&D is here already in VR. Granted with little support other than playing across the internet, still having to use the books and so forth. But I agree with you that isnt exactly what we are looking for which is why I run my games in Fantasy grounds. I dont think it is 2 decades out, I doubt it is one decade out. But I do agree that what we are looking for is not here quite yet.

[Bidmaron]

I would bet a libation that it is at least 10 years out until we see a VTT that is capable of streaming 3d content that isn’t canned

[hedrondesign]

I'm curious as to how many users are closely watching this thread for FGU news?

Need LOS soon! once unity is out I will gain several roll 20 players instantly for just me games alone.

[Valyar]

Need LOS soon! once unity is out I will gain several roll 20 players instantly for just me games alone.

So the LOS is the only incentive and if there is no dynamic line of sight people are not eager to play? Are you sure you play roleplaying game? :)

[lostsanityreturned]

So the LOS is the only incentive and if there is no dynamic line of sight people are not eager to play? Are you sure you play roleplaying game? :)

Incentive to switch, if people feel like they are already getting the other benefits they may not feel like "learning a new program", people are incredibly dramatic/lazy when it comes to stuff like this. Especially if they believe they will be losing a feature they enjoy in the process.

In my case I just said "we are moving, learn the new program" and never asked :P

[Dark_Soul]

Need LOS soon! once unity is out I will gain several roll 20 players instantly for just me games alone.I had a pro subscription to Roll20 for 3+ years. Dynamic lighting is not a good enough reason to stay there compared to what you gain by switching to Fantasy Grounds. Especially if you're willing to get an Ultimate License as a DM, then your players don't have to spend any money either.

[BrettM]

I had a pro subscription to Roll20 for 3+ years. Dynamic lighting is not a good enough reason to stay there compared to what you gain by switching to Fantasy Grounds. Especially if you're willing to get an Ultimate License as a DM, then your players don't have to spend any money either.

My group did pretty much what you’re describing last October. We left my Plus subscription at Roll20, and switched to FG. We knew the one thing we’d miss was Dynamic Lightning. We haven’t looked back.

Are there one or two things we’d like to see different? Sure. However the advantages have outweighed those few items.

[Fenrizwolf]

Los was also the thing I initially missed the most after I switched from roll20.

But now I think these kind of visual things are nice to have but not super important. But I can think of a bunch of things I'd love to see for fantasy grounds.

Anything from better networking to larger Image files and more intuitive asset management. I would much rather not have LOS for a few more years but have the backbone of the software be more stable and modern. I would also love to see expansions on what you can to with effects and maybe even an intuitive effect builder. I mean a map builder oder layer or tile based maps would be cool but even just being able to have really high Def images would kick a**. Maybe simple things like a token maker or an easier npc builder ( even just a way to make a pc into an npc)

I think if you use fantasy grounds for a while and see the amazing features in automation it already has you realize that flashy stuff like LOS and fog of War and such are a nice bonus and definitely cool but the automation and userfriendlyness are a much bigger potential to really make fantasy grounds special.

If there was a Kickstarter to raise money to double the dev staff for 3 years I'd immediately pay in a 100 bucks just to see where the process that designed the game so far can lead if there is more manpower to work with. I mean imagine one dev just for ui and one just for automation and effects coding...

I know it is a kind of niche market so the margins are probably not big enough to sustain expanding the team. But damn for me that would be worth it. I would even go with a subscription approach for interested people who want to be supporters and have some additional input for feature requests and prioritization. But I guess they though about these things themselves and have reasons to not do that and keep the team small and development a bit slower.

I am happy with the software already but would still like to see it lifted up to what it could be with a modern framework.

[Targas]

I think important is the network issue, with running a VPN for some SW not being the ideal solution. More and more players have diffficulties playing FG, because providers switch to IPV6. It would good to know ‚if we can wait a bit longer with this issue‘, or shall proceed differently.
Something like, it‘s years away to come, it might be available this year, lr we can see the end of the horizon, and if you are willing to play/support a buggy alpha release, you could do so in perhaps a quarter.
Personally, I‘m lucky to run on IPV4, but more and more will have an issue.

[hedrondesign]

So the LOS is the only incentive and if there is no dynamic line of sight people are not eager to play? Are you sure you play roleplaying game? :)

Wow holy smokes I just made a statement based on what players in my circle of influence have stated to me. I get asked if I even play Role Playing Games as a response? I already have a FG ultimate license and have several steady players. I mostly use FG for a home game face to face across the table. Recently I have been gearing up to go fully online. I personally am not "worried" about not having the LOS feature but others that are hooked on roll 20 are. I cannot speak to their reasons, that is their choice.

[Bonkon]

Wow holy smokes I just made a statement based on what players in my circle of influence have stated to me. I get asked if I even play Role Playing Games as a response? I already have a FG ultimate license and have several steady players. I mostly use FG for a home game face to face across the table. Recently I have been gearing up to go fully online. I personally am not "worried" about not having the LOS feature but others that are hooked on roll 20 are. I cannot speak to their reasons, that is their choice.

Good Day hedrondesign :)

I may be mistaken but I read what Valyar wrote as sarcasm and not directed at you but the players you were saying were wanting the LOS or a no go :)

[hedrondesign]

Good Day hedrondesign :)

I may be mistaken but I read what Valyar wrote as sarcasm and not directed at you but the players you were saying were wanting the LOS or a no go :)

Bah, So hard to determine tone or intent with just text. You're probably correct.

[Targas]

We successfully circumvented the IPV6 issue of FG ‚classic‘, not using a VPN: https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?46209-Fantasy-Grounds-and-IPv6&p=430140&viewfull=1#post430140

[Full Bleed]

Bah, So hard to determine tone or intent with just text. You're probably correct.

I think it's pretty obvious that the response was pretty much saying, "You don't play RPGs the way *I* play RPGs? What's wrong with you and your players?"

Since there is no dynamic LoS in face-to-face table top gaming there will always be those who view the feature as fluff. But having it in VTT game is a plus in many people's books--adding a level of immersion that a f2f games lack in comparison ("Hey, pretend you can't see this bad guy, ok?") As far as I'm concerned, the less meta my players have to engage in the better the game. Further, it *is* one of the most glaring omissions from FG right now when compared to its competition.

But, you're in the right thread to voice your support and enthusiasm for the feature and everything we've seen indicates that FGU will launch with this functionality.

It's just a matter of time.

[Patou]

Hi all,

Being the curious cat that I am I'm currently trying out Foundry and also Arkenforge. Both of them currently have LoS and dynamic lighting etc. But, that's it. Everything else needs a lot of work by the DM. I can't even come close to compare all that Fantasy Grounds has to both the other two softwares. I am honest in saying that I for one can't wait for FGU and I can just imagine all the good stuff that's goung to come with! Foundry is cool but it has a massively long way to go before it gets close to FG and Arkenforge is a great mapping tool for adding effects to a map. Me personally, just want to see my players faces when I pull up FGU on the projected tabletop and see them go nuts.

I say to all to hang in there! I'm sure FG team won't disappoint:)

[Nylanfs]

Arkenforge looks more like to support F2F play.

[Patou]

Arkenforge looks more like to support F2F play.

Yes.. purposely designed for that. I use it to modify maps and add lighting effects when I'm feeling lazy instead of using CC3+. If I where to go back to minis I'd might use it but FG does so much for me to simplify DM work and time that I'm going to have trouble going back to DMing without it...and I DM F2F :)

[Tovrin]

Apologies if this has been discussed recently, but I've been out of the loop ....

Is there a rough ETA/roadmap for release of FGU?

[JohnQPublic]

Apologies if this has been discussed recently, but I've been out of the loop ....

Is there a rough ETA/roadmap for release of FGU?

"When it's ready."

[lostsanityreturned]

Apologies if this has been discussed recently, but I've been out of the loop ....

Is there a rough ETA/roadmap for release of FGU?

Sadly no, been radio silence for a long time now. I am operating under the assumption that they have realised the mistake in issuing such inaccurate expected beta times to us the last few times.
Hopefully there is steady progress in the background and they aren't floundering in development hell.

