Super Secret Sneak Preview of Lighting and Vision - Shhhh, don't tell Carl and John

[ddavison]

I managed to sneak a couple screenshots during one of Carl's screenshares from this morning's company meeting. Setting the light level for outdoors light does some really cool stuff with shadows and these interact with other lights, such as torches that could be carried around or placed on walls.

All the shadows in this line drawing style map were created dynamically. In addition, the angle of the sun, color and shadows can be further adjusted.

https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=42049&d=1607998385


In screenshot 2, it shows a similar thing but with the interior rooms masked off from the light. These will depend on the lighting options available in each of those rooms or lights brought into the rooms. Finally, we see an example of how infravision might be rendered. There is also nightvision and darkvision. Darkvision also changes everything to grayscale.

https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=42048&d=1607998372

42049
42048

[Cyrian]

That looks awesome! Thanks for sharing the super secret screenshots! I mean, what? Nothing to see here...

[Tabarkus]

Looking good! I am looking forward to the continued enhancements Unity is bringing to the table.

[LordEntrails]

Thanks!
Good thing John and Carl never read the forums... yea, not sure about that :)

[Ulric]

Look’s awesome! Keep up the great work!

[Kelrugem]

uuuh nice, thanks; I won't tell anyone of course! ;)

[Laerun]

Wow, this is great progress!

[Imagix]

I really don't want to cast a shadow on the feature.... but does that mean that the monster manual will need to be updated for monsters that will be visible to infravision?

[ddavison]

I really don't want to cast a shadow on the feature.... but does that mean that the monster manual will need to be updated for monsters that will be visible to infravision?

It will be a manual thing at first. The map will show the visible range of the selected vision type and the GM will be able to quickly tell what kind of visions are in play. We will consider direct ruleset tie-ins based on the prevalence of those situations and feedback/demand on how useful each feature would be to GMs and players.

[WindrunnerCGG]

It will be a manual thing at first. The map will show the visible range of the selected vision type and the GM will be able to quickly tell what kind of visions are in play. We will consider direct ruleset tie-ins based on the prevalence of those situations and feedback/demand on how useful each feature would be to GMs and players.

Understood regarding how it may initially function. However I'm not sure I understand what Imagix is assuming about the relationship to shadows and alternate types of vision? And I'm not sure I understand your answer with respect to his question. Can either of you provide more detail on this?

[Ulric]

Understood regarding how it may initially function. However I'm not sure I understand what Imagix is assuming about the relationship to shadows and alternate types of vision? And I'm not sure I understand your answer with respect to his question. Can either of you provide more detail on this?
Imagix comment was a way to say he was trying to say he wasn't trying to say anything bad about the feature. He could have also said he didn't want to throw shade.

[Mytherus]

Nice! Good see / read of the constant improvement and features yet to come to FGU. I'm switching my games in 2021 exclusively to unity from classic.

Btw Mr. Davison please make sure the boss doesn't catch you posting super secret stuff on the forums! :)

[YAKO SOMEDAKY]

I don't know if I understood correctly, but at first things will be done manually (something I like) but in the future will there be a kind of automation?
Example (assuming it is like this):
An elf has darkvision 60 feet, meaning I would see color for 30 feet and the other 30 feet would be in gray scale? (Taking into account that there is a light source).
A dwarf has a 30-foot infravision (that is, I would see that "reddish" tone within the 30-foot radius).
If I got it right, this will be wonderful!
But maintaining the manual feature will be perfect!

[ddavison]

The more automated approach would read the character sheet to determine your character’s vision range and type. We have support for allowing multiple vision types - like you described for the elf.

Infravision, tremor sense, and vision that reveals otherwise hidden stuff may never be fully implemented or automated due to the complexity and the relative rarity of that occurring in game. Then again, it might. Carl and John are pretty clever.

[YAKO SOMEDAKY]

Thank you very much for answering my question and the answer only served to make me more anxious, happy and satisfied for having chosen FG as my virtual platform!
Thanks to you and the team that strives to bring and make improvements to make our games better and more immersive!

[Lost Eventide]

I have to say this is incredibly cool and I'm really looking forward to how dynamic dungeons and the like can get when monsters can lurk just outside your field of vision and the like.

Thank you everyone for your hard work on this! Unity just keeps getting better!

[Larsenex]

Doug,

Will vision be token specific? What I mean is One player is human (only regular vision) and another has darkvision.

Will the darkvision be able to see things while the non-darkvision player be limited?

[Imagix]

Yeah... my comment was a small pun, and Ulric read it correctly. The feature as currently described will solve many, many problems.

[SilentRuin]

This may be a "duh" type of question - but if I have a player with a torch equipped and another with no light source at all - how will these interact? In other words, if the guy with torch is at the front and turns a corner (all examples assume LOS in effect) will the room he just left go pitch black just because he's out of direct sight? Or is there some reflective lesser light applied?

If just raw LOS type of lighting I assume it would go pitch black the second the light source is "out of sight" regardless of the fact light reflects off walls and such. Just want to make sure there is not some very cool tricks going on to deal with light not being simply "sight". I get its harder to do that sort of thing but just wondered about it.

[ddavison]

Doug,

Will vision be token specific? What I mean is One player is human (only regular vision) and another has darkvision.

Will the darkvision be able to see things while the non-darkvision player be limited?

Vision is token specific. Vision distance is implemented. The way each vision type is rendered differs, such as darkvision showing as grayscale. If you have 30' vision provided by a torch and another player has 60' darkvision, they will both see what is in the torch light but the darkvision player will see out further in grayscale. I'm still waiting for my version to play with and I'll be doing some experiments with it all over the holidays.

[ddavison]

This may be a "duh" type of question - but if I have a player with a torch equipped and another with no light source at all - how will these interact? In other words, if the guy with torch is at the front and turns a corner (all examples assume LOS in effect) will the room he just left go pitch black just because he's out of direct sight? Or is there some reflective lesser light applied?

If just raw LOS type of lighting I assume it would go pitch black the second the light source is "out of sight" regardless of the fact light reflects off walls and such. Just want to make sure there is not some very cool tricks going on to deal with light not being simply "sight". I get its harder to do that sort of thing but just wondered about it.

I will confirm once I get my hands on it to fully test it, but I believe that content revealed by the torchlight would remain visible, but that the player that gets left behind may find themselves sitting in the dark with the torch light visible up ahead. Our token locking and movement allows for movement through darkened areas and you stop automatically when you hit an obstacle that you didn't otherwise see. The tool also allows the GM to modify the amount of falloff for light sources so it doesn't have to be a sharp drop from light to dark.

[LordEntrails]

The tool also allows the GM to modify the amount of falloff for light sources so it doesn't have to be a sharp drop from light to dark.
Now that is impressive!

