How does fantasy grounds compare to roll20?

[Yzrahad]

Hi, homebrew dm here. I have a large group I've been dming in roll20 for about a year and a half now, and one of the issues I've run into at this stage of the campaign is memory usage. With eight players viewing the map, monster tokens abound, lighting and everything else inbetween it drastically slows down game performance just to do basic things like rolling dice.

I'm fielding possible solutions and I was curious how fantasy grounds handles resource usage in comparison?

[JohnQPublic]

The only two things that Roll20 does better than FG are: 1) The map interface. It's easier to make changes on the fly with R20 and R20 has dynamic lighting. 2) Marketing.

That is all. Fantasy Grounds does WAY more than Roll20 has WAY more content than Roll20, etc. There are some memory usage issues with Fantasy Grounds but there are work arounds and there is a 64bit version that is being released with limited support (no support?) to try to bridge the gap between the current incarnation of Fantasy Grounds and the vapor ware version (FGU) that will fix the memory issues and add a bunch of other features (allegedly).

Our game has 6 of us and never any problems except when I tried to share a map that was about 6 times larger than it should've been. You'll have fewer problems with FG vs R20. When I was using R20 I kept getting angry because they don't seem to really test anything before release and they dump the heavy lifting (script/macro writing) on the user base which results in a less-than-consistent product. They often had server issues (I assume it's gotten better, but haven't bothered to check) that resulted in our game being unplayable.

I made the jump a couple years ago and my players and I both love FG.

[Skillkoil]

Welcome to the forums! The good thing about Fantasy Grounds is that after your done using an image/map you can unshare that image and it quits using up prescious memory. Lighting is handled via simple hexcode colors that you can tweak however you like. Lighting has never caused me any memory issues inside FG. As for tokens, I run a campaign with 6 players and they have been on a map with 16 other NPC tokens (22 total) and there is no issue. FG doesn't share a bunch of tokens that aren't being used, IE loaded into the combat tracker and then maid visible to the players. If you remember to unshare all the images/maps you have already used and to preload large images that you know you will be using on any given session. Life in FG is pretty stable. The one thing that eats up the most memory when first joining a game is loading of modules like rulebooks, adventures etc.. I usually let my players connect 15 to 20 minutes before the session starts just to allow them to get that "loading lag" out of the way.

Hopefully many of these issues will be solved with the upcoming Unity version of Fantasy Grounds. As a previous Roll20 user, FG is above and beyond a better experience for me as a GM and Player.

Hope this helps!

[Yzrahad]

Thanks for the info, both of you! A follow-up question, then - I assume this is a pipe dream, but there's no kind of connectivity between FG and dndbeyond licensing, is there? I own all the handbook content over there and if I could just, y'know, unlock that here without having to buy it all again that would be a guaranteed sell, haha

[Skillkoil]

I know there is linking for a lot of stuff on DM's Guild but FG and DnD Beyond don't share content. The thing about FG is that if you buy a product here it is packed with features that you don't get anywhere else. The functionality and feature coding are top notch. Sorry.

[Yzrahad]

Yeah, that's about what I expected. I'll have to download the demo later today and play with the UI, but if memory usage is that much better I may attempt to make the switch. Thanks again!

[Skillkoil]

Good luck, if you need any help there is a great forum community where you can ask questions or you can join the FG Discord: https://discord.gg/Xt4vqCu

[Zacchaeus]

Comparison of FG and Roll20 here (https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/content.php?18-VTT-Comparison-Chart-between-the-different-versions-of-Fantasy-Grounds-vs-Roll20)

[Three of Swords]

I started DMing on Roll20 several years ago. Around 6 months ago, my group switched to FG to test it. Since that time, 1 player prefers Roll20, 2 players prefer FG (as DM I'm mostly neutral). So we're still here for now.

Another person I know asked what I thought about FG compared to Roll20. Here is how I responded:

Fantasy Grounds advantages


Cheaper long term (compared to a Pro sub on Roll20). It's expensive upfront. Either one player has to pay for an Ultimate license ($149) or all players have to pay for the standard license ($39). But once you buy the software, it's yours. No monthly charge for full functionality of the platform (unless you choose to go the subscription model). Plus books and modules are cheaper and go on sale (Volo's guide is currently on sale for $24 rather than the usual price of $30, whereas on Roll20 it's always $50).
Can easily place links and 'pins' to practically anything in the game. Just drag an image, character, map, npc, spell, item, rollable table, skill, feat, race, etc to a hotbar slot, handout, map, or image, and it makes a link there.
Combat automation. Players can select single or multiple targets, use their attack or spell, then once the attack hits or spell saves have been resolved, the player can apply damage, which is automatically calculated, including resistances, saves reducing damage, etc. Things like conditions (blind, prone, restrained, etc) are automatically factored in as well. Concentration spells are automatically checked and the effect removed when damage is taken. It doesn't do everything. It can't do paladin auras, for example. But it does a lot.
Better combat tracker. While this is part of #3, I list it separately because it's so powerful. The combat tracker in FG is more than just a turn tracker. It lists NPC's traits, actions, reactions, spells, etc, as links that you can pop out and read. And you can use the attacks/abilities/spells right from the combat tracker. Stats like AC, HP, temp HP, current conditions, can all be seen and changed there. As DM you don't even use monster character sheets in combat--just the combat tracker. The Combat Tracker is the core of FG.



Roll20's advantages


Better interface (not more powerful, just easier to use).
Incredibly better map system. I hate FG's map system! (Though eventually they are changing, so then Roll20 will lose this advantage.)
Dynamic Lighting and advanced Fog of War (that FG is eventually getting as well).
Card decks. You don't realize how useful this can be until it's gone.
Rollable table tokens. A very powerful tool when used well.
Integrated images (though Roll20's selection is more limited than they used to be, still nice to have some around)
Integrated Video/Audio. (That my group doesn't use.)
Integrated sound clips. (That my group doesn't use.)
Better marketplace. (That I still buy things from and use in FG.)



Everything else is equal, just different. It takes roughly the same amount of time to prep once you get used to it. The community in FG is smaller, but there are roughly an equal number of extremely helpful individuals on both platforms.

[Yzrahad]

So speaking of automated damage, actually, how does the game handle the creation of homebrewed items? There were many macros and automations I wanted to build in roll20, but the time it would take to get the items working was astronomical (just to do something basic like make a magic shield that has a charging attack hitting multiple enemies in a line was easily a few days of dedicated work getting it to function). Each item not only had to be scripted individually but then had to be scripted per-character, which basically meant that I just couldn't do it unless I found someone willing to use all their free time to help code all of it.

[Skillkoil]

You create a group in the items section for your campaign then you can either create a new item or drag a similar item in and edit it with what you want it to do. Change name, properties etc.. Give the item to the player and it will be ready to go. Fantasy Grounds also has an item forge. You can drag a mundane item into the left box and then a magical item into the righ box and it will combine them for you into a new item. It also works for adding mods, accessories, upgrades depending on what ruleset you are using.

[Three of Swords]

Once an item is created, it exists as its own entity. If multiple players have one, they can all use it equally.

As for hitting multiple targets, the player selects the targets it will hit. If targets need to make a save, they use the ability and each target selected makes the appropriate save. If it's an attack, it will automatically make an attack roll against each target's AC. In both cases, once the save or hit/miss is determined, you use the damage ability from the item and it will apply it to each target.

