RuntimeError

[roidesgobs]

Hey guys ,

I played yesterday with 5 players like each week.
One of them got a problem on a map; when i try to share it ; all player get it but for her she got a error message .

It write : Runtime Error: image:Snapshot size (0,0) does not match base size (6212,4600)

I try to reload fantasy grounds for her and all other player , we all checking for update again but nothing works.
And my English is really low so i try to check on forum if this kind of error is already on it , but i didn't find something good.

Anyway , thx.

[Trenloe]

Ask the player who got the error to clear their cache. On the "Join Game" screen, ask them to click the nuclear icon in the top right, then join your game as usual.

If you continue to get the error, reduce the size of your map if you can - 6212x4600 is quite large and the connection to the player with the issue might be struggling to download this correctly.

[Willot]

6212x4600!!!!
BUGGER ME WITH A FISHFORK AND CALL ME SUSAN!!!!!
Id say is is more than likey the problem

[roidesgobs]

The map come from HotDQ pack it's the episode 6 one , of castle Naerythar.
It works for all others players.
So i dont really know why it bug for her. Anyway thx to answer it works as clearing the cache.

[TMO]

The map come from HotDQ pack it's the episode 6 one , of castle Naerythar.
It works for all others players.
So i dont really know why it bug for her. Anyway thx to answer it works as clearing the cache.

I'm actually a player in that campaign right now. In fact, we are in that very castle. I remember that some of our players had trouble loading the map. Just about everybody has some pretty robust DL speeds so we suspected the bottleneck was on the DMs UL. It's one of the scenarios where we wish resources could be hosted somewhere.

I also wish that the official WotC adventures would have their FG maps optimized. We played through the Scourge of the Sword Coast adventure and it took several minutes for players to load the main land map. Then many of the side-quest adventures have three maps in one. Not all the maps on the same page use the same scale so it is nearly impossible to grid. Seems like it would have been relatively easy to separate these into individual maps and that would have improved their usability significantly.

[damned]

I'm actually a player in that campaign right now. In fact, we are in that very castle. I remember that some of our players had trouble loading the map. Just about everybody has some pretty robust DL speeds so we suspected the bottleneck was on the DMs UL. It's one of the scenarios where we wish resources could be hosted somewhere.

I also wish that the official WotC adventures would have their FG maps optimized. We played through the Scourge of the Sword Coast adventure and it took several minutes for players to load the main land map. Then many of the side-quest adventures have three maps in one. Not all the maps on the same page use the same scale so it is nearly impossible to grid. Seems like it would have been relatively easy to separate these into individual maps and that would have improved their usability significantly.

I havent looked at SotSC specifically but all the maps with encounters on them are pre-gridded arent they?
The scale of the maps is based on what is supplied - SW dont alter the content of what is supplied - they rebuild it into a FG module but dont rework any of the content as such.
The UL on the GMs machine is usually the thing that causes delays.
Huge maps can also affect the RAM usage significantly on both GM and Player clients.

[Zacchaeus]

I'm actually a player in that campaign right now. In fact, we are in that very castle. I remember that some of our players had trouble loading the map. Just about everybody has some pretty robust DL speeds so we suspected the bottleneck was on the DMs UL. It's one of the scenarios where we wish resources could be hosted somewhere.

I also wish that the official WotC adventures would have their FG maps optimized. We played through the Scourge of the Sword Coast adventure and it took several minutes for players to load the main land map. Then many of the side-quest adventures have three maps in one. Not all the maps on the same page use the same scale so it is nearly impossible to grid. Seems like it would have been relatively easy to separate these into individual maps and that would have improved their usability significantly.

I don't know what a UL is but I suspect it has something to do with network speed. I, too, have a crappy connection in terms of speed and it can take a while to get maps etc out to the players, especially if they are big.

As to your last paragraph the resources that are provided by the module developer (such as WotC - but there are others) are provided 'as is'. So, for example, if all that is provided is a poorly scaled map with all of the secret doors and room designators on it, then that's all we have. So it isn't easy or actually possible to do anything with the maps, in most cases. Remember the maps were designed for a paper product, not for an electronic one. I don't have the adventure you mention either but in other modules additional map have been produced and are available but not, I think, for this one.

[dulux-oz]

I don't know what a UL is...

Shorthand for Upload :)

[TMO]

I havent looked at SotSC specifically but all the maps with encounters on them are pre-gridded arent they?

Yes, I think they are pre-gridded. I was more referring to the scale being different for different maps on the same image, which makes the grid only good for the encounter maps. The environs maps use a different scale. If you look at SotSC maps for Phylund Hunting Lodge, Harpshield Castle, or Firehammer Hold, then you'll see what I mean.


The scale of the maps is based on what is supplied - SW dont alter the content of what is supplied - they rebuild it into a FG module but dont rework any of the content as such.

I had no doubt this was the case. I was not intending to lay the blame at anybody's feet in particular. I am merely opining as a consumer (i.e., what would be ideal for my purposes).


The UL on the GMs machine is usually the thing that causes delays.
Huge maps can also affect the RAM usage significantly on both GM and Player clients.

That's good to know that our suspicions were likely correct. What I have ended up doing is getting Mike Schley's after-market maps for these adventures. For the large land maps I resize the image so it is easier to push out. For the encounter maps with multiple levels and environs published in the same image, I simply cut them up into separate maps and add the shortcuts to make them just as useful.

[TMO]

As to your last paragraph the resources that are provided by the module developer (such as WotC - but there are others) are provided 'as is'. So, for example, if all that is provided is a poorly scaled map with all of the secret doors and room designators on it, then that's all we have. So it isn't easy or actually possible to do anything with the maps, in most cases. Remember the maps were designed for a paper product, not for an electronic one. I don't have the adventure you mention either but in other modules additional map have been produced and are available but not, I think, for this one.

As I just responded a moment ago, I understand this. I don't pretend to know how WotC interacts with SW or how willing and able the parties are able to make adjustments when it makes sense. Perhaps my concerns are moot if, as you suggest, the latter modules come with better map layouts. I do have all of the WotC modules for FG but I have not yet gone through them all to compare or review.

To your point about the maps being designed for a paper product, and not for an electronic one, I get that too. Yet, in our digital age where all content originates on a computer, this doesn't persuade me at all. Yes, these maps were arranged the way they were for optimum publication in a book format, but if I can take a few minutes to carve up these maps then so could anybody else who is tasked to work on these projects.

I'll leave it at that. I don't mean to harp on this. It's not the worst thing in the world. I am truly am grateful that these adventures are being released for FG. The hole in my wallet should testify to that! :)

[Griogre]

I agree with you TMO. I feel most of the WotC module maps need to be taken down to 256 colors, use 25/30 pixel squares and be heavily compressed. I have Fios (fiber optic to router) but my player's don't and I've gotten more crashes on the WotC module maps in the last few months than I have in the last 2 years before that. The maps feel like they are huge and in way too high a resolution for standard broadband use.