[Valyar]

Looking forward to that feature! :)

[Larsenex]

Vision is token specific. Vision distance is implemented. The way each vision type is rendered differs, such as darkvision showing as grayscale. If you have 30' vision provided by a torch and another player has 60' darkvision, they will both see what is in the torch light but the darkvision player will see out further in grayscale. I'm still waiting for my version to play with and I'll be doing some experiments with it all over the holidays.

Oh man, this is gonna be cool! I am excited to see how this works!

[Indus101]

Nice!

[SilentRuin]

I will confirm once I get my hands on it to fully test it, but I believe that content revealed by the torchlight would remain visible, but that the player that gets left behind may find themselves sitting in the dark with the torch light visible up ahead. Our token locking and movement allows for movement through darkened areas and you stop automatically when you hit an obstacle that you didn't otherwise see. The tool also allows the GM to modify the amount of falloff for light sources so it doesn't have to be a sharp drop from light to dark.

That falloff sounds very cool.

[DrakePD]

What happens when a character with darkvision closes his dominate eye and he is in torch light as well?.........

This is a sarcastic question...... haha

[ddavison]

What happens when a character with darkvision closes his dominate eye and he is in torch light as well?.........

This is a sarcastic question...... haha

It should automatically revert to Cyclopean darkvision. The problem is that if the character stares directly at the torch light for more than a few seconds and then looks into the darkvision space, they just see colored spots.

[Zacchaeus]

It should automatically revert to Cyclopean darkvision. The problem is that if the character stares directly at the torch light for more than a few seconds and then looks into the darkvision space, they just see colored spots.

LOL. I think he's just winding us all up now :)

[spite]

This is looking amazing!
I'm wondering - do those walls and lines have a "height" that you can set for longer shadows etc?

[DM_BK]

Wow! Any hints as to how soon we could be seeing this amazing new feature set? We talking weeks or months?

[Trenloe]

Any hints as to how soon we could be seeing this amazing new feature set?
Depends on your vision type and line-of-sight!

;)

[ddavison]

This is looking amazing!
I'm wondering - do those walls and lines have a "height" that you can set for longer shadows etc?

No. The shadow length can be globally adjusted by moving the light source and direction, but all walls would render as the same height.

[ddavison]

We expect January.

[anathemort]

This looks amazing! Delivering this would bring me from FGC to FGU immediately.

[Moon Wizard]

Just to clarify that we are looking to get the basics set up for January; but there is a lot of detail to add lights to existing content, as well as to incorporate any sort of ruleset support. That may be a while off yet, depending on how hard it ends up being, how many APIs I need to build, and how much ruleset work is needed to support around the feature.

Regards,
JPG

[ddavison]

Just to clarify that we are looking to get the basics set up for January; but there is a lot of detail to add lights to existing content, as well as to incorporate any sort of ruleset support. That may be a while off yet, depending on how hard it ends up being, how many APIs I need to build, and how much ruleset work is needed to support around the feature.

Regards,
JPG

Okay, which one of you told John?

[EllivasKram]

Will maps be updated if bought already with official campaigns like ‘Dungeon of the mad mage’. There are times it worth refreshing a campaigns MOD file. This will be one.

But how are they implementing LOS history for tokens when you move from map to map. Especially important for DOTMM campaign.

Will API’s support wildshape token changing (CAE extn) ?

[Kelrugem]

Will maps be updated if bought already with official campaigns like ‘Dungeon of the mad mage’. There are times it worth refreshing a campaigns MOD file. This will be one.

But how are they implementing LOS history for tokens when you move from map to map. Especially important for DOTMM campaign.

Will API’s support wildshape token changing (CAE extn) ?

Moon Wizard answered your first question just two posts above :) (adding that to official content is probably some while off; there are a lot of modules, and DotMM is not the smallest one)

LoS history is at the moment resetted when you put the token to a new map; not sure whether there was any official answer about a possible change. I would not expect any change soon (and not sure if ever because that implies that just more data needs to be saved for all clients etc.) :)

What is CAE? Not sure what the context now is with respect to dynamic lighting, but you can simply change tokens by drag&drop a new token each time you shapeshift :) Or is it about whether a token-swap will keep the LoS-history?

[EllivasKram]

What is CAE? Not sure what the context now is with respect to dynamic lighting, but you can simply change tokens by drag&drop a new token each time you shapeshift :) Or is it about whether a token-swap keeps the LoS-history?

'Critically Awesome Essentials' EXTN - But yes essentially when you swap tokens the PC's lose LOS history.. Shared vision kinda fixes the issue.. but not perfectly.

[anathemort]

Just to clarify that we are looking to get the basics set up for January; but there is a lot of detail to add lights to existing content, as well as to incorporate any sort of ruleset support. That may be a while off yet, depending on how hard it ends up being, how many APIs I need to build, and how much ruleset work is needed to support around the feature.

Regards,
JPG

Understood! My sentiment is with regards just to the screenshots shown and discussion taking place here. I am using 5E with predominantly homemade imagery, so right now I'm not looking for anything fancier than support for darkvision and torches, really. It looks like you all have been working pretty hard at implementing this, and well done at that. The talk of adjustable or incrementable fall-off, token memory, and the dynamic shadows is really cool.

[LordEntrails]

Okay, which one of you told John?
Not me!

[Valdemar]

I share the sentiment of several who have already posted - I am really looking forward to this being implemented. Great work FG Team...

[jkagie]

DOPE!!!!!


I can't wait for this feature to get added in.

[Patou]

This looks really awesome guys! Wow. Thanks for the spoilers!!!
:)

[similarly]

I was playing around with the FX layer, and JUST discovered that you can mask lighting in the same way that you can mask water effects! But I was wondering, you may not be able to say (and I understand if you can't say anything much yet), but will the new lighting system include torches, outdoor lighting that shines through windows and open doors, etc? Very curious about this.

One thing: I use dungeondraft for maps, and I like that that have different kinds of lights I can put down, with different fadeout effects, and I can change the color of the lights. It would also be cool if we could add a "flicker" effect to torchlight and fire lights! (though that CAN be accomplished a little with adding something like a water effect, plus a mist effect for smoke). Just an idea.

[ddavison]

Yes, outdoor light shines through windows and open doors if the angle of the Sun is appropriate. Torches and other lights shine through windows and doors as well based on location.

[similarly]

AWESOME! I can't wait!

[CD0369]

You folks are awesome. FG Unity keeps getting better every time. I look forward to the new features. I will humbly add that my players are thrilled just to be able to play a game they enjoy. As the new features come out, they are all the more excited to see and use them. As am I. A hearty thank you to the FG staff, developers and community. I am glad that I chose FG and look forward to many more gaming sessions with friends and family.

[EllivasKram]

Any more sneaky dates to pen in my new 2021 calendar ???

[ColinBuckler]

I will confirm once I get my hands on it to fully test it, but I believe that content revealed by the torchlight would remain visible, but that the player that gets left behind may find themselves sitting in the dark with the torch light visible up ahead. Our token locking and movement allows for movement through darkened areas and you stop automatically when you hit an obstacle that you didn't otherwise see. The tool also allows the GM to modify the amount of falloff for light sources so it doesn't have to be a sharp drop from light to dark.