So it's not fully automated. It's not an MMO. You still need to decide which targets an ability affects and manually select them. But once they are selected, it will know which ones were missed and made saves.

Setting up the items can be a little time-consuming while you learn how. But once complete, it's no different than using lightning bolt or fireball.

PS All of this assumes the 5e ruleset. I don't know anything about other rulesets, but I assume they work very similarly.

[Skillkoil]

Going off what Three of Swords was saying. In FG each item has types & subtypes which tell the program if it is a weapon, armor, adventuring gear, wondrous item etc. So if you make a shield once it is in the players inventory and they equip it.(Little button in the inventory tab of character sheet) it automatically adds the shield to their AC. If it is a weapon it will add the item to their actions tab. Where it has an attack roll and a damage roll beside it. So the player targets one or multiple enemies depending on the item and in chat it will show the roll and if they hit/miss or if the target failed/succeeded on the save. Most things are at least somewhat automated.

There is a very large list of items already in the items category, depending on if you are using basic rules or have purchased other supplementary books/modules. It's pretty easy to look at items that are already created to learn the syntax and placement for making your own item.

Hope this helps!

[Zacchaeus]

You should probably hop on to the FG College Discord (https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?40020-Join-Fantasy-Grounds-College-Learn-Fantasy-Grounds-learn-D-amp-D-and-then-play!) server or the official Smiteworks Discord Server (https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?36377-New-Official-Discord-Server) and we can help you out more quickly and with pictures :)

[Nylanfs]

Don't forget the biggest part that a) the community is more friendly and b) Doug and John don't have a problem with talking about and comparisons with competitors (as log as it's constructive ore not pure marketing). :)

[Andraax]

Card decks. You don't realize how useful this can be until it's gone.
Rollable table tokens. A very powerful tool when used well.



There is a card extension that allows you to use tables as card decks. Also, tables are rollable in FG.

[LordEntrails]

There is a card extension that allows you to use tables as card decks. Also, tables are rollable in FG.
Don't forget Story Templates, that can be combined with tables and more.

[Maasq]

I'll just pop a wee plug in here for the software suite I am writing :)

As a homebrew DM, you'll hopefully appreciate ways to get your stuff into FG as easily as possible. There are fully fledged NPC and Spells modules, and I have started work on an Items module. Magic Items will follow that. The NPC module even has an importer for 5E Shaped data from Roll20, if that is of any use to you.

Links in my sig should you wish to look at NPC Engineer & Spell Engineer - I'd hope that they could help form a positive view of both FG and the community. :)

Maasq

[Three of Swords]

There is a card extension that allows you to use tables as card decks. Also, tables are rollable in FG.

Card Decks
The card extension isn't the same thing. Actual card decks are nice for things other than cards. I use a decks in Roll20 for things like consumable items (healing potions, scrolls, etc). I also use them for various tokens, like tracking Inspiration. They also work well for random dungeons since the cards are just graphics, you can pull a card, place it on the map, and you have a non-repeating tile for a dungeon. Draw again, and you have the next tile of the dungeon.

Rollable Tokens
As for rollable tokens, I'm not talking tables. Those are different. In Roll20 I can set up a single token to have multiple graphics. For example, I have a 'commoner' character token. When I place that token on the map, it randomly chooses from the nearly 100 graphics I have set up. I have a hydra token that I can change the number of heads it graphically displays just by right-clicking and selecting the number of heads (you can roll randomly or select the 'side' of the token you want). Lycanthrope tokens have one 'side' for full animal form, one for hybrid, one for humanoid form. Works well for other creatures that change weapons, like hobgoblins (sword and shield, sword only, bow, etc).

[Three of Swords]

Don't forget the biggest part that a) the community is more friendly and b) Doug and John don't have a problem with talking about and comparisons with competitors (as log as it's constructive ore not pure marketing). :)

You are definitely correct on B. The censorship on the Roll20 forums is pretty strict.

As for A, I consider the communities equal. On the FG forums, you have almost a dozen awesome, helpful, active members. Most of them have posted in this thread already. Almost any question is answered by one or more of them. Unfriendly responses are rare, but they do occur.

Roll20 has the same thing; a dozen or so awesome people that answer basically every question. But since the Roll20 forum community is significantly larger, you do have a larger chance of an unfriendly response. It's just a matter of mathematics.

[Yzrahad]

This is all fantastic information! Thank you all, I'll definitely pop into the college discord later when I'm exploring the app! :)

[LordEntrails]

There are lots of things to learn. Biggest is that don't expect to learn everything at once, and when in doubt, ask :) If you let us know what you are trying to accomplish and why, we can generally let you know one or more ways to accomplish it.

[The High Druid]

Roll20's advantages

Better interface (not more powerful, just easier to use).




Couldn't disagree more on this one. I found Roll20's interface to be incredibly clunky and hard to use compared to FG.

[Skillkoil]

There are definitely pros and cons to both systems. I personally feel that FG's pros outweigh the cons by such an amount that Roll20 just isn't feasible for me anymore. As for support, not only do we have great folks on the forums but the FG Discord is a great place to get help in real time. I would never disparage anyone for using another VTT but for me FG is the best out there.

[lostsanityreturned]

I use fantasygrounds for numenera, 5e and pathfinder 1e

I have used roll20 for numenera, the strange, 5e, pathfinder 1e

I paid the top subscription for roll20 for three years and was active when it came to community character sheets.

FG is a better program as a GM and when players get the hang of it better for them as well. I have no regrets in purchasing FG even though the mapping tools kinda suck and I miss a few roll20 features.

I love being able to set things up to automate, especially with 5e. And while I do miss simulated decks and the like creating tables, auto generators and such is just way more versatile in FG.

[Full Bleed]

I have a large group I've been dming in roll20 for about a year and a half now, and one of the issues I've run into at this stage of the campaign is memory usage. With eight players viewing the map, monster tokens abound, lighting and everything else inbetween it drastically slows down game performance just to do basic things like rolling dice.

I'm fielding possible solutions and I was curious how fantasy grounds handles resource usage in comparison?
Most people didn't answer this question, seemingly preferring to focus on platform comparisons and FG superiority over Roll20.

In general, I do believe that FG is a superior product. But that wasn't what you were asking.

FG's resource management isn't great. You have to be careful how many tokens you have in your library, what size maps and assets you use, what extensions you're using, and how many books you're sharing. This is due primarily because FG is a 32 bit app that has not aged well.

FGU (the next iteration of FG with no release date) should fix most (if not all) of those problems since it will be 64 bit. But if you're taxing Roll20 you may very well tax the current version of FG without making some compromises to manage resources.

You might want to purchase a monthly ultimate subscription and set up a game in FG (using the same assets, etc.) similar to the one you're having problems with in Roll20.

[Skillkoil]

I covered most of this in my reply. (Second reply to OP) You do make a good point on tokens if they are stored in the shared folder. To overcome this you can place all your tokens in a folder and export it into a DM only module so that it doesn't effect memory usage for the players. I think my point on usharing images was valid though. With a little planning you can run FG pretty resource light.