It is a shame, but it is what it is. I just wish that some elements of FG3 weren't aging so poorly.

[Mytherus]

So I'm new to Fantasy Grounds....I believe I'm just about at 5 months now since I started using it, both as a DM and a player. (Bought a crap ton of products for it in a short time too lol). Its a fantastic system and thought for me I won't lie I had to really pour some good hours into getting comfortable with it, but I'm glad I did. Still not a master by no means with the system but I can run games now with a degree of confidence that I at least have a clue to what I'm doing. (Could not say that even 3 months ago).

I'm very intrigued by FGU, the features that some have suggested they wish to bring with FGU would be incredible. Now understand this -- I can wait for it. First even though its been in development for several years, I'm new so to me its not been a wait...second, the current system is doing its job...I can host games as DM, I can play games....serves its purpose for me.

However, I always crack a smirk when companies answer development release schedules with "when its ready". That's good -- commitment to quality....but its a statement that has an expiration date on it, regardless if the company wants to have one or not. "When its Ready" is fine for as long as the product its replacing holds up to a satisfactory degree and as long as there's a reasonable flow of information and updates to the intended customer base. (I've got no complaints with either btw) ...however as years ago by ..... "When its Ready" will get stale....customers, especially the ones that stick around forever will grow skeptical.....things can get a little sour at that point. So that's all I have to say to all the "when is ready" conversation (with is spread through many many pages of this forum topic).

Whenever its ready ... (or heck I guess this stuff could be just updated in a release to the current FG platform)....there are frustrations with current FG that I hope gets addressed..... I'm going long here so I'll just say one massive "ask" I have to be updated in FG (dnd5e) .... Automate class features. Perfect example....paladins at a certain point have an aura that provides a bonus to saving throws to him/herself and any friendly target without 10 ft of him/her.....but FG has no automation for this. Its up to the player to remember "Oh don't forgot DM such and such gets +4 to saving throws because of my Aura".....and there's many examples like that. a VTT system should automate the class features. That's probably one of the bigger gripes I have with FG atm.

[Targas]

Fantasy Grounds has alot of coding automated. For this what is not automated Rob2E had created a Effects codings.
Here's a link to the package on DMSGuild to check for you, if that's what you're asking about:
https://www.dmsguild.com/product/226590/Fantasy-Grounds-5E-Coding-Package?src=by_author_of_product
On your other Statement, I agree that even as Fantasy Grounds is a quite good VTT, others are emerging which would cover area's which are lacking.
As such it would be good to see another update to stay confident and not let People stray away in search of other Options.

[LordEntrails]

However, I always crack a smirk when companies answer development release schedules with "when its ready".
SmiteWorks, to the best of my knowledge and memory, has never responded with "when its' ready". Community member have.

SmiteWorks responses have always been more along the lines of 'We are working on a new version of FG based upon the Unity platform. But we don't know when it will be ready, and it possible it may never be released. Buy, play and use FG for what it is today. We believe FG is the best full featured platform on the market today and we continue to work on and expand it.'


I'm going long here so I'll just say one massive "ask" I have to be updated in FG (dnd5e) .... Automate class features. Perfect example....paladins at a certain point have an aura that provides a bonus to saving throws to him/herself and any friendly target without 10 ft of him/her.....but FG has no automation for this. Its up to the player to remember "Oh don't forgot DM such and such gets +4 to saving throws because of my Aura".....and there's many examples like that. a VTT system should automate the class features. That's probably one of the bigger gripes I have with FG atm.
SmiteWorks has placed a great deal of automation in the 5E ruleset, but they have said that their intent is to only ever automate about 80% of what can be automated. There are simple too many edge cases to automate everything, and their are always too many ways to play the game to automate everything. And then of course, their is the diminishing returns, automation of some things simply are not worth the development and maintenance resources. Remember, SW is a small company, and their are lots of opportunities for them to work on, they have to prioritize.

BUT, they are always open to suggestions. And the best place to list any suggestion is the wishlist, which they actively monitor and regularly implement suggestions from. https://fg2app.idea.informer.com

[notrealdan]

(More wild speculation about what could someday make it into FG.)

I was thinking about what sort of improvements SW could make to the networking side of FG either with the release of FGU or someday afterwards. Aside from things already mentioned (IPv6 support, improving upon or eliminating the need for port-forwarding, etc.) I wonder if they're doing anything to streamline asset uploads from host to client (maps, tokens, modules, etc.). Specifically, I wonder if they've considered putting something like BitTorrent to work to improve this.

As I understand it right now, when the host shares something new (something not already cached client-side), the host client uploads that individually to each client. So if there are 4 players and a 1MB map gets shared, the host has to upload that 1MB to each player. Most people's upload bandwidth is limited. Using something like torrent should make this faster by also utilizing some of the clients' upload bandwidth. The file would be broken up into many smaller parts, and each client would get different parts right away, and then would be able to send some of those parts to each other, so the host would not have to upload the entire file to every client. The result should be faster loading of assets for all clients, with less load on the host's upload bandwidth.

For most, it wouldn't make much of a difference for a single map or token or something, but I think this could open the door for more efficient use of larger, higher-quality assets. It could also make hosting a game on a relatively slow connection a better experience.

Caveats that comes to mind are that this could make the port-forwarding issue worse if the torrent requires this, and some people may have firewalls that block anything that looks like BitTorrent. It would have to be optional. The host should be able to recognize when it won't work and automatically fall-back to the traditional method of sending each bit to everyone.

I don't actually expect a comment from SW on this. I have no relationship with BitTorrent, but I know that technology is very good at efficiently distributing files. This was just one of those occurred-to-me-in-the-shower ideas and thought I'd throw it out there. On a glance and a google search, I didn't see anything like this on the feature request board and may add it when I have another moment free. In the meantime, thoughts?

[Valyar]

There is no benefit of using BitTorrent. This even more complicates the network part and in Europe many ISP are quite cautious on this type of traffic due to piracy.
If the network operations are multi-threaded and support IPv6 it will be enough. I think someone mentioned that the stack is quote old and single threaded.

[notrealdan]

There is no benefit of using BitTorrent. This even more complicates the network part and in Europe many ISP are quite cautious on this type of traffic due to piracy.
If the network operations are multi-threaded and support IPv6 it will be enough. I think someone mentioned that the stack is quote old and single threaded.

Well, I wouldn't say there would be *no* benefit. There are clear benefits to this kind of tech for one-to-many file transfers, especially when the "one" (the host) has limited upload bandwidth available. As higher-quality assets get used, file sizes get larger and this becomes more valuable. Though I agree it would probably be more complicated than it's worth, and it probably would never be considered worthy of development and support resources.

[arcanjl]

I think we are at a year now from first tease date. :(
My players are tired of me saying "soon". But I guess it's better than a broken product.

[Targas]

TaleSpire will be ‚soon‘, starting a Kickstarter in a month.

[arcanjl]

TaleSpire will be ‚soon‘, starting a Kickstarter in a month.

Wow, that is gorgeous! But more like d20. I like FG doing all my math :)

[st4lk3r87]

Wow, that is gorgeous! But more like d20. I like FG doing all my math :)

Exactly my same opinion. TaleSpire is beautiful but there are very few rule automations ( Just the sum of dice I guess )

[TheSwartz]

TaleSpire will be ‚soon‘, starting a Kickstarter in a month.

Oh my Lord! That looks AMAZINGLY FUN!

[Valyar]

Kickstarter incoming!!!!! :D Love 1st of April.

[Ampersandrew]

***k yeah!

/happy dance

[ddavison]

https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?48729-Special-Announcement-Kickstarter

[epithet]

https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?48729-Special-Announcement-Kickstarter

Oh my %@$&!#& gods.

Huzzah!

[Nylanfs]

Did you see the second picture, where they have Server type: Cloud (https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?48729-Special-Announcement-Kickstarter&p=432012&viewfull=1#post432012)

[feldrol]

That's fantastic ! Kickstarter in a month. Houzza !
(But please do not underestimate cost or time of stretch goals)

[arcanjl]

That's fantastic ! Kickstarter in a month. Houzza !
(But please do not underestimate cost or time of stretch goals)

Beautifully put

[merkvah]

So... the Kickstarter is now fully funded x10+.