This sounds awesome.....

Hopefully there will be a definition between bright light and dim light.

Additionally if a character is moving thru a dark map as they have no sight and "bump" into something such as a wall - could we have a "beep" sound or something for the player to know?

Oh - and hopefully the settings can be imported/exported from map to map rather than having to configure the settings every time. Imagine having to reconfigure the lighting settings every time players move between levels in The Dungeon of the Mad Mage. Would be great to export to an external file and import those settings into the next map or have different style of lightings stored in separate lighting config files.

[Patou]

We expect January.

Hi Doug, any chance of us getting a video sneak peak? :) :)

[Zacchaeus]

Hi Doug, any chance of us getting a video sneak peak? :) :)

You want the man to get into even more trouble with Carl and John? :)

[Patou]

You want the man to get into even more trouble with Carl and John? :)

Lol!! Now that we have been teased.... we want to see... since we can't taste the fun of using it just yet ;)

[A Social Yeti]

Understood regarding how it may initially function. However I'm not sure I understand what Imagix is assuming about the relationship to shadows and alternate types of vision? And I'm not sure I understand your answer with respect to his question. Can either of you provide more detail on this?

I'm speculating here but i feel confident the answer is, none.

Vision types and vision range limitations are mechanically meaningful functions of FG for game play.
The casting of shadows relative to a light source will just be visual fluff unrelated to any mechanics of games, like if deep shadows would provide benefits to hiding in shadows or anything like that. Just visual wow factor and nothing more.

[Granamere]

This looks awesome. I can not wait.

[Skyjoos]

Subscribed for updates.

[Aiddar]

OK - can't overstate how much I am looking forward to this... genuinely, this (Distance LOS) was my only remaining bug bear with FGU. I am going to *love* this when it come in!!! Thank you!

[EllivasKram]

Pls tell us how long until we can see this in the flesh. We will not tell anyone.

[Zacchaeus]

As noted in a post further up they are aiming for this month.

[superteddy57]

Pls tell us how long until we can see this in the flesh. We will not tell anyone.

My money is on John and Carl locking Doug in a closet till they are done.

[Zacchaeus]

my money is on john and carl locking doug in a closet till they are done.

rofl.

[LordEntrails]

My money is on John and Carl locking Doug in a closet till they are done.
Carl "Can I let him out yet? I need my paycheck signed"
John "Not yet, give me one more day, just one more!"

[DMDad]

Carl "Can I let him out yet? I need my paycheck signed"
John "Not yet, give me one more day, just one more!"

Is this a hint???

[LordEntrails]

Is this a hint???
lol, not from me. I know nothing to drop hints about.

[The Decepticon]

As a new DM to FGU, I was wondering, how a human could see in a dark cave?!? Then did some checking and was like, that hasn't been added yet. I can't wait for this!

[BaneTBC]

Keep in mind, Fantasy Grounds lays a very good foundation for your D&D sessions (or other rulesets) but there are still things that just can't be accounted for. Vision is one of those things(well at least until they get this added in here in the next month or so). That's where the RP (RolePlaying) portion of RPG comes in. But frankly, sight is one of the most pain in the butt things in a role playing session and 80% of the time, people tend to just handwave it because it is just annoying to deal with and players get upset when they get boiled down in the minutia. This will vary from table to table, of course. Like Darkvision, they think this is an ability to totally see in the dark, nope it's a grayscale view of the world and any and all perception checks while using darkvision is at disadvantage.

Personally, I like forcing my players into dealing with having one or two members of their group blind as a bat, or having to carry around a light source so they can actually search, but my players tend to get irritated about it where the mechanic tends to outweigh the "fun factor" at the table.

[Chalmes95]

Can't wait for this to be introduced. Also hoping they have sight ranges based on the type of light source used also. Lantern vs torch or candle. Hoping this is will be updated very soon as my 1 of 2 of my groups I am DMing are going through my homebrewed version of Undermountain soon.

[Imagix]

Just had a thought.... will NPC tokens have sight ranges? I'm thinking about on the DM's view, not a player's. For example, the combat tracker moves to an NPC, the DM can choose to change the map view to see what that monster can see to help aid in target selection and such. I guess this could be extended to "current token's sight" so that the DM could see what a player sees too.

[Moon Wizard]

All tokens will have standard vision by default (i.e. can see as long as there is light). You will be able to add a couple unique vision types (such as darkvision and blindsight) as well.

Lights will be able to be added to maps directly; or added to a token. Lights will have a full brightness and dim brightness range, as well as coloring and a few effects as well.

By default (no tokens selected), players will see the vision/lighting from any tokens they "own" (i.e. their characters). If the party vision option is set, they will be able to select other party members and friendly NPCs to see their vision/lighting scenario.

We'll detail the rest in the wiki as we get closer. Adding this much detail has required us to rework many assumptions in the system in order to keep things from bogging down when using these new systems. So, it's still in progress.

Regards,
JPG

[similarly]

wow. Sounds amazing!

[Griogre]

All tokens will have standard vision by default (i.e. can see as long as there is light). You will be able to add a couple unique vision types (such as darkvision and blindsight) as well.

Lights will be able to be added to maps directly; or added to a token. Lights will have a full brightness and dim brightness range, as well as coloring and a few effects as well.

By default (no tokens selected), players will see the vision/lighting from any tokens they "own" (i.e. their characters). If the party vision option is set, they will be able to select other party members and friendly NPCs to see their vision/lighting scenario.

We'll detail the rest in the wiki as we get closer. Adding this much detail has required us to rework many assumptions in the system in order to keep things from bogging down when using these new systems. So, it's still in progress.

Regards,
JPG

Thanks for the update. Hopefully you'll have an anti-light or negative lights for darkness spells or similar effects. I have a Warlock with devil's sight that uses darkness spells and she is a pain to run since I don't want to slow things down too much. :(

[Moon Wizard]

No, we don't have a "dark light" or special handling for devilsight. We briefly talked about that, but it's relatively rare in most campaigns and there is no real obvious way to do this without overcomplicating the system.

You can try suggesting again once the lighting/vision release is settled; and see if Carl has any ideas on how to incorporate. (Darkness will be way easier than devilsight, which is a very unique type of exception.)

Regards,
JPG

[Rzach]

Really excited for this.

[*Neuro*]

Question: I guessed there will be party vision based on LOS, lightings of party tokens and occluders.

So this party vision can be deselected so the client of each player will see only what that single token is actually seeing?

I would rather have my party having detached vision for each token in the combat tracker, so if the thief moves away and goes forward he and only he can see the map revealing, while others must rely on the his or my description as GM.

Did I guess right that vision can be PARTY vision or single vision at DM choice?