[lostsanityreturned]

Most people didn't answer this question, seemingly preferring to focus on platform comparisons and FG superiority over Roll20.

In general, I do believe that FG is a superior product. But that wasn't what you were asking.

FG's resource management isn't great. You have to be careful how many tokens you have in your library, what size maps and assets you use, what extensions you're using, and how many books you're sharing. This is due primarily because FG is a 32 bit app that has not aged well.

FGU (the next iteration of FG with no release date) should fix most (if not all) of those problems since it will be 64 bit. But if you're taxing Roll20 you may very well tax the current version of FG without making some compromises to manage resources.

You might want to purchase a monthly ultimate subscription and set up a game in FG (using the same assets, etc.) similar to the one you're having problems with in Roll20.

Oh I consider this to be a part of the platform superiority. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

The OP won't have the same issues they have with roll20 in FG, FG even with it's limitations can handle WAYYYYYYYYYY more than roll20 before running into issues with resources in the way they described.

[LordEntrails]

Also, realize that a token in FG is different than a token in Roll20. At least as I understand it.

So, in FG one can have 10 token images and never have a problem, even if they have 100 instances of those tokens on your map. Where in Roll20, a token is an instance of an NPC and may or may not have the same image as another instance.

In FG, I've run a combat on a normal sized map (~2kx2k pixels) with 6 PCS and ~50 NPC "tokens" on the map and a mask and have no performance problems. Because those 50 NPCs were only 2 token images (a whole bunch of orcs).

Anyway, remember that when we talk about not having a lot of "tokens" in FG, we are really talking about a lot of token images in the shared token folder, not the number of NPCs used in a combat or available for reference. FG doesn't handle token images shared in the token folder well because FG opens each shared image into RAM when the client loads. A problem, but one easily worked around as how often does one use over 100 different token images on a battle map at the same time?

[Andraax]

And they don't have to be in the "shared" folder for the GM to use them on the map anyway. The "shared" token folder is for tokens that the players can use. I just put tokens into my modules for the NPCs within that module - this way they become available for me to use when I open the module, and silently disappear when I close the module. I never have to think about managing my token use.

[Full Bleed]

In FG, I've run a combat on a normal sized map (~2kx2k pixels) with 6 PCS and ~50 NPC "tokens" on the map and a mask and have no performance problems. Because those 50 NPCs were only 2 token images (a whole bunch of orcs).
This is why I suggested that the OP compare apples to apples using the same resources that he had a problem with in Roll20. If he's unwilling to "compromise" using whatever tips and tricks need to be used there to get the playing experience he's after, he might not be so willing to come here and do the same.

For example, a 2000x2000 map might be "normal sized" in FG, but I find that to be a pretty limiting factor. A DM I played with here tried to use some higher quality 3rd party and custom maps for both Rise of Tiamat and Curse of Stradh that FG could not handle. IMO, subpar maps are often bundled with modules in FG to keep under the "normal" size. And half of our players couldn't use the kill splatter extension due to memory issues it caused. So if the OP is running into problems in Roll20 because they are trying to use a 3000x3000 map, they might run into issues here, too.

Truth is, I don't think I've ever seen a good comparison between Roll20 and FG with regard to memory and asset management. There is probably a reason for that (i.e. lack of significant distinction?) Regardless, I think FGU would be remiss in not capitalizing on that superiority when it comes out.

I use a 9500x7000 world map with 145+ unique tokens within Maptool (64 bit.) No problem. It's not "excessively large" either... you can easily get to a pixelized view with normal use and I would have gone higher rez if one of my players wasn't stuck on a 32 bit laptop. I doubt Roll20 could handle it. And I know FG can't.

The OP's concern is, in fact, one of my biggest issues with FG... so the OP should know that it's not all rainbows and roses in FG with regard to asset and resource management.

[lostsanityreturned]

I doubt Roll20 could handle it. And I know FG can't.
You under estimate roll20 and you are wrong when it comes to fantasygrounds as it handles 8000 by 12000 pixels and 20mb+ maps (using the map of chult as a recent example), even players on absolute toasters that cannot play video games and whos computers die all the time were able to connect and play. Even if it does take a good 10-20 seconds for it to load on their computer whenever opened. (heck it takes 4s on mine)

No issues in play on the map though. This said, after a session I tend to unshare any maps they aren't going to be in again any time soon just to clean house a little.
I don't expect it will be that common that players will need to be on a huge map like that outside of a world map though, and even then you can scale grids differently on each image. Personally I tend to sit at 50px for larger areas and 100px for anything where the detail in the image is more important / immersive.

[Trenloe]

You under estimate roll20 and you are wrong when it comes to fantasygrounds as it handles 8000 by 12000 pixels and 20mb+ maps...
"Handles" in your specific setup and what is recommended (and supported) on the current 32-bit FG architecture are 2 different things entirely. I know many campaigns (with standard modules activated) that would have issues with running a map of that size without constant awareness and maintenance. That said, if you're aware this can cause an issue and take steps to minimize resources used/shared - and know about time to load large images, etc. then it is possible to use such a map in FG. But many, many users aren't aware of what they have to do and what the performance hit is - hence the recommendations from SmiteWorks and the size of maps/resolutions used in official products.

[lostsanityreturned]

"Handles" in your specific setup and what is recommended (and supported) on the current 32-bit FG architecture are 2 different things entirely. I know many campaigns (with standard modules activated) that would have issues with running a map of that size without constant awareness and maintenance. That said, if you're aware this can cause an issue and take steps to minimize resources used/shared - and know about time to load large images, etc. then it is possible to use such a map in FG. But many, many users aren't aware of what they have to do and what the performance hit is - hence the recommendations from SmiteWorks and the size of maps/resolutions used in official products.

Sure. But he said FG cannot, which is untrue.

I currently have every 5e core book loaded. ToA loaded and about 30 custom maps as well as a bunch of custom tokens.

They gave the example of map tools beong able to manage with some effort. I gave the example of FG also being able to do the same.

[Full Bleed]

Sure. But he said FG cannot, which is untrue.

I currently have every 5e core book loaded. ToA loaded and about 30 custom maps as well as a bunch of custom tokens.

They gave the example of map tools beong able to manage with some effort. I gave the example of FG also being able to do the same.

Not my experience. And not anywhere *near* what Smitworks recommends. A 8000x12000 file vs 2000x2000 is so far from being close it's absurd. That's 24x the "recommended" load. And that certainly is not reflective of the experiences of others I've seen on the forums or reflective of the size of assets that are bundled with official products. You telling me there is no reason for that?

I don't know how you were able to use an 8000 x 12000 map (size of the map file is inconsequential) with "every 5e core book loaded. ToA loaded and about 30 custom maps as well as a bunch of custom tokens" with "players on absolute toasters that cannot play video games and whos computers die all the time were able to connect and play."

Seriously. You need to get a hold of Smitworks pronto and tell them how you do it so they can get that monkey off everyone's back. You've obviously got the secret sauce.

We tried to use smaller maps than you've indicated (but larger than recommended) with an additional asset load less than you've indicated and FG crapped out with both a higher rez Castle Stradh and a RoT map. After that we gave up pushing FG. And in our case, no player had a "toaster", least of all the server. All were 64 bit systems with 8-32GB of system memory, on capable gaming rigs and highspeed network connections.