I'm not concerned about beta access... any idea on pricing when Unity goes live? Any idea if it will be more or less than the Kickstarter upgrade prices? I've been using Fantasy Grounds since 2004, which means I'm in the category that gets screwed the hardest on pricing... not sure I understand why, but...

whatever. Still looking forward to Unity.

[rhammer2]

From my understanding, after the Kickstarter closes, and FG Unity is released, the pricing will be about the same as the current pricing for FG Classic is now.
If you can afford it, buy the FG Unity license during the Kickstarter for a discount.

- Robert

[Temmpest]

So... the Kickstarter is now fully funded x10+.

I'm not concerned about beta access... any idea on pricing when Unity goes live? Any idea if it will be more or less than the Kickstarter upgrade prices? I've been using Fantasy Grounds since 2004, which means I'm in the category that gets screwed the hardest on pricing... not sure I understand why, but...

whatever. Still looking forward to Unity.

How are you getting screwed? You've have the software since 2004. A $60 upgrade is nothing.

[Stryfe484]

I've been using Fantasy Grounds since 2004, which means I'm in the category that gets screwed the hardest on pricing... not sure I understand why, but...

whatever. Still looking forward to Unity.

You pay more because you've gotten your money's worth from the current platform, while newer customers likely JUST paid for their's and have hardly delved into the program. Since they will likely use the newer program more, why not give them the discount they deserve.

Also, rejoice! The new program will come out soon, so we will all get to enjoy it for a MORE than fair price. Giving those of us that have had it for years a more than 50% reduction in price is INSANE! Thank you, SmiteWorks! You folks rock!

[lostsanityreturned]

So... the Kickstarter is now fully funded x10+.

I'm not concerned about beta access... any idea on pricing when Unity goes live? Any idea if it will be more or less than the Kickstarter upgrade prices? I've been using Fantasy Grounds since 2004, which means I'm in the category that gets screwed the hardest on pricing... not sure I understand why, but...

whatever. Still looking forward to Unity.

Mate, pay full price if you think nearly half is "screwed hardest". I won't argue with your math.

[Ckorik]

So... the Kickstarter is now fully funded x10+.

I'm not concerned about beta access... any idea on pricing when Unity goes live? Any idea if it will be more or less than the Kickstarter upgrade prices? I've been using Fantasy Grounds since 2004, which means I'm in the category that gets screwed the hardest on pricing... not sure I understand why, but...

whatever. Still looking forward to Unity.

Wow - now I know why so many software companies are moving to subscription only pricing. I don't remember Microsoft giving me a discount for having Office 2003 when I upgraded to Office 2016.

/shrug.

[Ram Tyr]

So... the Kickstarter is now fully funded x10+.

I'm not concerned about beta access... any idea on pricing when Unity goes live? Any idea if it will be more or less than the Kickstarter upgrade prices? I've been using Fantasy Grounds since 2004, which means I'm in the category that gets screwed the hardest on pricing... not sure I understand why, but...

whatever. Still looking forward to Unity.

The Kickstarter website states that post kickstarter the FGU prices will be
Standard - $39
Ultimate - $149

I've attached images of the statements to this post.

[LordEntrails]

Let's not get back into the debate on pricing and discount tiers. We've gone round and round on that for dozens and dozens of posts and it is now addressed in the KS FAQ.

Ramza, nice catch on the pricing update on teh KS. Good to know for sure what the post KS prices will be.

[merkvah]

Mate, pay full price if you think nearly half is "screwed hardest". I won't argue with your math.

I pay $60. Someone who bought it last year pays $30.

Not sure what math there is to argue with unless you somehow think $60 < $30.

[Myrdin Potter]

I pay $60. Someone who bought it last year pays $30.

Not sure what math there is to argue with unless you somehow think $60 < $30.

If you don’t agree with the explanation that that assumes that the newest buyers have not had a chance to use it long and veterans have more fully enjoyed their license, then there is no argument on your math.

[Kelrugem]

I pay $60. Someone who bought it last year pays $30.

Not sure what math there is to argue with unless you somehow think $60 < $30.

What he means: On the kickstarter (in the pledges) it is mentioned that the unity ultimate license will probably cost 149$ normally :) So everyone with a classic license will get a very good discount :) Rookies only have a bigger discount but veterans have nevertheless a discount (the reason for that is in in the FAQ of the kickstarter and the others here already mentioned it) :)

[BrettM]

I pay $60. Someone who bought it last year pays $30.

Not sure what math there is to argue with unless you somehow think $60 < $30.

I think the point is those who are being asked to pay $60 have owned FGC for longer, therefore have received more potential value.

For example, if someone bought FGC for $100 ten years ago (I don't know the prices then -- I'm just providing an example), then you could suggest they've spread that cost over ten years, or $10/yr. Someone who bought it for $100 two years ago has only spread that cost over two years, or $50/yr.

Hence the reason for people who bought it recently to pay less for the upgrade vs. people who bought it some years ago.

As with anything, we all have to the choice to pay or not to pay. Smiteworks could charge $1,000,000 -- it's up to the buying public to decide if that's the right price or not. Given the success of the Kickstarter, I'd say they priced it appropriately for the majority of people who were interested in buying.

My two cents...

[damned]

Everyone buying on the Kickstarter is getting a discount.

Existing license holders get a BIG discount.
And to help those newer buyers not feel buyers remorse they are getting a HUGE discount.

[Vis]

I pay $60. Someone who bought it last year pays $30.

Not sure what math there is to argue with unless you somehow think $60 < $30.

My math might be off below

2004 to 2019 = 15 years

Ultimate License $150 / 15 years = $10 per year

Or $0.83 per month. Or $0.03 per day

2018 to mid 2019 = 1.5 years

Ultimate License $150 / 1.5 years = $100 per year

Or $8.33 per month. Or $0.27 per day

There is a pretty good entertainment value over 15 years. The $60 Kickstarter seems like a great bargain. Especially considering there has not been an upgrade fee since 2004 to my knowledge.

$60 / 15 years = $4.00 per year and it's all backward compatible. Awesome!

[JohnD]

I pay $60. Someone who bought it last year pays $30.

Not sure what math there is to argue with unless you somehow think $60 < $30.

So vote with your wallet and save the $60 now. Then pay $149 down the line.

[DwightLee]

Screwed? What do you mean, you get an upgrade at Half price ( or less ). Now if you had purchased FG recently and paid full price and then had to pay it again you would be screwed. ( which is why the pricing structure is as it is, obviously )

I am paying full price at $139 as I am a subscriber for a licence, and I am certainly not getting screwed.

It amazes me how people do not comprehend the pricing structure, makes perfect sense to me.

[Ickarius]

I have a couple of questions and did some quick searching but couldn't find any results...

It looks like there is going to be an essentials pack for DnD 2.0 and 5, but no 3.5 (non SRD20 content)?

Is there going to be a demo version released at the same time as the full version?

[LordEntrails]

I have a couple of questions and did some quick searching but couldn't find any results...

It looks like there is going to be an essentials pack for DnD 2.0 and 5, but no 3.5 (non SRD20 content)?

Is there going to be a demo version released at the same time as the full version?
SmiteWorks has a license for D&D 2E (newly acquired) and 5E (has had since ~Feb 2015), but not one for 3.5E. But, FG has a 3.5E ruleset and the SRD is available for it, and SW does have a license for Pathfinder, which many people consider mostly compatible with 3.5.

Demo version of FGU? SW has stated that the licensing will be the same as it is now, so yes, their will be a free demo version available of FGU.

[Valyar]

If 3.5 is out this will be the end of everything. :D

[DUNGNGUYEN]

Sounds good, thanks b!

[Bidmaron]

If 3.5 is out this will be the end of everything. :D
Valyar, what do you mean by that?

[Valyar]

Valyar, what do you mean by that?
I mean that 3.5 will probably outsell the current products if they release it as digital product. It is by far the most complete D&D edition and line with a lot of content both adventures and supplements (not to forget the Eberron and the revision of Forgotten Realms).