P.s. I am running currently FG Classic Ultimate since 2016 and I am waiting for these features to, maybe, update.

[Imagix]

Yup. Though note that this is highly unlikely to ever make it into FG Classic, as Classic doesn't even have LOS now. (Unity already has party vision vs. player vision... just that it is infinite range, and everything is lit.)

[SilentRuin]

P.s. I am running currently FG Classic Ultimate since 2016 and I am waiting for these features to, maybe, update.

I cannot envision them ever doing this - total waste of there minimal resources to rewrite classic. FGC will be unsupported in a year or two also - FGU is only one that will ever handle LOS related image features.

[*Neuro*]

Sorry I explained wrongly. I am waiting for these features to get to FGU to upgrade from FGC Ultimate to FGU Ultimate.

As my experience with FG Classic is very good, till now I don't see the reason to update. One of the reason would be the dynamic LOS, occluders + dynamic lighting.

FG Classic is a real beast it never failed me/us in over 5 years.

[Jiminimonka]

Question: I guessed there will be party vision based on LOS, lightings of party tokens and occluders.

So this party vision can be deselected so the client of each player will see only what that single token is actually seeing?

I would rather have my party having detached vision for each token in the combat tracker, so if the thief moves away and goes forward he and only he can see the map revealing, while others must rely on the his or my description as GM.

Did I guess right that vision can be PARTY vision or single vision at DM choice?

P.s. I am running currently FG Classic Ultimate since 2016 and I am waiting for these features to, maybe, update.

It will never make it to Classic. They moved to Unity because it will allow them to add features like LOS etc.

[EllivasKram]

Default is individual LOS. Which when LOS VISION limits is implemented later this month (apparently if rumour has it) will be perfect. Can’t wait for oh you’re not holding a torch so that’s why you bumped into that dragon. Discussions. And oh your holding a torch and that’s why your stealth roll wasn't good enough to hide with a torch in hand

[similarly]

Sorry I explained wrongly. I am waiting for these features to get to FGU to upgrade from FGC Ultimate to FGU Ultimate.

As my experience with FG Classic is very good, till now I don't see the reason to update. One of the reason would be the dynamic LOS, occluders + dynamic lighting.

FG Classic is a real beast it never failed me/us in over 5 years.

I could understand even in your first post what you meant.

Guys: Neuro means that they are waiting to upgrade from FGC to FGU until LOS is ready.

However, Neuro, for me, FGU operates the same as FGC, only better. I think you wouldn't lose anything by jumping over now. LOS and dynamic lighting will come very soon.

[BearWok]

This looks awesome! Excited to put my players in dark caverns lit with torches!

[*Neuro*]

I could understand even in your first post what you meant.

Guys: Neuro means that they are waiting to upgrade from FGC to FGU until LOS is ready.

However, Neuro, for me, FGU operates the same as FGC, only better. I think you wouldn't lose anything by jumping over now. LOS and dynamic lighting will come very soon.

I heard that FGU has stability issues, normal in such a new software. FG classic never crashed in 5 years of continuous use. So I am afraid to change something very good with something that still needs to stabilize.

Eventually we will pass to FGU, but frankly speaking I am waiting for this Dynamic LOS+Dynamic lighting to be in effect and some feedback on stability of software.

As a GM using mask on the maps is boring and takes time and what will change my life would be this new feature. I find the Dynamic LOS without dynamic lighting quite stupid, thanks god Devs realized the importance of this feature.

I have faith.

[Valyar]

I heard that FGU has stability issues, normal in such a new software. FG classic never crashed in 5 years of continuous use. So I am afraid to change something very good with something that still needs to stabilize.

Eventually we will pass to FGU, but frankly speaking I am waiting for this Dynamic LOS+Dynamic lighting to be in effect and some feedback on stability of software.

As a GM using mask on the maps is boring and takes time and what will change my life would be this new feature. I find the Dynamic LOS without dynamic lighting quite stupid, thanks god Devs realized the importance of this feature.

I have faith.
Unity is very stable, I use it few times per week to run games (~4-5 hours) and much more hours for prep or development activities. The release is very stable and so far I had single crash which was caused to some extent by me. While it is not snappy as Classic (yet) if you look for stability - it is already there.

[similarly]

I've been using Unity since the STEAM release, and haven't had a single crash so far. It works very well for me.

[YAKO SOMEDAKY]

I wanted so much to be surprised with an update that adds the light source and vision limit until before the end of January.

[HywelPhillips]

I heard that FGU has stability issues, normal in such a new software. FG classic never crashed in 5 years of continuous use. So I am afraid to change something very good with something that still needs to stabilize.


FGU is acceptably stable for me. I have been running two games a week for months and the only problems we have experienced have been occasional player connect/disconnect issues (maybe be more to do with their ISP) and a slowdown I posted about in another thread when searching the assets window with too short a search string. Other than that FGU runs smoothly for us.

I've never had a crash and performance issues were solved by the end of beta (with that one exception) for me.

Last week I ran a four hour session for 5 x 8th level 5E characters vs. something upwards of 40 foes in the tracker at once, line of sight turned on - solid as a rock.

Cheers, Hywel

[Larsenex]

I heard that FGU has stability issues, normal in such a new software. FG classic never crashed in 5 years of continuous use. So I am afraid to change something very good with something that still needs to stabilize.

Eventually we will pass to FGU, but frankly speaking I am waiting for this Dynamic LOS+Dynamic lighting to be in effect and some feedback on stability of software.

As a GM using mask on the maps is boring and takes time and what will change my life would be this new feature. I find the Dynamic LOS without dynamic lighting quite stupid, thanks god Devs
realized the importance of this feature.
I have faith.

I switched from Classic to Unity back in November.
It works flawlessly with no issues.
Cheers!

[*Neuro*]

Do we have a expected release date for this Dynamuc LOS + Dynamic lighting? Say 6 months from now?

P.s. about stability maybe I was wrong on FGU, I was probably mistaking stability of Host with connectivity issues of clients (drop of connection of clients). We have it occasionally on FGC, but not very often, it could be once every 10 hours.

So if connectivity of FGU is like FGC for me is ok. I will then wait for this new feature of Dynamic LOS+Lighting. I am near the end of my campaign as a GM, will finish in the next 6 months, then before starting new campaign I will probably upgrade to FGU.

[Jiminimonka]

Do we have a expected release date for this Dynamuc LOS + Dynamic lighting? Say 6 months from now?

P.s. about stability maybe I was wrong on FGU, I was probably mistaking stability of Host with connectivity issues of clients (drop of connection of clients). We have it occasionally on FGC, but not very often, it could be once every 10 hours.

So if connectivity of FGU is like FGC for me is ok. I will then wait for this new feature of Dynamic LOS+Lighting. I am near the end of my campaign as a GM, will finish in the next 6 months, then before starting new campaign I will probably upgrade to FGU.