[shadzar]

I'll just pop a wee plug in here for the software suite I am writing :)

i will follow Maasq here in a moment, with a "pro" for FG, after this "pro" for roll20... rol20 you can play for free. you pay nothing for 5e SRD character sheet, and can use your real life books to play with with unlimited numebr of players connecting to the table.

a DM has to pay money to play with more than one person online with FG. Ultimate license allows anyone else to play for free, or if the DM has only standard license, then all but one player will need standard license also. i often see this misrepresented in favor of FG in YT videos, but lets be real.. FG costs money to be able to connect to the table, roll20 doesn't.


now to follow Maasq in a pro for FG....

roll20 API only works internally on THEIR website, you can't export any sort of data for use, though you can print them to PDF from the browser with Apple, or copy/paste out the HTML for character shets, etc and same all written text on your offsite storage. FG on the other hand allows access to the save files for the DM, so you can get the characters data with a few tools people have made to read the saved campaign and translate them into webpages for you, for OBS widgets to show character stats in live streamed games as part of your overlay.

con to both. it requires internet connect to use either, even if using FG on a LAN so FG can test if you have the proper license to allow another user to connect to your game; and roll20 you have to be able to connect to their servers to do anything.

[shadzar]

no player had a "toaster"

i have a toaster 1.2ghz single core 4gb RAM shared with CPU and GPU and can load 3140*4260 maps with ease in FG....

as a JPG 24-bit the map is 15mb, but as a GIF 8-bit the map is only 1.5mb.


bit depth, and DPI play a big part in memory usage for images. the most fancy graphic art in JPG is going to require you to use smaller images and cut them apart. more simple maps will give you larger maps with smaller filesizes.

example some maps out there people use are 300DPI, you dont need that for image quality in FG.. 72 DPI should be fine and will reduce the dimensions of the map which will reduce the filesize, and reduce memory load.

alos dont do every map in full color.. yo dont need "poster maps" for everything in a virtual tabletop

if it is causing problems, just switch to simpler maps, or TOTM thing Doug posted with just combat ranges.

but my computer loads Undermountain level 1 full map at the above resolution just fine, and my computer probably shouldnt even be able to run FG with those specs. LUL

[Three of Swords]

Shadzar,

Something you may not realize is that the way the GM client and the player clients handle resources are different. So just because you can host a game and load huge graphics does not mean that players connecting to your game can. I don't know the details on this. Just something I've picked up since coming over to FG from Roll20.

[Trenloe]

i have a toaster 1.2ghz single core 5gb RAM shared with CPU and GPU and can load 3140*4260 maps with ease in FG....
As I mentioned above in this thread - what FG can load up/handle in an isolated test is completely different to how FG copes when a bunch of players are connected, other library modules are opened and shared and a game is being played in earnest.


as a JPG 24-bit the map is 15mb, but as a GIF 8-bit the map is only 1.5mb.

bit depth, and DPI play a big part in memory usage for images. the most fancy graphic art in JPG is going to require you to use smaller images and cut them apart. more simple maps will give you larger maps with smaller filesizes.

example some maps out there people use are 300DPI, you dont need that for image quality in FG.. 72 DPI should be fine and will reduce the dimensions of the map which will reduce the filesize, and reduce memory load.

alos dont do every map in full color.. yo dont need "poster maps" for everything in a virtual tabletop
To clarify for everyone reading this thread, and specifically the OP @Yzrahad. For images/maps - there are two things here that impact FG and they effect FG differently:

1) Image resolution (total number of pixels for the whole image) directly impacts the memory that an image uses within FG. File size on disk doesn't affect this. FG loads the image, no matter what format, colour depth, etc. into the computer's memory the same way for all original image file formats. DPI (Dots per Inch - as directly relates to DPI in graphic files) may not translate to anything meaningful in FG as FG just displays the image as is. That is, changing the DPI setting in a graphics application may not do much in terms of final map dimensions (image resolution) and might not mean much in terms of how this looks in FG - for example, using the Scale Image functionally in GIMP to change the "pixels per inch" doesn't change the image resolution at all, it just changes the image DPI "flag".

For FG maps with grids, it is better to think in terms of "Dots Per Grid Square" - with 50 being a good compromise between detail and image resolution. But this can change based off the dimensions of the map - with 2048x2048 being the recommended maximum resolution for general use, this results in a map of approximately 40 x 40 grid squares.

2) Image size on the disk directly effects share time to the players. It doesn't effect the memory FG uses. Whereas the recommendation is to keep map size to less than 1MB, this really only impacts the time the players see a blank image window when the image is initially shared. It has zero impact on how much memory FG uses to display the image.

[Bidmaron]

Trenloe, I know you have explained all of this a thousand times on one thread or another, but I think this is your best summary of it that I can remember, with all the reasons.

[LordEntrails]

Since we are getting into maps and performance etc. Here's an actual use case for a campaign I'm running. You can watch the actual play from a player computer here (the streaming computer is a mid-range gaming rig); https://www.twitch.tv/raithath

GM on a workstation class laptop using wifi. 2 players running on Macs, 3 playing on Windows.
Players have access to the modules; PHB, EE Players, ToA Players, Xanathar's Players, Volo's Players, various Rob2E modules and 3PP class modules
Current campaign has 23 images shared;
- 5 monsters from the MM
- 1 handout; 1080x798 pixels, 200kb on disk, 24 bit, jpg, 70%, 8.6 MB size in Memory
- 1 overview map; 1960x2920 pixels, 2996kb on disk, 24 bit, jpg, 70%, 54.8 MB size in Memory
- 16 battle maps; these average 2kx2k pixels, 100 pixels per square, 200-1000kb on disk, 24 bit, jpg, 70%
*Size in memory as reported by GIMP

Yes I expect this to be pushing the process size limit of Windows, but we are not there yet. Players are reporting 2.6GB RAM usage. 16 shared battle maps is a LOT of shared battle maps. Very few modules I think of have that many (my module has about 400). But their isn't a need to have dozens of maps shared, and the only reason I haven't unshared some of them yet is I haven't needed to.

I have a test group running this same module, I don't know their details. But, two things of note, they have not reported any issues with stability or performance, AND they have requested a high resolution version of the players map, which I have given them. That map is 3920x5840 pixels, 4325kb on disk, 24 bit, jpg, 70%, 218.0MB size in Memory.

Why is the image size recommendation 2048x2048 pixels and 1MB file size? Because most people don't want to have to manage shared images. Many GM's aren't even aware of the issue. Because that file size, for the average number of images in a module, works in most every case (i.e. you can share just about everything and not have a concern). You can easily run above the recommendations, IF you pay attention to what you are doing. IF when you have problems you know why, and you know how to solve those problems.