I played D&D since AD&D 2e, my personal preference is still 3.5 over 5e and in my rpg world D&D 4e never existed :D
I had too much D&D, nowadays I don’t run or join such games as I found much more entertaining systems and setting (but I miss Eberron, one of my favorite high-fantasy settings).

[lostsanityreturned]

I mean that 3.5 will probably outsell the current products if they release it as digital product. It is by far the most complete D&D edition and line with a lot of content both adventures and supplements (not to forget the Eberron and the revision of Forgotten Realms).

I played D&D since AD&D 2e, my personal preference is still 3.5 over 5e and in my rpg world D&D 4e never existed :D
I had too much D&D, nowadays I don’t run or join such games as I found much more entertaining systems and setting (but I miss Eberron, one of my favorite high-fantasy settings).

Nah pathfinder took that title a while back, while I certainly don't doubt that you love 3.5 (I am in a 3.5 game myself atm) the reality is it isn't, wasn't and will never be as popular as 5e. FG could release it tomorrow, it be super popular and still sell less than 5e because 5e has all the might of popular opinion and accessibility attached to it.

One only has to look at pathfinder stats on FG to see this trend existing there too.

Now, don't get me wrong, I want it to come to FG as well. Just not going to become a top seller because of nostalgia. Much in the same way as I would love B/X but that would be a relatively niche system as well :)

[Valyar]

The market now is different compared to what it was before. 3.5 probably will have great success, but as retro game. I am more nostalgic in my statement, you got it right. :)

[Varsuuk]

This is not an attempt at a versions war, please don’t take it as that. My favorite is 1E or 2E (we kept things from 1E they took away based on the “moral majority” male bovine excrement.

2E was great until (again for me) they started creeping to too many books. I can’t say when that was. I was super excited at the kits in the Complete books at first even liked some things I n “build your own class” of the S&P? But by some point there was just too much and I remember we didn’t suffer in “customization” back in 1E with those very restrictive classes. I haven’t looked deeply at it (I own them) but I might try Adventures Deep and Dark sometime seriously to see if that is a good mix of 1e & 2e.

3e and later 3.5e became almost before I knew it splatbook hell. I was hardly able to get our old 1e/2e folks together due to moving and breakups but I started a new one with another couple and my best friend it seemed cool. But then all that crunch and eventually it petered not due to the edition - I meant in general. But I couldn’t keep up all the feats racial bonuses from all fade-in races to choose priest classes etc all good on their own and *for me* too much (especially feats) together.

I am now planning to start a S&W in person campaign at home with son wife and friend. After he is into it more if that happens, I may morph to 1.5e or 2e or Adventures Dark & Deep or some combo of them.

I was excited and bought the PF book with all in one and thought wow - they are taking the good ideas and putting it all together in a single book without all the crazy options (ironic...)

Yup, it’s me. My problems. My inability to decide on how to filter all the options (many are truly optional) but I prefer reduced complexity and more “winging it” with what makes sense. I used to read all the Dragon magazines for stats and house rules to give me guidelines for things like weather/env issue (loved Dungeoneers and Wilderness guides when they came out!) but these just helped guide my dming choices vs were part of the “rulesystem.

I’m excited about getting in a 2E game using Cel’s ruleset it is so very well done. I’m in a fun group now so even though it is 5e I’m staying so means have to be careful to see what else can commit to so waiting a bit.

[Bidmaron]

I love 3.5 as well, but PF is my fave. Hoping PF2 will be what it promises. Thing is that any successful system will either have a ton os 'splat' or will issue new editions every 3 years because you have to sell stuff to players. DM modules don't sell as well due to more limited audience of DMs than players, I probably will never go back to WOTC after the 4e abortion and how they treated us 3.5 fans at the time, and I love the Paizo business model of subscriptions and giving discounts on alternate forms of their material (e.g. FG) if you already own the PDFs (which are free if you subscribe to hard copy subscriptions).

[Valyar]

I probably will never go back to WOTC
Same here, but for slightly different reasons.
Nowadays I support and follow publishers who provide free PDFs if you purchase a hardcover and discount from hardcover if you purchase the PDF from them. Modiphius, Chaosium, Free League are amazing in that and I really love their games and products. Paizo also have great model and if it wasn't my dislike for Pathfinder/Startfinder in general I would have been great supporter (as I still buy books in the digital age).

WOTC and their business model, probably forced by Hasbro or pure greed, is against my principles - asking us to constantly buy the products over and over on various platforms. Intellectual property is not the medium, but the content and I don't see any other reason than the described above of asking us to pay multiple times. And except with the hardcovers, on some platforms you don't even own the content. It is not about money, but principles for me. Same reason I don't use subscription services except Spotify.



was great until (again for me) they started creeping to too many books. I can’t say when that was.
This is the only way to generate revenue for most of the publishers. With the 5e product line, I give it that, the amount of books that are not adventures or campaigns is quite acceptable. Even if I suddenly want to be back to D&D, the financial hit to buy all (don't ask) won't be the same as with some other systems. Their current model and the alternative income channels probably help in keeping the revenue up and no need to constantly push out supplements like in the old days.

[damned]

I play a few different systems, more than many, but certainly less than some players.
There is no system I have ever felt a need to buy everything published for that system.

As you point out - publishers have to sell books and that means releasing new ones on an ongoing basis - but we should never feel that we should buy it just because its available.

[Bidmaron]

Well that is why I am a Paizo-only guy because I MUST buy everything. Just OCD I guess. I am going back on DTRPG and buying the old material pre-Hasbro that I like. (Al Qadim, Planescape, all the 3.5 stuff and 3.0 stuff [which I already have hard copy]].

Valuation, what is it about PF you don’t like? It is basically 3.75.

[Varsuuk]

I bought nearly all the original adventures for AD&D, I bought a ton of non Adventure stuff and most Dragon & later many Dungeon issues. It’s was my hobby and books plus miniatures was what I liked spending money on. It wasn’t so much quantity as type of books. 5e isn’t too bad if I recall, I don’t really read them much past the first phb/dm. I own everything but on FG only so it isn’t something that lends itself to casual laying around reading even we’re I interested.

I dig the financial reasons for why they feel like they have to release so many (again pre 5e) “options” books. They feel and have probably proved that the players in a group will buy them versus the DM only. It’s probably one of the reasons TSR in the more limited competition field didn’t hold up (yup, many other reasons)

Thing is the options, many seem good to me as well -certainly felt that way in 2e. But eventually and worse barely noticeably it becomes too heavy or limiting in all the specific situation rules and a couple years later it is nearly a different game. Then it is hard to come up with a reduced version because of wanting consensus and you still need to buy and playtest new stuff if you want to make an informed opinion.

All this resulted in my turning to Frog God Games for a simpler more open ended system (although as I said, I may transition back to 1e/2e and just use their stuff, as all mentioned OSRlike systems are easy to convert among) I also love that they publish WORLD Books a lot where it’s info plus adventures sometimes. Then they also publish many modules of different level ranges and not just the super modules like Tower of Air which cover huge 1-N levels. Those are great but I’d have no use for multiple ones if it weren’t for the super leveling speed of 5e which results in characters I feel less a part of since I get to enjoy powers/levels and other “new” stuff more than spend time at each level building stories about them and having to differentiate memories by what happened that night or series of delves vs by the level. I find myself thinking of the campaign first vs the character. That isn’t terrible either, it’s just different. In many ways I like the fast thing for telling a campaign story that does not fit on the same “level but that is not as often as WotC thinks since a story can indeed get more meaningful as time goes on without you having to get to 9th or higher level.

I like 5e to play in FG enough. More for the group and D&D fun than anything else. But I will never buy their books, only reason I buy them on FG is to support FG. Now the 2e rule-system I can see using to DM and hope to at some point with bought modules and my own and many I convert from the great FGG books (which all come with pdf and some now with tokens and VTT maps separately)

[Varsuuk]

I too have bought everything available for 1e/2e from DTRPG. I already have nearly everything from FGG. And after buying one of their hardcovers on sale (I was digital only guy now for all my RPGs) I fell in love with the quality and now own about 8 older ones and when I buy new ones normally get physical (which of course includes PDFs)

But I responded to this thread through “email alerts” and only just now saw the headline of the thread and realized I didn’t start it but am hugely contributing to the offtrackedness ;) worthy discussion but for its own thread. For this one I won’t be replying on the “why I like more” topic - oops sorry damn phone posting I blame that!

