Does sharing NPC images with players slow connection/performance?

[Schneiderpants]

Hello. This last week I read past posts from FG users that sharing large image assets like maps can over time slow down player connection / client performance, so it is good for the DM to unshare maps no longer in use and players to click the nuclear clear cache button when connecting to sessions.

Does this also apply for images of NPCs? I am running my players through the official FG Paizo Rise of the Runelords Adventure Path. i would like to share included images of Sandpoint and Magnimar NPCs, as well as creating images for those not already included. I would also like to create shared links to these images on the Sandpoint/Magnimar map, so that over time players can see all the buildings they've visited and people they've met.

But if this will create a slowdown, I will just post pictures in our discord channel, but it's not quite as interactive.

I appreciate advice from those with experience. Thank you!

[LordEntrails]

It applies to everything. Everything that is shared takes up bandwidth when shared, and then RAM everytime after that as FG has to load it.

Behavior is a bit different between FGC and FGU. As well, this loading issue is being adjusted/changed as performance is being worked on in FGU.

Generally, NPC images from official products just are not that large, but, over the life of a campaign, that can end up being hundreds of images, and that matters. One thing you can do on FGC is to have player occasionally check the process size of FG when they are connected. When this approaches 3GB, you know you need to clean out stuff that is shared but no longer needed.

I actually like the idea of using Discord as a long term repository. At least if you don't have a website or such. I could see you making a few channels, like "NPC Rollcall" where you post pictures and a short blurb on each NPC they encounter. Maybe another for "Location Directory" etc. I would keep chat out of those channels, so that they can more easily be browsed and searched.

[Moon Wizard]

All images (whether map or NPC image) are essentially the same thing within FG. FG does cache the image data, so the effect on performance of the actual images themselves should be minimal though they do incur freshness checks potentially. However, sharing large amounts of records (database content) can eventually build up over time, which require a data synch when users connect. So, that's why we recommend unsharing records no longer needed to be shared, just to cut down on the extra checks and initial synch costs.

Cheers,
JPG

[Granamere]

Also if you are starting a new campaign and people are connecting on a slow link you could have them connect in a day before or the night before and preload the images. That way when you are playing they would not be slowed down.

[Schneiderpants]

Thanks for the clarifying answers and advice!

[Trenloe]

Regarding clearing the player side cache. Doing this actually increases the amount of data passed from the GM to the player. The player side cache is a repository of previously shared data that is used by the player instance to display images etc. from data previously received from the GM, without having to download it again. Using the nuke/clear cache means that all previously shared data needs to be downloaded again.

[Weissrolf]

It would be useful if we could copy images out of FG to then paste into Discord and the like. It can be done via screenshits, but that's more work than just hitting the share button, so the hurdle is there. Of course I understand the license implications, but when the PDFs allow "Content Copying" the corresponding publisher might be ok with copy & paste rights for FG as well?!

[damned]

It would be useful if we could copy images out of FG to then paste into Discord and the like. It can be done via screenshits, but that's more work than just hitting the share button, so the hurdle is there. Of course I understand the license implications, but when the PDFs allow "Content Copying" the corresponding publisher might be ok with copy & paste rights for FG as well?!

What is your use case here?

[Weissrolf]

This case:


I actually like the idea of using Discord as a long term repository. At least if you don't have a website or such. I could see you making a few channels, like "NPC Rollcall" where you post pictures and a short blurb on each NPC they encounter. Maybe another for "Location Directory" etc. I would keep chat out of those channels, so that they can more easily be browsed and searched.

Or just generally sharing (copy & paste) temporary images on Discord rather than FG to keep all those one-time sharing images from eating resources without having to unshare each and every one of them manually again.

[Schneiderpants]

Regarding clearing the player side cache. Doing this actually increases the amount of data passed from the GM to the player. The player side cache is a repository of previously shared data that is used by the player instance to display images etc. from data previously received from the GM, without having to download it again. Using the nuke/clear cache means that all previously shared data needs to be downloaded again.

Okay, so it is just better for me as the DM to unshare images PCs no longer need access to?

So what is an example of when players should clear their cache?