Now, to keep going, why do I exceed the recommended 50 pixels per square and use 100? (For a module that I'm building to sell.) Two reasons; 1) because my maps are awesome and I want to show them off, 2) because their are so many battle maps as it is the GM is going to be required to manage shared images even if I used the smaller 50 pixels/square maps. That said, I expect to have reports of problems from customers. I've also tried to help that a little bit by the following being the very first story entry to be read;


Images and Memory Management
This module includes a huge number of higher than standard resolution map images. Though they have been tested extensively without issue, it is possible to approach or exceed computer memory usable by Fantasy Grounds with sharing large numbers of these images.
It is important that the DM regularly unshare images that are no longer needed by the party. This is especially important if player's view of FG begin to exhibit instability, crashing, or the inability to see images.
Unsharing Images
In the bottom right corner of the Images & Maps list is a button that normally shows "All". This button can be clicked to filter the list to show only those images that have been shared. You can then unshare these images by right clicking on each one and selecting the "Stop Sharing Sheet" option or by clicking on the circled P or S shown in the list.
Memory Limits
For reference, 32-bit Windows operating systems will begin to have trouble when the fantasygrounds.exe process approaches 1.5GB. While 64-bit Windows operating systems will begin to have trouble when the fantasygrounds.exe process exceeds 3GB. This limit is independent of how much RAM is installed on the computer.

[Trenloe]

Now, to keep going, why do I exceed the recommended 50 pixels per square and use 100?
50 pixels per square is not a specific recommendation. Like I said in my post "50 being a good compromise between detail and image resolution. But this can change based off the dimensions of the map...". The key thing is controlling large image resolution and this will depend on the number of grid squares in the image. If you can use 100 pixels per square and keep within the general recommendation of 2048x2048 per image then that's great. If you have a 10x10 grid maps and go with 200 pixels per square, then that's cool too. 50 pixels per square is not a hard fast "if I go with 50 pixels per square I'll be fine" rule. Always consider the total resolution of the map image.

[LordEntrails]

50 pixels per square is not a specific recommendation. ... 50 pixels per square is not a hard fast "if I go with 50 pixels per square I'll be fine" rule. Always consider the total resolution of the map image.
Yep, I get it :) Doesn't hurt to make sure everyone else does as well.

My module also has several battle maps that are much larger than recommended (ie. 4200x2400, 1960x2920, etc), but each of those images come with their own size warning and link back to that story entry.

Again, the important thing is that if you are going to exceed recommendations, understand the impacts. Understand how to monitor your's and your players' process sizes. And that the players are going to have problems before you are. And be aware of how to resolve the issues when they occur (because you better be prepared for them to!)

[GavinRuneblade]

I ran three campaigns on roll20 for many years it worked great, I had fun and my players had fun. It is a good system. Maps, character sheets, automation, etc. all have pros and cons on both sides that seem to come down more to personal preference and comfort than a clear "this one is always better hands down".

What tipped me over to using Fantasy Grounds is that on Roll20 my resources are limited by the size of my online folder, while here at FG I can have as many tokens, maps, and images as fit on my 4tb external drive. Adding and deleting images from my online drive in Roll20 was more of a hassle than sharing and unsharing in FG. The community here on the forums and the developers are why I can't imagine leaving for another VTT.

The only thing that has tempted me to go back is how frustrating connecting to a FG game is and the fact there are an absurd number of posts about troubleshooting VPNs to allow players to even be able to play.

[Yzrahad]

(OP here) So based on the overall discussion, I'm still seeing an overall positive outlook for Fantasy Grounds versus Roll20 for what my group needs. I keep a very limited number of files active in roll20 at any given point in time because of data management and it still causes grievous issues for myself and players. For comparison, here's a pretty typical scenario we run into in my campaign:

- Eight players / player tokens on map
- One player is a druid that favors conjuration type spells, and often goes for the max on her conjure fey spirits, so that's an additional 8 creature tokens on the map during most combat encounters (when the situation allows, and for those unfamiliar with the spell she'll pretty soon have the ability to summon even more than that by casting at higher levels)
- Anywhere from 1 - 12 enemy creature tokens on map. Again, to try and minimize work load I try to keep skirmishes small and re-use dead creature tokens as needed to represent swarms / hordes / etcetera
- Combat maps are typically 7000x7000 pixels, though this varies higher or lower. Once a combat map is no longer applicable it's archived. I avoid using map files that exceed 1 MB but at the most I might hit 2 for a combat map.
- This is all excluding any potential ally NPC tokens being placed on the map

There's also an abundance of APIs we run in the background to help me manage the game, as the campaign we're running calls for swarm-type encounters quite frequently (both for story reasons and to help keep things a nice challenge for such a large party):
- Combat (turn) Tracker
- Group checks
- With the slow downs in performance we were already hitting, I also installed an API that generates and maps macros to player's character sheets to complete actions without needing to open the sheet itself and flip through various tabs. More below.

And of course, in roll20 I make use of dynamic lighting as well, but I won't be terribly upset at losing it (even if FGU takes longer than everyone seems to want to release).

When I'm the only one in the session, this is usually only hitting me for about 1.1 - 1.3 GB of memory, but once the whole crew is in game I'm usually pushing 3 GB, while my players are usually hitting around 1.5 GB. Roll20 doesnot handle this behavior well, and the net result is that both myself and players are usually experiencing between 3 - 5+ seconds of lag time to perform simple activities, which really slows down gameplay.

That said! Even if the differences end up being nominal, I've watched several videos and streams of gameplay involving 6+ characters in fantasy grounds mirroring the kinds of scenarios I usually run, and overall the performance in each video I've watched has been stars and above better than what I've seen in Roll20. I'm going to be playtesting it myself over the next week or two with my party before making a final decision on switching, but so far the pros of using FGs continue to stack up over the issues I've had with Roll20. I'm not particularly worried about hardware - my PC actually handles most of the load pretty well to begin with, and I'm upgrading soon enough anyway. Not terribly worried about the hosting aspect, either, my home network has more than enough bandwidth to handle the traffic and it wouldn't be the first time I've hosted a server off my PC to boot.

Definitely want to thank all of you for your input, though! This has all been greatly helpful in making a possible decision soon.

[Trenloe]

- Anywhere from 1 - 12 enemy creature tokens on map. Again, to try and minimize work load I try to keep skirmishes small and re-use dead creature tokens as needed to represent swarms / hordes / etcetera
- Combat maps are typically 7000x7000 pixels, though this varies higher or lower. Once a combat map is no longer applicable it's archived. I avoid using map files that exceed 1 MB but at the most I might hit 2 for a combat map.
- This is all excluding any potential ally NPC tokens being placed on the map
Number of tokens on the map (and linked to entries in the combat tracker) won't make much difference in terms of performance.

But you'll need to reduce the resolution of those maps...

[Andraax]

Summary from this review (https://returnofthedm.com/2017/02/22/roll20-or-fantasy-grounds-a-comparison/):


Overall
Fantasy Grounds just pips this one for me. While Roll20 has some great features, not least dynamic lighting, the ability to access it via a web browser from anywhere and a lot of freedom around different rules sets, Fantasy Grounds reduces the GM’s burden significantly. From my own personal perspective, being time poor, this is crucial.

That’s not to say I won’t continue to use and enjoy both but for an involved campaign like the one I am currently running, Fantasy Grounds doesn’t just facilitate my game, it improves it dramatically.

[shadzar]

data management

here is the key point FG will have better performance than roll20 even with the current 16-bit/32-bit, whatever FG Classic is...