Edit: FGG puts out 5E versions of their adventures as well as their Swords & Wizardry (the version I buy). Unlike some they are ACTUAL conversions to 5E (or 5E to S&W) because they feel proper to that game. Like not sill having a +3 weapon at lower levels or +5s at higher. But more than that - I’ve seen worse in some “conversions” of modules I liked.

[Whaley]

So I know that Unity said during the Kickstarter that they would not support distance calculations into Unity but the 5E combat extension does this now...would this be included now as an official option? I hope so!

[Kelrugem]

So I know that Unity said during the Kickstarter that they would not support distance calculations into Unity but the 5E combat extension does this now...would this be included now as an official option? I hope so!

When I remember it correctly there was a Twitch stream with MoonWizard and he stated that might be something he will look into, he also mentioned the combat extension :) But it is not something on the immediate road map, especially due to the problems when there are flying monsters since then the height of the monsters would be important when you want to calculate the "rigorous distance". But height is not something which is assigned to tokens yet (and it just means more preparation but flying combat always means that). (Then 3d models would help but I guess it is obvious that 3d will be not something in the near future which was sometimes discussed here and elsewhere :D)

EDIT: And, to be extremely rigorous, then the actual general size of the monsters would be important; the token only resembles the squares which are more "difficult" terrain occupied by the token. But such things like wings of a dragon can reach outside the occupied space etc... and that affects "effective height", too, of course :) But that is only important when one wants to be really really rigorous

EDIT2: But an approximated calculation is better than none (as in the combat extension)

[celestian]

So I know that Unity said during the Kickstarter that they would not support distance calculations into Unity but the 5E combat extension does this now...would this be included now as an official option? I hope so!

What do you mean distance calculations? I know it does this already (you can measure) so I must not be understanding the question.

[Kelrugem]

What do you mean distance calculations? I know it does this already (you can measure) so I must not be understanding the question.

As far as I know the combat extension for 5e has some sort of automatic calculation of penalties on ranged attacks due to distance and there is some sort of height informations when someone is flying (which is also respected in the distance calculation). But the calculation is probably roughly approximated (without natural height of tokens, so only taking into account in which "plane" the token lies), I guess? (which is of course no problem, it's a game and better than no help for distance :) (like it already happens for diagonal movement stuff which is not handled with Euclidean measures,too) so, a cool feature of that extension :) )

[celestian]

As far as I know the combat extension for 5e has some sort of automatic calculation of penalties on ranged attacks due to distance and there is some sort of height informations when someone is flying (which is also respected in the distance calculation). But the calculation is probably roughly approximated (without natural height of tokens, so only taking into account in which "plane" the token lies), I guess? (which is of course no problem, it's a game and better than no help for distance :) (like it already happens for diagonal movement stuff which is not handled with Euclidean measures,too) so, a cool feature of that extension :) )

AH! ok, range calculations in combat actions. Got it. All I could think of was measuring with the mouse, didn't dawn on me what you meant ;)

[Kelrugem]

AH! ok, range calculations in combat actions. Got it. All I could think of was measuring with the mouse, didn't dawn on me what you meant ;)

hehe, no problem :D At the first moment I was confused about what Whaley has meant, too :D

[lostsanityreturned]

If I were to rip things out of the 5e combat extension it would be

-flanking (with the +2, +5 options included)
-token height (even outside of combat this is hugely useful, especially in chases
-distance calculation including height
-toggle effects (same effect applied twice turns it off)
-right click effect application

Layers will already be built into unity.

I really need to give a run at automating my homebrew stacking advantage system in FG though
(Works as per normal, second third and fourth sources of give +1/-1 respectively. E.G. two advantage one disadvantage is +1 to the roll, three advantage would be ADV+2 to a roll)

[Moon Wizard]

Token Altitude
Currently, we have no plans to incorporate altitude into FGU scope for the first version. I've been making a pretty firm stand on scope creep when it comes to FGU, because we want to actually get it out the door at some point.

I did mention that it may be something we look at later. Remember that adding support for any one ruleset requires making sure that all the CoreRPG-derived ones work, so it's a slightly larger task than incorporating into a single ruleset.

One of the challenges that I mentioned in the stream with incorporating altitude is that you essentially have to either:
a) ignore creature height (i.e. treat all creatures as flat when measuring distances).
b) create a cube around creatures based on size (i.e. Large creatures are 2x2x2, regardless of whether it makes sense for the creature (i.e. horse, basilisk, etc.))
c) add data fields to every creature to denote the grid "height" of the creature (none of which is defined in the 5E game system as an example).

As for distance measurements, there is actually a mention in one of the 5E rulebooks stating that the distance is the counted just like range (i.e. 1 cube diagonally in any direction is still 1 cube distance). So, greater of vertical, horizontal or altitude is used as range for calculations. The calculation itself will be straightforward.

Adding support for automatic range penalty application is a different feature request, and it's unique to every game system (unlike altitude).

FGU vs. New Features
We are constantly weighing the addition of new features with moving the platform forward. That's one of the reasons why we decided to put out the word to hire more people once the KS campaign successfully funded. Of course, you have to assume as a business that new hires usually take 3+ months to bring up to speed enough to make an overall positive improvement (due to learning, time to train, additional overhead, etc.)

When a KS funds, that is just the beginning of the process; since we now have to deliver the software within a reasonable time frame. We made a decision last year that I personally needed to switch over from spending over half my time on ruleset enhancements and fixes, and focus almost entirely on FGU in order to make a push to get it out. Unfortunately, that means that some of the progress on ruleset improvements takes a back seat until FGU is out.

Cheers,
JPG

[LordEntrails]

Thanks Moon for the lengthy post.

I just want to voice my approval for the decision to keep the scope tightly fixed and focused on product quality and release schedule (rather than additional capabilities).

[lostsanityreturned]

For the record I am not asking for the features I mentioned, they are just features I appreciate :P

As for altitude. To be honest just the ability to track it without auto distance calculations would be enough. But again, that is something that can be implemented by us on the extension end without too much hassle.

[Three of Swords]

Token Altitude
One of the challenges that I mentioned in the stream with incorporating altitude is that you essentially have to either:
a) ignore creature height (i.e. treat all creatures as flat when measuring distances).
b) create a cube around creatures based on size (i.e. Large creatures are 2x2x2, regardless of whether it makes sense for the creature (i.e. horse, basilisk, etc.))
c) add data fields to every creature to denote the grid "height" of the creature (none of which is defined in the 5E game system as an example).

As for distance measurements, there is actually a mention in one of the 5E rulebooks stating that the distance is the counted just like range (i.e. 1 cube diagonally in any direction is still 1 cube distance). So, greater of vertical, horizontal or altitude is used as range for calculations. The calculation itself will be straightforward.



Option A is the only real option. Altitude should only represent how high the creature is off the ground. Nothing else. A halfling or the Tarrasque with an altitude of 10' are both 10' off the ground. If the height of a creature matters, the players can temporarily add 30' to the Tarrasque's altitude (or whatever they want for the height of the beast) for more accurate measurements.

[Ram Tyr]

Token Altitude
One of the challenges that I mentioned in the stream with incorporating altitude is that you essentially have to either:
a) ignore creature height (i.e. treat all creatures as flat when measuring distances).
b) create a cube around creatures based on size (i.e. Large creatures are 2x2x2, regardless of whether it makes sense for the creature (i.e. horse, basilisk, etc.))
c) add data fields to every creature to denote the grid "height" of the creature (none of which is defined in the 5E game system as an example).


Option A is the only real option. Altitude should only represent how high the creature is off the ground. Nothing else. A halfling or the Tarrasque with an altitude of 10' are both 10' off the ground. If the height of a creature matters, the players can temporarily add 30' to the Tarrasque's altitude (or whatever they want for the height of the beast) for more accurate measurements.