[LordEntrails]

It would be useful if we could copy images out of FG to then paste into Discord and the like. It can be done via screenshits, but that's more work than just hitting the share button, so the hurdle is there. Of course I understand the license implications, but when the PDFs allow "Content Copying" the corresponding publisher might be ok with copy & paste rights for FG as well?!
FG architecture doesn't allow for some content to be protected and other not to be. It's an all or nothing, at the module level, choice. So the IP holder would have to be ok with their entire product not being protected.

Screen shots into Discord just aren't that hard and probably quicker that trying to actually grab the image file itself anyway.

[Trenloe]

So what is an example of when players should clear their cache?
Primarily they shouldn't. It's a means of resetting their local data, so is normally only used when a player has an issue - lots of errors or missing data when the other players don't have the same issues, for example.

[Granamere]

I would think the best time to clear the cache is if you have finished one module and that content will not be used in the future then clearing it would give everyone a fresh start for what is to come. Just a thought.

[Trenloe]

FG will manage the player side cache itself. Under normal operation there's no need to do anything with the player cache. Clearing it out removes *all* data, including downloaded player modules, enabled extensions, etc.. Clearing the cache results in a lot of data being downloaded from the GM the next time the player logs in. So, as mentioned, don't clear the cache unless a player is having issues that other players aren't - it's primary use is to reset a player's cached data when it's possible that that one player has corrupt local data.

What is important is for the GM to unshare data/image that are no longer needed, remove access to modules not needed, etc. to keep the campaign data both on the GM side and the Players side efficient.

[Weissrolf]

FG architecture doesn't allow for some content to be protected and other not to be. It's an all or nothing, at the module level, choice. So the IP holder would have to be ok with their entire product not being protected.
I don't know about other IPs, but Pathfinder adventures allow their content to be copied out of the PDF files, which is all or nothing, too.

https://i.imgur.com/reNp5qy.png


Screen shots into Discord just aren't that hard and probably quicker that trying to actually grab the image file itself anyway.
CTRL-C from an open image window would be quicker than having to grab a region of the screen (even with Greenshot). Sharing inside FG is even better, of course, so let's just hope that Unity get up to speed so that we don't have to worry about these things too much anymore.

Being able to unshare multiple images at once might be useful, too. Currently I keep clicking the little (P) icon one by one, which is already better than using the right-click menu on each single image.

[Trenloe]

Fantasy Grounds have two options for publishers to distribute their products as FG conversions - not encrypted in the modules directory, which does allow the .mod file (ZIP format) to be opened and the images accessed directly, or encrypted in the FG vault, where users can't access the image files. The vast majority of publishers choose to put their products in the encrypted vault. There may be more, but I'm only aware of two publishers (niche 3PPs) that since the vault encrypted distribution has become available have chosen not to use it.

Publishers can choose to have their material not encrypted an open to all. Most of them don't...

[Weissrolf]

I did not mean getting access to the files, though. Paizo PDF files are password protected as well. As can be seen in my above screenshot they do not allow whole pages to be extracted (text, graphics, formatting), but they still allow page content to be copied (out).

Opening an image in FG and then being able to hit CTRL-C would be equivalent to this limited allowance to copy & paste content out of PDF files. It would also be useful being able to mark and copy text out of FG, so I would not have to find the correct page in the PDF file to get it from there. IP owners should think about handling their FG content license/allowance congruent to their PDF content.

https://i.imgur.com/6spHrEy.png

[Trenloe]

Publishers choose to have their FG products release encrypted in the vault because they want to keep their IP protected (in as much as it can be protected in this day and age). They've made that decision, so I doubt they'd want to allow people to directly copy the base image out of the FG module.

And remember, there's only *one* publisher who gives you a PDF with your FG purchase - Paizo. None of the other publishers do. So comparing as similar processes what you can do in a PDF and what you can do in FG doesn't apply to 59 out of 60 of the current publishers on FG, because you don't get a PDF of their product with your FG purchase.

[Weissrolf]

It's less a question whether you get the PDF purchase with FG, but more about what publishers chose to allow in various publishing forms. If a publisher (like Paizo) is ok with copying material out of a PDF then they might also be ok with copying it out of FG. That's up to negotiations then. Of course FG would need to offer a copy function then.

Anyway, since this is not offered and sharing within FG is even more convenient we need to keep an eye on unsharing images when shared resources increase too much.