This month or latest Feb from what the devs said and allowing for bugs and such. They have the whole team working on dynamic light and the foundry only (and bug squishing is always ongoing)

[YAKO SOMEDAKY]

I use FGU since the beginning and I say that it evolved a lot, the falls stopped playing normally using the Lobby, and the games are really cool I confess that I am looking forward to this addition and many others on the list of idea informer and the only thing that chin, but that doesn't make it impractical is slowness | crash that happens as players connect and the slow (in all rules) to open the information in the character sheets, especially in the main tab.
But I know that the team does not only work to add resources, but to increase efficiency | stability of the platform so that in the future they don’t have to listen, oh but the other platform doesn’t lock, oh but the other platform does it and here it doesn’t and things like that, I know I’m happy with Fantasy Grounds and I know the other platforms and I say with all certainty that this is where I will stay.
I have friends who started to denigrate Fantasy Grounds with the launch of Unity, friends who jumped off the boat (I call them flustered and immediate) and faced problems in the new platform that for many is wonderful in the same way that we faced in FG (Falls from connection, system bugs, failures in dynamic lighting, preventing players from entering the table, need for a TCP port) and I miss something that for me is the most important thing to speed up a table which is automation, a platform has this if you pay a monthly fee and the other is crawling on it and I also came across the problem that there are creators who simply do and did things to do and simply abandoned their creations, leaving orphans those who decided to use it and now can no longer due the abandonment of them, due to the constant changes and upgrades that live "damaging" their creations, that is it and excuse the long post of outburst.

[Jiminimonka]

You want the man to get into even more trouble with Carl and John? :)

Yeah I think he should get in more trouble for sure! ;)

[Jiminimonka]

I use FGU since the beginning and I say that it evolved a lot, the falls stopped playing normally using the Lobby, and the games are really cool I confess that I am looking forward to this addition and many others on the list of idea informer and the only thing that chin, but that doesn't make it impractical is slowness | crash that happens as players connect and the slow (in all rules) to open the information in the character sheets, especially in the main tab.
But I know that the team does not only work to add resources, but to increase efficiency | stability of the platform so that in the future they don’t have to listen, oh but the other platform doesn’t lock, oh but the other platform does it and here it doesn’t and things like that, I know I’m happy with Fantasy Grounds and I know the other platforms and I say with all certainty that this is where I will stay.
I have friends who started to denigrate Fantasy Grounds with the launch of Unity, friends who jumped off the boat (I call them flustered and immediate) and faced problems in the new platform that for many is wonderful in the same way that we faced in FG (Falls from connection, system bugs, failures in dynamic lighting, preventing players from entering the table, need for a TCP port) and I miss something that for me is the most important thing to speed up a table which is automation, a platform has this if you pay a monthly fee and the other is crawling on it and I also came across the problem that there are creators who simply do and did things to do and simply abandoned their creations, leaving orphans those who decided to use it and now can no longer due the abandonment of them, due to the constant changes and upgrades that live "damaging" their creations, that is it and excuse the long post of outburst.

In my experience with FG most of these issues are user errors - there are some bugs of course and people connecting to my table have to download all the hi-res maps I make and 900,000 modules I own, but most of the time its people that are not very proficient with computers that stumble, and once you explain it to them, they are OK and can get into the game and enjoy it.

FGU is now branching off from FGC (which is what it was meant to do, and was the whole point) so things will only get better now.

[Patou]

So... any chance of seeing this soon in the next update? Some time in February perhaps?

Here's hoping:)

[Milke]

I'm wondering if eventually it can be automated to where, if, say, a creature is just outside a PC's torchlight (putting it in dim light), the game could automatically give the 20% miss chance, and such.

For now, even just the idea of being able to quickly glance at the scene and see what player characters can see and what they can't is awesome. This would've been great if you had shared it with us. And it would've been awesome to see if we had seen it. But we, of course, didn't see it. And I don't know what this thread even is.

[Jiminimonka]

I'm wondering if eventually it can be automated to where, if, say, a creature is just outside a PC's torchlight (putting it in dim light), the game could automatically give the 20% miss chance, and such.

For now, even just the idea of being able to quickly glance at the scene and see what player characters can see and what they can't is awesome. This would've been great if you had shared it with us. And it would've been awesome to see if we had seen it. But we, of course, didn't see it. And I don't know what this thread even is.

They did share it, that is what this thread is.

[*Neuro*]

I'm wondering if eventually it can be automated to where, if, say, a creature is just outside a PC's torchlight (putting it in dim light), the game could automatically give the 20% miss chance, and such.

For now, even just the idea of being able to quickly glance at the scene and see what player characters can see and what they can't is awesome. This would've been great if you had shared it with us. And it would've been awesome to see if we had seen it. But we, of course, didn't see it. And I don't know what this thread even is.

I think you are asking too much.

What would be nice is having Dynamic LOS and Dynamic lighting group or single (toggle) and different vision according quality source. (+ lock tokens of course)

For example: radius 20' bright light + other 20' dim light and if this would be visible on the map by the player would be nice.

If these are implemented would be a revolution, real revolution. For someone like me that is starting to pass a lot of time masking, removing mask when players move is exhausting on the long run.


I think we already asked a lot and we should be happy that they are working on this feature as I think it will change the "quality of life" of many game sessions.

Let's keep fingers crossed.

[Jiminimonka]

I think you are asking too much.

What would be nice is having Dynamic LOS and Dynamic lighting group or single (toggle) and different vision according quality source. (+ lock tokens of course)

For example: radius 20' bright light + other 20' dim light and if this would be visible on the map by the player would be nice.

If these are implemented would be a revolution, real revolution. For someone like me that is starting to pass a lot of time masking, removing mask when players move is exhausting on the long run.


I think we already asked a lot and we should be happy that they are working on this feature as I think it will change the "quality of life" of many game sessions.

Let's keep fingers crossed.

That is exactly what they have said it coming - if you read the first part of this thread and Doug's replies. :)

[ddavison]

These previews are probably too rough for broad circulation, but I thought you might be interested in seeing them.

Video 1:
Ms0VlJu0zSg

Link: https://youtu.be/Ms0VlJu0zSg

[Jiminimonka]

These previews are probably too rough for broad circulation, but I thought you might be interested in seeing them.

Video 1:
Ms0VlJu0zSg

Link: https://youtu.be/Ms0VlJu0zSg

Yeah!!!!

[ddavison]

Here is the 2nd video. This one has a bug in it that Carl probably already has patched by now... enjoy.

4hoQzjBcZE4

Link: https://youtu.be/4hoQzjBcZE4

[Aiddar]

OH wow!!!!!!!!!!!!

I WANT this sooo badly - LOVE that demo!!

Any firmed up dates for release? Tomorrow perhaps? :-)

[Milke]

They did share it, that is what this thread is.

I know. I was going along with how everyone else was kidding around by saying, "We didn't see anything.." when Dave said not to tell Carl or John.