I would describe the situation as...
Option a is a special case of option b. (Where the third dimension is ignored, leaving all creatures flat.)
Option b is a special case of option c. (Where the cube around each creature is specified for the creature instead of just being based on size.)

So, a system that can accommodate option c can be utilized for option b or for option a.

So, a plan to build out option c can result in the use of option a in a system that does not define height in combat... such as 5e. A plan to build out option c can result in the use of option b in a system that defines height for all creatures by some attribute (like size). Obviously, building out option c also means when someone develops a system that uses the third dimension, FGU is ready. I could imagine this might be something even more important for things like vehicular combat... where the size difference between, for example, space ships might be significantly greater than the longest dimension of the smaller ship.

Now, obviously, none of this is an argument that therefore building option C is easiest. It is a question of planning for flexibility that may prove useful.

[Whaley]

Token Altitude
Currently, we have no plans to incorporate altitude into FGU scope for the first version. I've been making a pretty firm stand on scope creep when it comes to FGU, because we want to actually get it out the door at some point.

I did mention that it may be something we look at later. Remember that adding support for any one ruleset requires making sure that all the CoreRPG-derived ones work, so it's a slightly larger task than incorporating into a single ruleset.

One of the challenges that I mentioned in the stream with incorporating altitude is that you essentially have to either:
a) ignore creature height (i.e. treat all creatures as flat when measuring distances).
b) create a cube around creatures based on size (i.e. Large creatures are 2x2x2, regardless of whether it makes sense for the creature (i.e. horse, basilisk, etc.))
c) add data fields to every creature to denote the grid "height" of the creature (none of which is defined in the 5E game system as an example).

As for distance measurements, there is actually a mention in one of the 5E rulebooks stating that the distance is the counted just like range (i.e. 1 cube diagonally in any direction is still 1 cube distance). So, greater of vertical, horizontal or altitude is used as range for calculations. The calculation itself will be straightforward.

Adding support for automatic range penalty application is a different feature request, and it's unique to every game system (unlike altitude).

FGU vs. New Features
We are constantly weighing the addition of new features with moving the platform forward. That's one of the reasons why we decided to put out the word to hire more people once the KS campaign successfully funded. Of course, you have to assume as a business that new hires usually take 3+ months to bring up to speed enough to make an overall positive improvement (due to learning, time to train, additional overhead, etc.)

When a KS funds, that is just the beginning of the process; since we now have to deliver the software within a reasonable time frame. We made a decision last year that I personally needed to switch over from spending over half my time on ruleset enhancements and fixes, and focus almost entirely on FGU in order to make a push to get it out. Unfortunately, that means that some of the progress on ruleset improvements takes a back seat until FGU is out.

Cheers,
JPG

I appreciate the feedback, I was mainly asking for a future endeavor to add and not a prior to launch. I am more than happy with it being a community extension or module that we update ourselves. I think I am going to start learning how to do them myself. I honestly can't wait to get my hands on Unity and start to be able to use it! As for everybody else that replied, I appreciate the discussion we have had about the new features and desired features we want in the future.

[njohn858]

With the LoS tags on the walls and such, can a player move their token past that into the wall space? Or is there a 'tokens are not allowed to be placed here' aspect to it?

[pindercarl]

With the LoS tags on the walls and such, can a player move their token past that into the wall space? Or is there a 'tokens are not allowed to be placed here' aspect to it?

When line-of-sight is enabled, the players are prevented from moving their tokens outside the actively visible area. The visible area is calculated from the walls, ergo, walls can prevent player movement. The GM has no such restrictions.

[njohn858]

When line-of-sight is enabled, the players are prevented from moving their tokens outside the actively visible area. The visible area is calculated from the walls, ergo, walls can prevent player movement. The GM has no such restrictions.

That's awesome! :D I'm so looking forward to the Beta and being able to start working with it!

[Gix]

Our goal is to support the current ruleset model as much as possible to minimize disruption. This means that XML/Lua will continue to be the languages to use.

As we work through the Unity port, we may identify things we need to change to support the new platform; but our goal is to provide full support or backward compatibility when possible.

Cheers,
JPG

I realize you all have made the decision for backward compatibility, but could you comment on the possibility/likelyhood that in the future you might support JavaScript scripting and JSON data? (I believe Unity had support for JS at some point, even though they removed it as a development language)

[lochost]

I realize you all have made the decision for backward compatibility, but could you comment on the possibility/likelyhood that in the future you might support JavaScript scripting and JSON data? (I believe Unity had support for JS at some point, even though they removed it as a development language)

Imo, as Unity's programming language is C# it'll be way easier and efficient to use it instead of implementing another language's interpreter.

[Andraax]

Imo, as Unity's programming language is C# it'll be way easier and efficient to use it instead of implementing another language's interpreter.

The problem is that C# is a compiled language, and I don't think that SW is going to distribute and support a compiler. What's needed is an interpreted language. If we're adding new interpreters, I suggest Perl and / or Python.

[lochost]

The problem is that C# is a compiled language, and I don't think that SW is going to distribute and support a compiler. What's needed is an interpreted language. If we're adding new interpreters, I suggest Perl and / or Python.

There's a just-in-time compiler that allows to do the ting "on the fly", just like with Java. It's included in the CLR, no need for SW to distribute it.

[pindercarl]

To help put this into context, the LUA scripts in rulesets and extensions are not simple bindings. That is to say that the LUA does not simply fire-and-forget a function, it is deeply connected to the database. This allows, for example, the character sheet to "talk" to the combat tracker. Furthermore, there is no first-class object for complex controls like the combat tracker. These are all defined in the ruleset and modifiable by extensions. Rulesets and extensions are defined by a combination of XML and LUA.

If an attempt was made to replace LUA with a different language, ALL rulesets and extensions would need to be re-written.

If an additional language was added parallel to LUA, e.g. Javascript, then LUA and Javascript would both have to communicate with the runtime and magically communicate with each other. I can assure you that this would be akin to sorcery.

[Dactylus]

With the move to Unity and native Linux support has there been any thought or discussion of a console mode/dedicated server. It appears to be well documented from the Unity side to do it in the same build. I would love to have it running on my headless media server and connect via my normal desktop which can handle the gui/graphics. This would allow me to leave it up on the lower power machine which is on 24/7 and turn off the gaming machine when not in use. Probably not as much work as you would think, besides gui vs console mode, it would only need be able to ID which client connection was the GM, which you could do with a different password or match the keys. (and hold the scope creep comments, I work in development too, only trying to see if it has been discussed and gauge interest. :)

It opens a lot of possibilities for cloud hosting. We host stuff local and outsource at work. You can get an account on a shared host starting from <$5 a month. They could offer a premium subscription and include hosting.

[LordEntrails]

With the move to Unity and native Linux support has there been any thought or discussion of a console mode/dedicated server. ..
It is a long standing idea. See the wishlist item; https://fg2app.idea.informer.com/proj/?ia=40890
I suspect it is also something that would require review of all licensing contracts with publishers since it would be so easy for someone to stand up a sever with all WotC/Paizo content and publish the connection info and leave it unregulated. (i.e. not be much more than a distribution server.)

[Dactylus]

Thanks, at a glance you would think that thread would come up as search result for "fantasy grounds headless console".

I am sure something can be done so only the owner of content can see it and there are probably much easier and less risky ways to distribute stuff then to potentially give out access to your FG account and license.

[LordEntrails]

Thanks, at a glance you would think that thread would come up as search result for "fantasy grounds headless console".

I am sure something can be done so only the owner of content can see it and there are probably much easier and less risky ways to distribute stuff then to potentially give out access to your FG account and license.
With a headless server you wouldn't have to give out your FG account info. All you would have to do is stand up an FG server on a hosted server and start up FG and share all your modules. Then give the world your server alias (and campaign password if you bothered with one) and then and then anyone could connect to your "game" and use it to load and read/use anything you have shared.

Not that you can't do that today, but making it a 'headless' server makes it even more appealing to would be IP pirates.