Since Netscape stopped existing, modern browsers fail to clean up after themselves. they leave stuff in memory even if you clear your cache, etc. This means if you change a map, roll20 doesnt show the players, but they still have that compiled image in their memory for the browser. maybe they are also looking at other webpage, after time the browser memory usage will cause roll20 to eventually choke. then you have to close the tab, reload and rejoin the game, then just close the browser, and open it to join the game again. This is because roll20 is browser based and while can do a lot of things FG can't, what roll20 cant do, is surpass the limits of the browser and its memory leaks.


FG on the other hand does have, as mentioned, the "unshare" and it seems to be post-adolescnet and knows how to clean up after itself, while browsers just make messes all over the place like 2 year olds...


so while the canvas HTML element used to make maps work in roll20 does have full use of the computers RAM for now, it also can use the whole computers RAM..... so the more lighting effects and tokens and pieces on the map field, they re all being created over and over and staying in memory.

this is why people advise others using roll20 to make 1 map on the DM layer and just add tokens for things you need to move, don't use the tiles to make an entire map.

Maptool has the same problem as roll20 in that JAVA doesnt clean up after itself any better than web browsers (see the memory leaks in Minecraft), so FG wins on being able to unregister things from memory when you are done with them on both the host and client side.

i am not sure but there is an FGCon coming up in October? someone else confirm, but doesnt EVERY user of FG get 1 free day of Ultimate license during that? or was that another Con Doug does that for everyone?

Whenever that 1 day per year that every user of FG gets Ultimate for a day, you can give it a good test to see how your maps and stuff share to other players while practicing or learning FG before you switch.

but if you do chose FG, be sure to learn it before just switching, because there is a bit of learning and you dont want to kill your game not knowing the basics of FG. and i think Rule 0 for FG, is put things in the Combt Tracker first before doing anything with them.... again someone else can touch on that better when you have decided to use FG.

[LordEntrails]

i am not sure but there is an FGCon coming up in October? someone else confirm, but doesnt EVERY user of FG get 1 free day of Ultimate license during that? or was that another Con Doug does that for everyone?
Yes. It's 3 days. And it's all standard licenses get upgraded to Ultimate for the weekend (twice a year.)

[Bidmaron]

Shadzar, thanks for giving us this information. Many of us have been here either forever (i.e. never did Roll20 - I am one of those [don't think it existed when I started FG]) or for so long that we don't know issues like that.

[Ken L]

Maptool has the same problem as roll20 in that JAVA doesnt clean up after itself any better than web browsers (see the memory leaks in Minecraft), so FG wins on being able to unregister things from memory when you are done with them on both the host and client side.


I'm going to snipe in here to say that it's not a Java issue. The same could be said for pointer control in C and C++. It's based on the proficiency of the programmer to manage the complexity of the references they're creating. In java if you have anything still referencing an object that is reachable, it's not removed from the heap. Can't blame lawn over growth if you don't mow your lawn properly [guy thinking meme here]

Javascript makes this worse as it ignores many compile time errors and gives the illusion of productivity when things are failing silently while producing the 'intended' result. Astral / Powered VTT is a glowing example of this. The UI they have is rich, but man does it have bugs that fail catastrophically, and it happens more often than Roll20's.

[Andraax]

It's pretty well known (or at least should be...) that several standard Java libraries contain memory leaks. So, regardless of how well a programmer manages memory, if the libraries are used, there is a chance that there is a memory leak.

[GavinRuneblade]

- Eight players / player tokens on map
- One player is a druid that favors conjuration type spells, and often goes for the max on her conjure fey spirits, so that's an additional 8 creature tokens on the map during most combat encounters (when the situation allows, and for those unfamiliar with the spell she'll pretty soon have the ability to summon even more than that by casting at higher levels)
- Anywhere from 1 - 12 enemy creature tokens on map. Again, to try and minimize work load I try to keep skirmishes small and re-use dead creature tokens as needed to represent swarms / hordes / etcetera
- Combat maps are typically 7000x7000 pixels, though this varies higher or lower. Once a combat map is no longer applicable it's archived. I avoid using map files that exceed 1 MB but at the most I might hit 2 for a combat map.
- This is all excluding any potential ally NPC tokens being placed on the map

I often run two dozen or more tokens on a map. Recently I had a map with 40+ corpses that were being used as potential zombies and/or possession targets by a ghost; and that fight had 4 rat swarms that spawned giant rats under certain circumstances, plus a second undead, plus a 6-person party of PCs with one NPC. It was on a very big (but smaller than yours) map. Some players had lag but the fight went fine.



There's also an abundance of APIs we run in the background to help me manage the game, as the campaign we're running calls for swarm-type encounters quite frequently (both for story reasons and to help keep things a nice challenge for such a large party):
- Combat (turn) Tracker
- Group checks
- With the slow downs in performance we were already hitting, I also installed an API that generates and maps macros to player's character sheets to complete actions without needing to open the sheet itself and flip through various tabs. More below.

Fantasy Grounds automates those so you don't need extra programs running in the background. There are boxes on the bottom of each player's screen where they can put macros and hotkeys of their choice. You as the DM have them too.


When I'm the only one in the session, this is usually only hitting me for about 1.1 - 1.3 GB of memory, but once the whole crew is in game I'm usually pushing 3 GB, while my players are usually hitting around 1.5 GB. Roll20 doesnot handle this behavior well, and the net result is that both myself and players are usually experiencing between 3 - 5+ seconds of lag time to perform simple activities, which really slows down gameplay. I have one player who has a really bad lag time, it is same as yours 3-5 seconds from when he moves his token to when we see it, and dice rolls sometimes don't ever make it to the chat window. But the other players don't have this issue it is on his end because he's using a 9-year old imac that was not top of the line when he bought it.

[shadzar]

It's pretty well known (or at least should be...) that several standard Java libraries contain memory leaks. So, regardless of how well a programmer manages memory, if the libraries are used, there is a chance that there is a memory leak.

Since Oracle took over from Sun Microsystems, expect more memory leaks and less fixes in those JAVA libraries also. God forbid if FGU uses any of them, it will be worse than FG Classic with memory leaks on both client and host sides of the table.

[Ken L]

The JVM is pretty tight in terms of GC. I worked with Java, C++, and C for years and I haven't had any leak issues with Java compared to C or C++, but I'd chalk that up to losing my pointers at times. The network libs may "leak" if you don't release the holds which is done purposely (servlet workers and keeping the connection alive, etc..) If the reference is alive, GC won't touch, and .... actually whatever, this is a whole other topic.

[Valyar]

No garbage collector will save you from bad programmers. :D

[Nylanfs]

We were having problems about 5 years ago with memory problems and then somebody ran a GC on our processes. It was interesting. https://www.jclarity.com/2013/07/30/a-garbage-collection-analysis-of-pcgen-the-popular-open-source-character-generator/

[hawkwind]

Nice to see a friendly discussion about the relevant merits of both VTT's I think its interesting that Smiteworks allows this discussion while it would be quickly stamped on the Roll20 forums

[dulux-oz]

Nice to see a friendly discussion about the relevant merits of both VTT's I think its interesting that Smiteworks allows this discussion while it would be quickly stamped on the Roll20 forums

I think that's an indication of the relevant confidence in each publishers' view of their product - one is confident to let their product stand on its merits, while the other doesn't feel that it can compete favorably in an "open and fair" comparison.

Just my $0.02 worth.