[ddavison]

Video Preview #3

Player and NPC tokens with vision and lighting - who can see who?

Bag-1dAiuzc
Link: https://youtu.be/Bag-1dAiuzc

[Jiminimonka]

I know. I was going along with how everyone else was kidding around by saying, "We didn't see anything.." when Dave said not to tell Carl or John.

;) No worries!

[Jiminimonka]

Video Preview #3

Player and NPC tokens with vision and lighting - who can see who?

Bag-1dAiuzc
Link: https://youtu.be/Bag-1dAiuzc

Bullseye and Hooden Lanterns should be added (eventually) ;)

[Valyar]

Fabulous.

But one question - does this mean that token settings of PC are settings per map and everytime we have to set it on maps, or it is something defined on PC level and every map to which the token is dropped retains the global settings?

[Neovirtus]

This looks fantastic. Can't wait to get my hands on it. I'm sure you have a few more bugs to tackle, but it looks perfectly playable in it's current state! Great polish for something that's come together so quickly. Adding the player vision preview is something I've wanted since LoS was introduced so that will be a very welcome bonus, even when not using lighting.

[Sulimo]

Fabulous.

But one question - does this mean that token settings of PC are settings per map and everytime we have to set it on maps, or it is something defined on PC level and every map to which the token is dropped retains the global settings?

In one of the videos Doug mentioned they wanted to make it part of the Character sheet (forget his exact wording).

[kevininrussia]

When the NPC token becomes visible on the map, will it toggle the NPC visibility on the combat tracker?

[SilentRuin]

When the NPC token becomes visible on the map, will it toggle the NPC visibility on the combat tracker?

I hope not. That is often used as an on/off DM tool to keep players from seeing things you may be working on.

[kevininrussia]

I hope it does. It’s a huge pain to search for skeleton 17 in the long list on the combat tracker each time a NPC is seen on the map. It slows down gameplay. If it’s not turned on and the player attacks the token seen on the map, the to hit roll and damage is hidden from the player.

[mhossom]

That is AWESOME!!! Can't wait to get my greedy paws on it.

[ddavison]

Fabulous.

But one question - does this mean that token settings of PC are settings per map and everytime we have to set it on maps, or it is something defined on PC level and every map to which the token is dropped retains the global settings?

Yes in the short term. No, in the long term. Phase I will be adding it for GMs only and per map, per token. We know this is not ideal, so we will be working on integrating it with rulesets and the character sheet in some fashion.

[Chalmes95]

Yes in the short term. No, in the long term. Phase I will be adding it for GMs only and per map, per token. We know this is not ideal, so we will be working on integrating it with rulesets and the character sheet in some fashion.

Hey I'm all for it. Just watched all the tutorials. Super excited to see this feature soon. Hopefully it won't cause to many issues with all the extensions we already have lol

[SilentRuin]

I hope it does. It’s a huge pain to search for skeleton 17 in the long list on the combat tracker each time a NPC is seen on the map. It slows down gameplay. If it’s not turned on and the player attacks the token seen on the map, the to hit roll and damage is hidden from the player.

Being "seen on the map" and being "seen on combat tracker" are two completely different forms of "visibility" even though the map can be toggled by the CT one - not visa versa though. DO NOT make the CT visibility toggle trigger on map visibility toggles. It does not now - and should not in the future. IF I'm remembering that correctly that is :)

Yep just checked it - its a one way street on that setting and does not set the CT icon when I set a Visible Always on map. CT icon is for seeing in the CT (and the map). The Map setting is just for the map. Two different DB entries.

Granted this is a preference for me only as I don't have to search for skeleton 17 in a long list on combat tracker as my entries that are visible in CT are always short.

[YAKO SOMEDAKY]

One little question:
WHEN?

[kevininrussia]

Double post. Delete

[kevininrussia]

Being "seen on the map" and being "seen on combat tracker" are two completely different forms of "visibility" even though the map can be toggled by the CT one - not visa versa though. DO NOT make the CT visibility toggle trigger on map visibility toggles. It does not now - and should not in the future. IF I'm remembering that correctly that is :)

Yep just checked it - its a one way street on that setting and does not set the CT icon when I set a Visible Always on map. CT icon is for seeing in the CT (and the map). The Map setting is just for the map. Two different DB entries.

Granted this is a preference for me only as I don't have to search for skeleton 17 in a long list on combat tracker as my entries that are visible in CT are always short.

Yeah, I totally disagree and want visibility on map to trigger visibility on combat tracker. The visibility “eye” can be used to manually override that for times you don’t want the token to be visible on combat tracker and map.

[SilentRuin]

Yeah, I totally disagree and want visibility on map to trigger visibility on combat tracker. The visibility “eye” can be used to manually override that for times you don’t want the token to be visible on combat tracker and map.

Doing that would require a lot more work than you realize (which is why it's probably not done now) and tying the two visibilities together is just more burden on player/host network updates. So I have to totally disagree - with your total disagreement :)

Unless they can do it with minimal debugging burden impact (effort) and that it does not cross over multiple rulesets needing to be tweaked. Really - effort and reliability is what I object to about this.

[kevininrussia]

Doing that would require a lot more work than you realize (which is why it's probably not done now) and tying the two visibilities together is just more burden on player/host network updates. So I have to totally disagree - with your total disagreement :)

Unless they can do it with minimal debugging burden impact (effort) and that it does not cross over multiple rulesets needing to be tweaked. Really - effort and reliability is what I object to about this.

So what's the point of seeing the token on the map as shown in the video if its invisible on the Combat Tracker?

Currently I always turn on Mask Sensitive Visibility on tokens which from watching the video will become default (good). So when a token becomes visible on the map, I don't get why one would not want it visible on the CT. Everybody can see it on the map so what's the problem? :-) I can understand is some cases if the token is invisible in game as a condition it should not be seen by LOS.

[Jiminimonka]

Hey I'm all for it. Just watched all the tutorials. Super excited to see this feature soon. Hopefully it won't cause to many issues with all the extensions we already have lol

The extension people are going to be working on it immediately so it wont be a long term issue.

[SilentRuin]

So what's the point of seeing the token on the map as shown in the video if its invisible on the Combat Tracker?

Currently I always turn on Mask Sensitive Visibility on tokens which from watching the video will become default (good). So when a token becomes visible on the map, I don't get why one would not want it visible on the CT. Everybody can see it on the map so what's the problem? :-) I can understand is some cases if the token is invisible in game as a condition it should not be seen by LOS.

It seems no different than the current LOS correct? If I move a token and it's not visible in CT and it does not become visible on map - how is this different?

What I'm saying is the new lighting does not effect this logic at all. It currently behaves this way - I see no reason when they drop lighting into the mix why it would not STILL behave this way. If the CT has it marked invisible - it will stay invisible. If its marked visible - it will only become visible on map if they are in range. Is that not the way it works today?