[Trenloe]

A headless server is a good idea. I'm sure there would be a lot of work - both with coding and commercials to sort out. But it would be a nice thing to have sometime in the future.

[Dactylus]

With a headless server you wouldn't have to give out your FG account info.

I was thinking that if you forced it to be tied to both the key and account, it would make it less likely to be published freely. Logging excessive/abnormal GM connection behavior could lock the account/server as well.


Not that you can't do that today, but making it a 'headless' server makes it even more appealing to would be IP pirates.

Using controls similar to what are in place now should be all that are needed. I suspect that there are probably easier ways to pirate any IP in a format that was more usable. It does not have to impossible, only inconvenient, before someone moves on. If you are talking about the IP in a FG usable format, it would be more likely be shared packaged up in a hacked state for running locally. Connecting to a server via the client and reading or screen scraping the IP is probably not a big risk.

I am only recently getting into FG, I am all for adding anycontrols that would be needed to give the comfort level required to any IP owners. I was more thinking about how much better from a logistics/game play standpoint, having a headless dedicated server on a small Linux appliance would make my setup.

[Dactylus]

A headless server is a good idea. I'm sure there would be a lot of work - both with coding and commercials to sort out. But it would be a nice thing to have sometime in the future.

IP risks aside, from an admittedly minimal amount of reading I think it is something Unity supports out of the box or with an add-on. From a proof of concept standpoint, it could probably be mocked up pretty quickly in a test build. I suspect that it would be more work proportionately ensuring that the client role controls were in place to delegate the GM capability to the right client connection. Not that a developer ever has any free time, it's more like "that would be cool and three cups of coffee later" you have a POC mockup which would take a hundred hours to polish and it gets filed away as feasible.

[Speculi]

... I think it is something Unity supports out of the box or with an add-on. From a proof of concept standpoint, it could probably be mocked up pretty quickly in a test build.
Running a Unity application in headless mode in itself is not the big issue here, but Fantasy Grounds doesn't seem to have any kind of "rights management" besides server is always GM and owner of all the content that's shareable, and any connected client is just a player (and can request to open his own stuff, but not share it in any way). From my understanding how FG works, the entire rights management would first have to be changed in a way to allow connected GMs to make something like this feasible.

[immotus]

Speaking strictly as a Dungeon Master, my primary concern is Campaign, Module, and Session Management. Sometimes, FG is a beast to manage during play... the user experience is weak. You have to download extensions just to get it to remember window placement and configuration. Hopefully things like these will be addressed in FGU. And, that brings up Campaign and Module management.. I realize that FG is trying to stay system neutral but, it would certainly be nice (remember that user experience thing) to have dedicated campaign management. Working in FG feels like throwing things into a pile and then sorting through the whole damn pile every time you need something. When you are trying to organize everything by [Prefix][Name][Suffix]... well, its clunky and, you forget things and then its a bitch to go back and insert something. Not to mention everything gets these long convoluted titles that are not intuitively navigable. It's all very static. I would work on that user experience if I were you.

[Zacchaeus]

FG remembers the last position of each window you have opened between sessions. Unless you are talking about the Chat window and dice tower with which there is an issue and which is addressed in the next patch.

If you have suggestions as to how you'd like to see campaigns and modules managed managed, add them to the wish list (link in my signature) or upvote suggestions that are already there.

And welcome to the forums.

[immotus]

I'm sorry you are right about the windows...

What's causing my problem is that I shrink the application into a window itself and the sub-windows get moved and rearranged to conform to the overall window size. They need to recover their previous user defined positions when space permits. .. that is basic user interface behavior for a good experience. If a user sets a window position he/she probably wants that position until he changes it again... shrinking the application work space should not be treated like a user defined position.

Since we are on the topic of the interface at the moment... There should be a secondary navigation bar for docking the various content panes. Display 'real-estate' is a precious commodity and many people don't have and don't use multiple monitors. Instead of trying to share the whole display with 20 content panes the application should be allowing the user to dock content panes in use and close and recall them with a click/touch from the secondary navigation bar. This way the user could have everything be bigger or smaller as needed. You know, keep a couple important things open on the main content pane and dock the rest into a secondary navigation bar... simple and effective space management.

The devs could do a lot more with docking of windows to make the experience better for the users.

Just sayin.. :)

Thanks for the welcome.

[Laramie Wall]

Speaking strictly as a Dungeon Master, my primary concern is Campaign, Module, and Session Management. Sometimes, FG is a beast to manage during play... the user experience is weak. You have to download extensions just to get it to remember window placement and configuration. Hopefully things like these will be addressed in FGU. And, that brings up Campaign and Module management.. I realize that FG is trying to stay system neutral but, it would certainly be nice (remember that user experience thing) to have dedicated campaign management. Working in FG feels like throwing things into a pile and then sorting through the whole damn pile every time you need something. When you are trying to organize everything by [Prefix][Name][Suffix]... well, its clunky and, you forget things and then its a bitch to go back and insert something. Not to mention everything gets these long convoluted titles that are not intuitively navigable. It's all very static. I would work on that user experience if I were you.

I guess I don't see these problems. I am running BarrowMaze, as a HackMaster campaign, and I guess I don't feel that my user's experience is "weak". Sure, I have a few extensions, but I think they are all for most part minor conveniences more than necessity. To that end, I am essentially creating my own campaign/ modules since I'm working from a hard copy. I just have to put in a little work ahead of time. And if it weren't system neutral, I'd instantly be running to a different platform. I'm sorry you feel like it's "throwing things in a pile", I haven't had that experience with their file system.

I hope your experience improves, and again, welcome to the party.

[Andraax]

This way the user could have everything be bigger or smaller as needed. You know, keep a couple important things open on the main content pane and dock the rest into a secondary navigation bar... simple and effective space management.

You mean, like the hotkey bar across the bottom?

[Zacchaeus]

I'm sorry you are right about the windows...

What's causing my problem is that I shrink the application into a window itself and the sub-windows get moved and rearranged to conform to the overall window size. They need to recover their previous user defined positions when space permits. .. that is basic user interface behavior for a good experience. If a user sets a window position he/she probably wants that position until he changes it again... shrinking the application work space should not be treated like a user defined position.

Since we are on the topic of the interface at the moment... There should be a secondary navigation bar for docking the various content panes. Display 'real-estate' is a precious commodity and many people don't have and don't use multiple monitors. Instead of trying to share the whole display with 20 content panes the application should be allowing the user to dock content panes in use and close and recall them with a click/touch from the secondary navigation bar. This way the user could have everything be bigger or smaller as needed. You know, keep a couple important things open on the main content pane and dock the rest into a secondary navigation bar... simple and effective space management.

The devs could do a lot more with docking of windows to make the experience better for the users.

Just sayin.. :)

Thanks for the welcome.

I think this might be the kind of thing you'd be wanting to upvote https://fg2app.idea.informer.com/proj/?ia=40864

Also as Andraax says above there are 96 available hotkeys on the taskbar. Use those to 'pin' images, story entries, quests, reference pages, even Library buttons. Almost anything can be pinned there and can be quickly retrieved with a single click or a key press.

[immotus]

You mean, like the hotkey bar across the bottom?

Yes but, more intuitive.

For example let's say I am in the Library window looking at the tables from the Player's handbook. It's more intuitive to grab that content pane and pull it (that very content pane) down to the dock than to pull that little shield button down there. Because, maybe I already closed the library window... now all I have is the content pane itself ... but, I can't dock it.

That's the one I want, that's the one I have open but, I am dumb and I forgot to think ahead that I might like to dock it ... now I have to open back up the Library and click on the PHB and look for the little shield button(shortcut) to drag down there.

The window itself should be a shortcut. That's the whole point of the window , right? And, If I minimize it into a button .. well I should be able to dock the button ..

These are things I expect out of complicated applications that have a lot of widgets, windows and whatnots. I'm sure I am not the only one.


I think this might be the kind of thing you'd be wanting to upvote https://fg2app.idea.informer.com/proj/?ia=40864

Also as Andraax says above there are 96 available hotkeys on the taskbar. Use those to 'pin' images, story entries, quests, reference pages, even Library buttons. Almost anything can be pinned there and can be quickly retrieved with a single click or a key press.

