PDA

View Full Version : re: v. 3.2



rob2e
June 26th, 2016, 04:57
Version 3.2

I WANT IT!!!
I WANT IT!!!
I WANT IT!!!

Okay, I'm calm now.

Sorry.

I'll go back to just being impatient and excited...

dulux-oz
June 26th, 2016, 06:24
Well, it is in the Test Channel, so you could always get it there :)

rob2e
June 26th, 2016, 06:34
Test channel, but that's just a tease. Ha! I have to switch back when my players connect so it's more frustrating to KIND of have it. I'm just impatient and excited with all the talk of improvements and such...

dulux-oz
June 26th, 2016, 06:42
Yeah, the improvements are good and all, but they're playing havoc with my Extensions - still, I think I've got most of them sorted now - let's hope :p

villadelfia
June 26th, 2016, 15:08
So, what's so exciting about 3.2? Can't seems to find anything on the forums about it.

Andraax
June 26th, 2016, 16:11
Test channel, but that's just a tease. Ha! I have to switch back when my players connect so it's more frustrating to KIND of have it. I'm just impatient and excited with all the talk of improvements and such...

Tell your players to switch to the test channel as well. I did that for a while when a release was taking too long about a year ago. :-)

Zacchaeus
June 26th, 2016, 17:00
So, what's so exciting about 3.2? Can't seems to find anything on the forums about it.

You can see details here (https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?32034-Test-Release-v3-2-0).

epithet
June 26th, 2016, 17:47
I'm unclear whether we will be able to build custom classes within the campaign, or if all the new class access will still be read-only.

Zacchaeus
June 26th, 2016, 18:51
I'm unclear whether we will be able to build custom classes within the campaign, or if all the new class access will still be read-only.

I'm not sure what you mean by custom classes.

Nickademus
June 26th, 2016, 19:16
Okay, I read the list and understand the impatience. (Why does the Update list for a release always sound like a 'What I've Complained About the Last Couple Months' list.)

epithet
June 26th, 2016, 22:21
If I want to make a class from an Unearthed Arcana article, or an EN5ider article, etc. available for my players, will the next iteration of Fantasy Grounds allow me to build it within the program, or do I still have to use par5e?

Zacchaeus
June 26th, 2016, 22:35
You will still have to build it in par5e. Or deal with it manually.

Nickademus
June 26th, 2016, 23:19
At the risk of derailing the thread, there is something that has been confusing me ever since I started playing 5e on FG. I keep hearing things like 'must use Par5e'. I was under the impression that all Par5e did was turn text files into module files for FG. Are the modules locked up like the WotC stuff? Is there a reason someone can't just make a module file? Why 'must we use Par5e'?

Zacchaeus
June 26th, 2016, 23:35
You are correct in that par5e takes a text file and makes it into a module. For some things, such as producing classes which can be drag/dropped, spells, backgrounds and feats it is the only method of producing them - you can't create those items in FG and export them.

Par5e can also produce story entries, npc etc but you can also use FG to make those. So, depending on what you want to do you may have to use par5e or not.

LordEntrails
June 27th, 2016, 01:26
You are correct in that par5e takes a text file and makes it into a module. For some things, such as producing classes which can be drag/dropped, spells, backgrounds and feats it is the only method of producing them - you can't create those items in FG and export them.

Par5e can also produce story entries, npc etc but you can also use FG to make those. So, depending on what you want to do you may have to use par5e or not.

Do be aware, you could write them in a text editor, you'd have to manually put in all the xml tags and such that par5e does for you. But, it's much easier to use par5e.

Nickademus
June 27th, 2016, 02:36
Do be aware, you could write them in a text editor, you'd have to manually put in all the xml tags and such that par5e does for you. But, it's much easier to use par5e.
For what (little) I saw of the format needed for Par5e, it looks just as complex. Also, having premade templates of xml for things makes it more fill-in-the-blanks. I guess that I'm just used to working with the xml from making PF modules (where we don't have a fancy parsing program).


For some things, such as producing classes which can be drag/dropped, spells, backgrounds and feats it is the only method of producing them - you can't create those items in FG and export them.
Again, this is what I don't understand. I never said anything about making content in FG and exporting. I'm referring to literally typing it up in the xml document. If I have the xml format for a class, can I not copy/paste it to a new module and swap the information for the details of the new class? It would then be drag/droppable from the new module, in theory. (The way people talk about par5e, it seems to create some special data that the 5e ruleset requires for the content to function or something...)

damned
June 27th, 2016, 02:43
The commercial content is locked so you cannt view the xml format. You can determine it from the ruleset code or by looking at Par5e output. You definitely can create them by hand. Par5e formatting is quite easy once you learn it. Its the errors in the raw data that generate 90% of the par5e queries.

Nickademus
June 27th, 2016, 02:56
That's what I thought. Thanks.

I think my preference mostly comes from being used to working with the PF xml. We don't have a parsing program, so that's all we can do. It's not bad, with copy/paste templates.

Zacchaeus
June 27th, 2016, 11:59
Again, this is what I don't understand. I never said anything about making content in FG and exporting. I'm referring to literally typing it up in the xml document. If I have the xml format for a class, can I not copy/paste it to a new module and swap the information for the details of the new class? It would then be drag/droppable from the new module, in theory. (The way people talk about par5e, it seems to create some special data that the 5e ruleset requires for the content to function or something...)

Sorry, I misunderstood your question. Obviously if you are a programmer and know your way around xml then of course it may well be easier for you to just use the raw xml files once you work out the format. For people who don't know what an xml file looks like then par5e would be the tool to use.

Nickademus
June 27th, 2016, 13:29
I see. That makes a lot more sense.

gqwebb
June 28th, 2016, 01:52
Version 3.2

I WANT IT!!!
I WANT IT!!!
I WANT IT!!!

Okay, I'm calm now.

Sorry.

I'll go back to just being impatient and excited...

BUMP!!!

https://67.media.tumblr.com/5ad99e165bb5f7c92804f42953af5fd3/tumblr_no7wapoJkk1u0p36ho1_500.gif

What a shock! To much goodness in this load!

midas
June 28th, 2016, 18:54
Okay, I read the list and understand the impatience. (Why does the Update list for a release always sound like a 'What I've Complained About the Last Couple Months' list.)

Squeaky wheel gets the kick!

Nickademus
June 28th, 2016, 22:57
Ooo, squirrels, Boo! I know I saw them! Quick, throw nuts!