The control on visibility on map is controlled by CT in most normal cases. You are suggesting that this no longer be allowed. That if I set a CT entry to invisible - that too bad so sad - you moved in range of him and now its flipped back to visible?

Me thinks you do not know what you are really asking for. How will I make something visible to me on map and CT but not on players map or CT? Your suggestion would be - no - you can never do that.

That is not a solution. What you are suggesting is not a solution. You'd need something new - a whole new flavor of CT/map visibility. Which is not what your suggesting.

Hence, I disagree with doing it.

[kevininrussia]

Example:
A player walks around the corner and because Mask Sensitive Visibility is turned on they immediately see the orc hiding. Exciting! The player then shoots it with an arrow. They dont see anything on the CT or the Chat Box of their attack. Oops, hold on I say. Let me look for that Orc Savage 6 and turn its visibility on the CT. Hold on... looking.... looking... lame

Combat Encounter:
https://i.imgur.com/amUPr9w.png

[Trenloe]

A player walks around the corner...
I thought that was the start of a joke! ;)

[kevininrussia]

It seems no different than the current LOS correct? If I move a token and it's not visible in CT and it does not become visible on map - how is this different?

What I'm saying is the new lighting does not effect this logic at all. It currently behaves this way - I see no reason when they drop lighting into the mix why it would not STILL behave this way. If the CT has it marked invisible - it will stay invisible. If its marked visible - it will only become visible on map if they are in range. Is that not the way it works today?

The control on visibility on map is controlled by CT in most normal cases. You are suggesting that this no longer be allowed. That if I set a CT entry to invisible - that too bad so sad - you moved in range of him and now its flipped back to visible?

Me thinks you do not know what you are really asking for. How will I make something visible to me on map and CT but not on players map or CT? Your suggestion would be - no - you can never do that.

That is not a solution. What you are suggesting is not a solution. You'd need something new - a whole new flavor of CT/map visibility. Which is not what your suggesting.

Hence, I disagree with doing it.

Mask Sensitive Visibility. Its a token option.

[SilentRuin]

Example:
A player walks around the corner and because Mask Sensitive Visibility is turned on they immediately see the orc hiding. Exciting! The player then shoots it with an arrow. They dont see anything on the CT or the Chat Box of their attack. Oops, hold on I say. Let me look for that Orc Savage 6 and turn its visibility on the CT. Hold on... looking.... looking... lame


I wonder if you read anything I actually wrote in my last reply. I set your Orc Savage 10 to invisible in CT because he has a ring of invisibility - or has successfully hidden under a table or something. You come in range - POOF - he's visible.
I raise your lame and call DOUBLE LAME.

Yes, I know what Mask Sensitive Visibility is - had tons of issues with it in extensions and had it fixed recently in documents.

[SilentRuin]

:) (added because this disagreement seems more hostile in text than it should be - we just disagree).

[kevininrussia]

I wonder if you read anything I actually wrote in my last reply. I set your Orc Savage 10 to invisible in CT because he has a ring of invisibility - or has successfully hidden under a table or something. You come in range - POOF - he's visible.
I raise your lame and call DOUBLE LAME.

So using your logic, it is more convenient to manually select the 'eye' icon on the combat tracker when tokens becomes visible on the map than turning off Mask Sensitive on the one time some NPC turns invisible.

And its a debate. :-)

[Zacchaeus]

Currently I always turn on Mask Sensitive Visibility on tokens which from watching the video will become default (good).

I don't think that's correct. A token will not be seen on the map unless it is within range of the lighting of the PC/NPC's lighting and is set to visible on the map. So if Bob the PC is in a dark room with a candle which emits light out to 20 feet then an NPC that is 30 feet away will not be visible to Bob on the map. If the NPC token is invisible on the CT then Bob can walk right past the NPC without seeing it. Only if the NPC is visible on the CT will Bob's light pick up the token when he gets close enough.

[kevininrussia]

I don't think that's correct. A token will not be seen on the map unless it is within range of the lighting of the PC/NPC's lighting and is set to visible on the map. So if Bob the PC is in a dark room with a candle which emits light out to 20 feet then an NPC that is 30 feet away will not be visible to Bob on the map. If the NPC token is invisible on the CT then Bob can walk right past the NPC without seeing it. Only if the NPC is visible on the CT will Bob's light pick up the token when he gets close enough.

Damn :-) Fine, then its hunting for visible tokens on the CT for me. So to get this strait, if the token is not visible on the CT (because you dont want the player to know its there) then a player walks up to it with a torch, They wont see the NPC until I with lightning fast reflexes find the now visible token and turn it on in the CT?

What if the player walks past it and it should only be visible for the time its within range? Could be for only a second in their move. So I have to quickly turn on and off the token in the CT?

[SilentRuin]

So using your logic, it is more convenient to manually select the 'eye' icon on the combat tracker when tokens becomes visible on the map than turning off Mask Sensitive on the one time some NPC turns invisible.

And its a debate. :-)

Absolutely. Digging into a map - right mouse - choosing eye - choosing next layer - then having to dig back into it when he is visible again and changing it again?

Versus.. clicking eye icon on CT on and off?

Yeah I'd think that was obviously easier :)

Plus at the start - I noted that this was my personal opinion because I never have my CT cluttered with more than a few things. Granted, because of extension I have another flavor of visibility in the CT so don't suffer the "long list".

And yes, no worries that we disagree. I see what your saying - it makes life harder if you do it the way your suggesting. And at heart - I'm a lazy DM. First and foremost!

[SilentRuin]

Damn :-) Fine, then its hunting for visible tokens on the CT for me. So to get this strait, if the token is not visible on the CT (because you dont want the player to know its there) then a player walks up to it with a torch, They wont see the NPC until I with lightning fast reflexes find the now visible token and turn it on in the CT?

What if the player walks past it and it should only be visible for the time its within range? Could be for only a second in their move. So I have to quickly turn on and off the token in the CT?

You have to do that today with LOS as it exist. As I said - this lighting won't change that at all. What you want is something BRAND NEW and DIFFERENT than what we have now. Simply making the CT eye icon flip anytime it comes in range is not the answer though.

[kevininrussia]

I think that Token visibility should be automated based on LOS and lighting. Not a manual affair unless there is some condition keeping the token invisible to LOS.

[kevininrussia]

Phone keeps double posting. Sorry

[SilentRuin]

We both suffered the double post :(


I think that Token visibility should be automated based on LOS and lighting. Not a manual affair unless there is some condition keeping the token invisible to LOS.

It can't be the way you are suggesting though. See my first post (from double post before your double post). Stupid forum lag.

[kevininrussia]

We both suffered the double post :(


It can't be the way you are suggesting though. See my first post (from double post before your double post). Stupid forum lag.

I guess the developers will know better what can and cant be done. I'm just expressing my opinion on how I would like the functionality to be :-)

[Ulric]

This looks fantastic! I can't wait to give this a try!