Excellent ... hopefully it gets more votes.

[Andraax]

For example let's say I am in the Library window looking at the tables from the Player's handbook. It's more intuitive to grab that content pane and pull it (that very content pane) down to the dock than to pull that little shield button down there. Because, maybe I already closed the library window... now all I have is the content pane itself ... but, I can't dock it.

Don't understand that - the Tables button already exists in the pane on the right. Why would you want another one on another bar somewhere else?

[Zacchaeus]

Docking windows comes up now and again. The main problem is that the windows in FG aren't actually windows; they're a sort of template or something like that. (not a techie here just remember stuff that's posted on the forums by the Devs now and again). So the issue with that is that windows can't be docked like in other applications which can use libraries that are available in Windows. A further issue is that the windows aren't the same in each ruleset (apart from some like the chat box). This means that not only would the client have to be completely re-written but also every ruleset. So, no small undertaking.

[immotus]

Don't understand that - the Tables button already exists in the pane on the right. Why would you want another one on another bar somewhere else?

No, I am referring to a different Tables button. In fact, there is no button to this Table of Tables. There is only a shortcut and its only in a specific place. You can drag the shortcut to the Hotkey bar at the bottom BUT only when you have the PHB module open. Otherwise you are digging through the pile looking for a Table of Tables named Tables ... which is the same name as the Primary Table of Tables named Tables. I am sure that the ability to create Groups came into existence for this very thing. Unfortunately, that table of tables I am referring to is not in any group; at least not that I can find.

That brings up another issue ... Namespaces. That's where the [Prefix][Title][Suffix] kludge comes into play when trying to organize your content.

...
Ah! HA! There is a group! Its just not organized consistently.

[Andraax]

All the link in the PHB does is open the tables window with the PHB group selected.

[Zacchaeus]

No, I am referring to a different Tables button. In fact, there is no button to this Table of Tables. There is only a shortcut and its only in a specific place. You can drag the shortcut to the Hotkey bar at the bottom BUT only when you have the PHB module open. Otherwise you are digging through the pile looking for a Table of Tables named Tables ... which is the same name as the Primary Table of Tables named Tables. I am sure that the ability to create Groups came into existence for this very thing. Unfortunately, that table of tables I am referring to is not in any group; at least not that I can find.

That brings up another issue ... Namespaces. That's where the [Prefix][Title][Suffix] kludge comes into play when trying to organize your content.

...
Ah! HA! There is a group! Its just not organized consistently.

I'd suggest that once you have the modules opened that you need for your campaign that you access the content from the buttons down the right. If you click on the Library button you'll see at the top of the window that opens a number of check boxes. Tick the buttons that you want to see down the right or select one of the pre defined options at the top. When you click on one of the buttons on the right you will see (as you discovered) that you can select a group, or do a search for items across of the module you have open in the window that opens.

As we generally say to new users don't try to fight the UI; try to get used to how it works and after a while it will become normal.

[LordEntrails]

Yes but, more intuitive.
Every user has a different set of experiences with other applications and so each user comes to FG with a different definition of what is intuitive.

One of the things I do is teach technical software. And the same comments come up often when training someone new to any piece of software and many users feel the new software is not "intuitive" because it doesn't look and behave like what they have used before.

Not that the FG UI can't be improved, but I always suggest people learn and master the current UI before worrying too much about changing it to something they as new to the s/w thinks might be better. Their might just be very valid user experience reasons why the UI behaves like it does.

[lostsanityreturned]

Every user has a different set of experiences with other applications and so each user comes to FG with a different definition of what is intuitive.

One of the things I do is teach technical software. And the same comments come up often when training someone new to any piece of software and many users feel the new software is not "intuitive" because it doesn't look and behave like what they have used before.

Not that the FG UI can't be improved, but I always suggest people learn and master the current UI before worrying too much about changing it to something they as new to the s/w thinks might be better. Their might just be very valid user experience reasons why the UI behaves like it does.

Agreed with this, the UI while lacking features I would like (bindable hotkeys in a settings window to any keyboard combination, eg. ctrl-t for table and such. Which I could then macro to mouse buttons) is far more functional than it initially seems to be and can be used very effectively, even if it takes a bit of learning.

There is more sense to some of the design decisions than initially presents, and other decisions that have come from the limitations of the program its self from what I can tell. Othertimes like the droplists for story groups Smiteworks has listened, so it is well worth taking the time to put forward desired changes in the relevant area :)

[mir2]

I love FG and am still discovering features.
Maybe what I think is most confusing for me is syncing maps; not being able to know if my
players actually see what I see after I change the map. Syncing is so important, but always a couple of clicks away...
Not sure if you share this "issue" with me? If the GM would know what the players see on their screen (at least the maps), that might work.

[Zacchaeus]

Hi mir2, welcome to FG.

Since everyone (players and DM) can independently change their view of a map, zoom in and out or even close the map altogether you can't be sure what the players are seeing. In order for the DM to be able to view what the players are seeing you'd need an awful lot off screen space. If you have six players you'd need the space to see six different maps. I think such would be impractical. You can right click on a map and select 'Sharing' and the 'Sync Client View' to force the players view to be the same as yours at any time. In almost all cases everyone is concentrated on the same section of a map anyway - where the combat is taking place - or the area that the DM has just revealed. It isn't an issue I've come across, except maybe when a player closes a map and syncing the view cures the problem. It may be different if you use a lot of overland maps where you might be describing a journey or some such. For that kind of thing I use a shared story entry called 'You are here'. By pinning that story to where the PCs are on the map and then sharing the pin the players have a green pin to see where they are.

[lostsanityreturned]

I love FG and am still discovering features.
Maybe what I think is most confusing for me is syncing maps; not being able to know if my
players actually see what I see after I change the map. Syncing is so important, but always a couple of clicks away...
Not sure if you share this "issue" with me? If the GM would know what the players see on their screen (at least the maps), that might work.

I could make it into a single click button for the image pane with an extension if you really need it. Personally I don't find much use in synching images that frequently though.

Maybe once every 6 sessions. The rest of the time I will simply draw an arrow.

[Trenloe]

I love FG and am still discovering features.
Maybe what I think is most confusing for me is syncing maps; not being able to know if my
players actually see what I see after I change the map. Syncing is so important, but always a couple of clicks away...
Not sure if you share this "issue" with me? If the GM would know what the players see on their screen (at least the maps), that might work.
The biggest help for most GMs learning FG is to start another instance of FG on the same computer as the GM instance and "Join Game" with a server address of localhost

This will allow you to see what's been shared, what the players see on the combat tracker, etc.. You shouldn't need to "sync" the map to update things like tokens, masking, lines, drawings, etc. - these are done automatically.

Syncing an image can change the size and view of that image, which can actually be quite annoying to players. As a player I'll spend a couple of second resizing/zooming an image to have it displaying nicely on the FG desktop with all the other things I have open. If the GM then syncs the image view, it can screw that up.

Try using the second instance as mentioned above. This will help greatly in learning what the players see and when.

[mir2]

Thanks to all three above!
I also used the suggestions above with a second localhost account.
Just thinking that for some applications - for example when you are just using a second notebook/pad as live map and movement/exploration tool (with everybody sitting at the table) - a mode where you live feed what the screen sees would be cool. This can include images (of monsters etc.) you share and then also close remotely. I believe such a mode could make this program even more versatile and intuitive.
I hope this makes sense. As I said FG is really cool as it is.

[Zacchaeus]

Thanks to all three above!
I also used the suggestions above with a second localhost account.
Just thinking that for some applications - for example when you are just using a second notebook/pad as live map and movement/exploration tool (with everybody sitting at the table) - a mode where you live feed what the screen sees would be cool. This can include images (of monsters etc.) you share and then also close remotely. I believe such a mode could make this program even more versatile and intuitive.
I hope this makes sense. As I said FG is really cool as it is.

You can do this either by joining your game using localhost on the same computer and sending the joined game to a second screen or join your game with a second computer on the same network using the local IP address of the host computer rather than the alias. This instance would be a player instance to which you can share maps, images etc.