[LordEntrails]

Nice to see a friendly discussion about the relevant merits of both VTT's I think its interesting that Smiteworks allows this discussion while it would be quickly stamped on the Roll20 forums
What that indicates to me, is one of the reasons I chose FG over Roll20 :)

[Skillkoil]

Nice to see a friendly discussion about the relevant merits of both VTT's I think its interesting that Smiteworks allows this discussion while it would be quickly stamped on the Roll20 forums

As dulux-oz was saying. When you can shine the light on something and it still stands up to the scrutiny. Probably means there is something worthwhile there. When you are running for the light switch each time to hide your flaws. It is noticed!

[Ken L]

TBF, in the early days of Roll20 when it was starting to get popular, a bunch of people used their general discussions forum to advertise their own and other platforms. Think about "the commons" where people spout out about all the RPG deals except for other VTT platforms and RPG kick starters. Roll20 eventually just banned all non roll20 discussion.

[GavinRuneblade]

TBF, in the early days of Roll20 when it was starting to get popular, a bunch of people used their general discussions forum to advertise their own and other platforms. Think about "the commons" where people spout out about all the RPG deals except for other VTT platforms and RPG kick starters. Roll20 eventually just banned all non roll20 discussion.

I remember trying to get help and having more people say "try this other product" than "here's how to get Roll20 to do what you want". Honestly, I don't blame them for the reaction.

[Ram Tyr]

It is one thing to ban advertisements for a competitor... it is another thing to ban comparisons to the competition.

It is telling when the latter (comparisons to the competition) is deemed to be the former (an advertisement for the competition) and are treated the same.

[epithet]

Having now used both, I am of the opinion that Roll20 cannot really deal with comparisons to Fantasy Grounds -- it's not a fair fight. Even in its current state, FG blows Roll20 away because it is an integrated system, whereas Roll20 is much more a collection of somewhat related elements.

I suspected before, but now I am convinced: the only reason Roll20 is even a contender is because it is possible to try it out for free, including running a campaign. I know, I know... to get any of the "cool stuff" you have to pay as much or more than you do for FG, but you can get that first taste for free, and I think that draws initial interest.

[Andraax]

"Come here, little girl, I have some free candy for you..."

[Skillkoil]

Having now used both, I am of the opinion that Roll20 cannot really deal with comparisons to Fantasy Grounds -- it's not a fair fight. Even in its current state, FG blows Roll20 away because it is an integrated system, whereas Roll20 is much more a collection of somewhat related elements.

I suspected before, but now I am convinced: the only reason Roll20 is even a contender is because it is possible to try it out for free, including running a campaign. I know, I know... to get any of the "cool stuff" you have to pay as much or more than you do for FG, but you can get that first taste for free, and I think that draws initial interest.

This is the conclusion that most people come to after spending any time with FG after coming from roll20. It's a pretty wrapper but not much substance to what is inside.

[epithet]

This is the conclusion that most people come to after spending any time with FG after coming from roll20. It's a pretty wrapper but not much substance to what is inside.

Roll20 handles maps really well. You can make the grid invisible, and it can draw a hex map that isn't jagged and hideous. Getting your map sized correctly is intuitive. Dynamic lighting is pretty cool.

I also like the fact that you can put an area, or "aura," around a token. It's great for things like spirit guardians.

And... that's about it. Everything else I've done with Roll20 has made me appreciate Fantasy Grounds more than I did before.

[Valyar]

Roll20 has much better drawing and map tools, but I hope this will be over soon. They didn't do any progress since I started using the platform and for one year they didn't fix a simple bug I reported (and I know the fix...). I have no idea why people pay for this level of support and support developers that deliver nothing in return. Only gimmicks.

[shadzar]

I suspected before, but now I am convinced: the only reason Roll20 is even a contender is because it is possible to try it out for free, including running a campaign.

it really is, and that is what will keep it with more users than FG in the long run. FG you can have 2 computers in a f2f game one as DM and one as "players. and that is the only way to play without paying for anything to test it out. you can't save progress in a game with FG without paying, you really can't test drive it. as much a it costs for books on both to be able to incorporate into the VTT, or adventures to rn run with them, the program with the lowest entry cost will often be the survivor.

Also roll20 has another advantage. it is VERY easy to put things in the roll20 marketplace as opposed to trying to get something in the FG store or on Steam for FG due to excruciatingly restrictive trademark protection policy.

pretty sure you can advertise a roll20 marketplace product or any other product on KS without getting the project insta-banned/flagged/copyright claim/etc for using the term Roll20 in your project.

FG is the T$R era of content control, while roll20 is the 3e OGL era of acceptance of content creators.

*now this comes from info given by people who have things on roll20 marketplace for tilesets and tried looking at the FG method of getting things like tiles and assets into FG for use, and said that FG was either too confusing, too complicated, too restrictive, or just not large enough audience. i have nothing for sell on either place, a s neither supports a game i would play.


neither are easy to get "adventures" onto. you pretty much have to be WotC or pay either company to put your adventure on their system if you want it to be shareable outside of your own account. and roll20 is more intuitive for designing a custom adventure than FG in the first place.

[Ken L]

Roll20 has much better drawing and map tools, but I hope this will be over soon. They didn't do any progress since I started using the platform and for one year they didn't fix a simple bug I reported (and I know the fix...). I have no idea why people pay for this level of support and support developers that deliver nothing in return. Only gimmicks.

A majority of Riley's cut is siphoned for his VR MMORPG which is horribad... called "Orbus VR". Given the current crisis in Roll20, he'll likely re-emerge as his revenue stream would be hurt.

[LordEntrails]

Well I haven't done more than a cursory review of what's presented in this post, I've heard this complaint about Roll 20 staff multiple times before.

https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/9iwarj/after_5_years_on_roll20_i_just_cancelled_and/

Thank you Doug for taking a completely different approach to customer support.

[shadzar]

Well I haven't done more than a cursory review of what's presented in this post, I've heard this complaint about Roll 20 staff multiple times before.

https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/9iwarj/after_5_years_on_roll20_i_just_cancelled_and/

Thank you Doug for taking a completely different approach to customer support.

there was a reply and now the owner of roll20 has the 2nd most downvoted post of all time on reddit...

https://www.reddit.com/r/Roll20/comments/9iwjwd/read_this/e6n4bgx/

comparing roll20 to FG right this minute, might be as simple as there is about to be NOBODY that uses roll20 to play with.

[Ken L]

.. Roll20 isn't going anywhere, and I do notice some folks are high horsing. It's the most dominant VTT because of its free access, and modern UI. Honestly Astral stands to gain more than FG IMHO.

From most people I've spoken too, it's mainly the LFG tool as the community is built around that. Something that most VTTs particularly lack, including FG.

[shadzar]

Something that most VTTs particularly lack, including FG.

the only way FG could do it would be insecure, or just have an LFG section here on the forums, and it sort of does already

though the FG forums can't connect you to a DMs table to play like roll20 since its just one click to invite someone to the browser page...

maybe that is doable from a browser thought.. you wold need a command line interpreter and something like fg:// in pace of https:// and then the table alias? my brain is too tired to figure out how that would work right now though... and it would only likely work for Windows anyway...

[lostsanityreturned]

Not my experience. And not anywhere *near* what Smitworks recommends. A 8000x12000 file vs 2000x2000 is so far from being close it's absurd. That's 24x the "recommended" load. And that certainly is not reflective of the experiences of others I've seen on the forums or reflective of the size of assets that are bundled with official products. You telling me there is no reason for that?
Strawmaning isn't appreciated. I made it quite clear that there is a reason why it isn't the default and outlined what I do to mitigate the issues that could occur.


I don't know how you were able to use an 8000 x 12000 map (size of the map file is inconsequential) with "every 5e core book loaded. ToA loaded and about 30 custom maps as well as a bunch of custom tokens" with "players on absolute toasters that cannot play video games and whos computers die all the time were able to connect and play."
A low end HP laptop from ~5 years ago can handle it. It is reality. I don't know what you are doing but I have never had an issue loading custom images and I have been using FG for years with larger sized player groups and frequently dropping combat maps from the authors into it as well as my own custom images. (I hate the compression and size of the official FG maps in 5e products for the most part, they are getting better but it is fairly bad)



Seriously. You need to get a hold of Smitworks pronto and tell them how you do it so they can get that monkey off everyone's back. You've obviously got the secret sauce.
-sighs-


We tried to use smaller maps than you've indicated (but larger than recommended) with an additional asset load less than you've indicated and FG crapped out with both a higher rez Castle Stradh and a RoT map. After that we gave up pushing FG. And in our case, no player had a "toaster", least of all the server. All were 64 bit systems with 8-32GB of system memory, on capable gaming rigs and highspeed network connections.
No idea mate.

I have handled PotA with 7 players and the same tactic (remaking half the maps including all of the major temple maps as I didn't like the non schley maps)
OoTA with all of the maps replaced for their Blando variants again 7 players.
SKT with the sword coast map replaced for a reduced size but much higher resolution variant.
CoS
and currently ToA

I made it quite clear that I manage my shared files and I believe the mentioning of it being capable is valid given the discussion of being able to handle larger files in map tools with a bit of GM management.

To state again, this was never a "FG can handle it flawlessly without any issues ever on every computer" statement like you seem to be trying to insist that I was stating. This was my saying that FG can handle things you said it couldn't, and that was relevant to the OP and discussion.

[Full Bleed]

Strawmaning isn't appreciated.
Not one strawman in my comments.

As a result of the discussion, even Trenloe has stated to the OP (after they mentioned that they had trouble in Roll20 with 7000x7000 maps) that they would "need to reduce the resolution of those maps" in FG. That's a far more "honest" representation of FG in my experience... and that's the expectation that should be laid out for new users.

Potential new users worried about resource management don't need to be fed extreme corner-cases of 12000 x 8000 dpi maps and players on toasters with no issues as a reasonable expectation on this platform.

I'm finished discussing this with you. I spoke up to set realistic expectations for the OP because I didn't want them running into the same frustrations with FG that they had in Roll20. A frustration that, as noted, won't likely exist once FG is a 64 bit app with FGU's release.

[lostsanityreturned]

Potential new users worried about resource management don't need to be fed extreme corner-cases of 12000 x 8000 dpi maps and players on toasters with no issues as a reasonable expectation on this platform.
I didn't mean to portray it as not having issues but rather that where you were warning of potential issues at 3000x3000 and saying that the system simply cannot run higher resolution maps. I understand and commend your desire to set reasonable expectations and I could have done better to make it clear why it is important to manage resources, but I also feel it is important for prospective users to know where the absolute boundaries are.
My choice of image was simply because it was what came to mind when I thought large images I was currently using as the map of chult is stared at for so long.



I'm finished discussing this with you. I spoke up to set realistic expectations for the OP because I didn't want them running into the same frustrations with FG that they had in Roll20. A frustration that, as noted, won't likely exist once FG is a 64 bit app with FGU's release.
Fair enough, sorry that I believe to have upset you with my approach. Regardless of our value differences I will make sure to explicitly "disclaimerize" my statements further in the future for clarity sake. I believe there is a lot of value in knowing how much 2000x2000 is a recommendation vs hard limit, however you are right making sure that the recommended limits are known as well.

I am very much a tinkerer and experimenter. I see advisable, cautionary and not possible as very different things and like to know the limits of each.

On a final note, here are blank battlemaps I created and frequently use. I have shared the 5000x5000px one with quite a few FG DMs now without people reporting any issues. The 10,000x10,000px one I use less commonly and for niche cases yet it is always in my image folder (I made a module for my blank battle maps).
I would be interested if you (or others) run into issues using them.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=19sD-Tb2NVZNklUHkozv2KjrlObbg64YG

[shadzar]

prospective users to know where the absolute boundaries are.

those boundaries are often thrown out in the case of things like "system requirements", because the nature of so many software, hardware configurations today, they are statistical outliers.

I should not be able to run the MMO Blade and Soul on my computer. 1.2ghz single core, 4 gigs RAM.... but i know how to computer enough to get it running, while i am unable to get Minecraft to perform stably which should have no problem at all since my computer is with the recommended specs.


it is like overclocking a CPU. sure you could do it and have luck that it works, or you could totally bork it up and no longer have a CPU. that is what setting a tighter range on those boundaries means, that the most people will be able to fit within them without having problems when using the software.

ergo the above comment mentioning "a toaster" in part.. those are the extremes and should not be viewed as "normal" operating parameters for a program. you could get lucky to be able to get a toaster to run 4000*4000 maps, or you could have problems with a high end (non-Verge built) gaming computer attempting to run 1000*1000 maps; and it all depends on everything else you have going on outside of the FG software.

expectations > extremes.

[shadzar]

apparently, someone made a list comparing all "replacements for roll20" in some google doc, that maybe someone may want to pick through for accuracy.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Roll20/comments/9jdf64/comprehensive_comparison_of_alternatives_to_roll20/

FG is page 2 in it.

[ddavison]

pretty sure you can advertise a roll20 marketplace product or any other product on KS without getting the project insta-banned/flagged/copyright claim/etc for using the term Roll20 in your project.

FG is the T$R era of content control, while roll20 is the 3e OGL era of acceptance of content creators.


That is completely wrong. I know in fact that Roll20 has shut down Kickstarter projects in the past for using their name or logo. Both platforms require an agreement to be in place before you can sell content. Anybody can sell tokens and map packs for use with VTTs without any sort of agreement. Using someone else's logo and name to promote your content without an agreement is disallowed and common for most professional companies.

We have around 150 or so publishers and Indie content people producing content for our platform and over 1200 DLC packs -- not individual tokens. I'm not sure how that is restrictive to the point of preventing people to publish content.

BTW, SmiteWorks has never banned/flagged or whatever any KS projects that used our name without permission. In the few cases where we discovered this after it was launched, we reached out to the KS creators to ask them to either get a license agreement in place or pull the FG portion of their project.

[shadzar]

another persons opinion found from the web. it is small but concise. seemingly mostly focus on people who prefer P&P even for online play and a few reasons why...

https://www.inwils.co.uk/which-one-roll20-vs-fantasy-grounds/

from someone who seems to stream on Twitch as well, so possible to get direct feedback from them when they stream for more in depth looks at the reasons mentioned in the "article" (that is what kids are calling blogs now right? articles, like they are professional journalists in some professional publication?)