[Zacchaeus]

I guess the developers will know better what can and cant be done. I'm just expressing my opinion on how I would like the functionality to be :-)

I don't think you are alone in this; but I fear that SilentRuin is correct in that the technical difficulties are such that it isn't going to be possible in the short term. But who know what is around the corner.

I do think that the possibilities for highly imaginative and dynamic combat are considerably enhanced though with the lighting coming in on top of LoS. Even if the PCs know that there are 10 goblins around because they're visible on the CT, finding them on the map may well be a lot more complicated. I accept that you want to not have them visible on the CT until they are actually seen, but I think that the lighting will have a big impact at your table.

[LordEntrails]

All this debate is to point out that implementing dynamic lighting and vision is not as simple as some people have said in the past that it is. You know, "All they have to do is..."

Good discussion and at this point I'll just take it as it comes and have faith that it will continue to improve and we (the community) will continue to be able to influence the direction it takes.

[kevininrussia]

Yes, lighting is Huge

I'm building a dungeon crawl in anticipation of this great new feature. :-)

[robojosh]

Posted about this another thread already- but I'm so excited about this feature. It will add so much more suspense and ambiance into my encounters and maps. Also very much fired up about the ability to customize the color of different light sources. Best of luck in implementing this, looking forward to using it soon!

[Moon Wizard]

Since Doug asked me nicely to take a look at this discussion, I thought I'd chime in.

We want to eventually do something where token visibility is tied to combat tracker visibility. How that will work exactly in the UI has not been decided, or whether there will be multiple toggles. I don't want it to be too complex for users to actually use.

However, one of the reasons it has not been looked at yet is because there are no APIs for determining if one token can see another token at this time. It wasn't really a need up to this point; and it's fairly complex when taking into account LoS occluders as well as vision/lighting. It's something that I specifically asked Carl to consider as he was building out vision/lighting, in order to make sure that we can get at that data in a way that doesn't bog down the system. Once we get vision/lighting out into the wild, we'll most likely be looking at APIs and functionality to enhance the ruleset to take advantage of those pieces.

Regards,
JPG

[Ludd_G]

Damn :-) Fine, then its hunting for visible tokens on the CT for me. So to get this strait, if the token is not visible on the CT (because you dont want the player to know its there) then a player walks up to it with a torch, They wont see the NPC until I with lightning fast reflexes find the now visible token and turn it on in the CT?

Having CT visibility as an option on the token's radial menu would at least remove the need to go monster hunting on a busy Combat Tracker. Not a full solution but I'd love this functionality.

Oh, and.... LOVE THE LIGHTING!!!!!

[Nylanfs]

John, just use the Easy button right there on your desk. :D

[DragonsDen13]

The ultimate of this would be that each player would only see items on the CT that their character can see. So, character A might see 3 goblins and player B on the CT but player B might only see player A or 1 or 2 goblins; which might be different goblins than player A sees. Dreams....we should always have dreams!

[Jiminimonka]

SilentRuin and kevininrussia - stop arguing. This is a happy news thread - so pack it in and smile :)

[kevininrussia]

The ultimate of this would be that each player would only see items on the CT that their character can see. So, character A might see 3 goblins and player B on the CT but player B might only see player A or 1 or 2 goblins; which might be different goblins than player A sees. Dreams....we should always have dreams!

This can happen now with tokens on the map if you turn Mask Sensitive Visibility on all the NPC tokens and have Party vision and movement OFF in Options. Does not affect the CT though.

[lostsanityreturned]

A drastically more impactful question ;)

Are we getting higher resolution shadows back anytime soon? they used to work well for me and I really miss them, the aliased shadows look... unappealing (work well and all, but, uh, yeah)

:P

As for token visibility changes, it would help clear up combat trackers for players in crowded rooms with lots of occluders. It changes very little for a GM but would be a minor quality of life change.

Adding a reveal/hide button to the image toolbar so you could quickly reveal/hide multiple tokens at once without rightclicking each would be cool.

Past initially being seen/revealed hiding a token again has very little actual benefit other than players having neater combat trackers though. Once something has been revealed the players know it is there.

[Jiminimonka]

A drastically more impactful question ;)

Are we getting higher resolution shadows back anytime soon? they used to work well for me and I really miss them, the aliased shadows look... unappealing (work well and all, but, uh, yeah)

:P

As for token visibility changes, it would help clear up combat trackers for players in crowded rooms with lots of occluders. It changes very little for a GM but would be a minor quality of life change.

Adding a reveal/hide button to the image toolbar so you could quickly reveal/hide multiple tokens at once without rightclicking each would be cool.

Past initially being seen/revealed hiding a token again has very little actual benefit other than players having neater combat trackers though. Once something has been revealed the players know it is there.

Shadows?

[kevininrussia]

Shadows?

https://i.imgur.com/T8WJMdG.png
https://i.imgur.com/pCxfUlW.png

[Jiminimonka]

https://i.imgur.com/T8WJMdG.png
https://i.imgur.com/pCxfUlW.png

Oh - you mean shadows....
43337

For me they only look jagged when zoomed far out from the tokens. Not really noticed the jaggies recently

[DragonsDen13]

This can happen now with tokens on the map if you turn Mask Sensitive Visibility on all the NPC tokens and have Party vision and movement OFF in Options. Does not affect the CT though.

Yes but in my fantasyland having your scenario tie in directly with each player's CT would be spectacular. As I said, I like to dream.

[Patou]

These previews are probably too rough for broad circulation, but I thought you might be interested in seeing them.

Video 1:
Ms0VlJu0zSg

Link: https://youtu.be/Ms0VlJu0zSg

Oh how this is so magical and exciting!!!!! Thanks Doug!!!!! Nice work guys!!! Wow!

[El Condoro]

Looks great. The vid doesn't show it but do we know if things like wall torches and light sources not associated with tokens can be placed on a map?

[ddavison]

Yes.
There are three videos I just released and one of them shows placing torches and candles.

[El Condoro]

That is fantastic. Really looking forward to using this (might have to edit some maps that have the lighting already on them but that's kind of fun). Thanks to those who are working on this great feature.

[Svandal]

Yes.
There are three videos I just released and one of them shows placing torches and candles.

This will be awsome, cant wait. I really like that we have some customizable options for light sources and vision.

Now if we could get a light source that radiates darknes with the same customizable range inverted (first how many squares it will radiate shadow and the dropout is the darkness. Then we can have something for fogs, and magical darkness. If we get that you will make me very happy 😁

[The Decepticon]

I stated earlier this would be very helpful. Just ran an encounter in a cave this morning and had to tell the group multiple times that you left the human behind and he can't see, so he is wandering around in complete darkness. What about a bonfire lighting effect for greater light? I know I am asking for more, but I guess I can add multiple torches....

[SilentRuin]

I stated earlier this would be very helpful. Just ran an encounter in a cave this morning and had to tell the group multiple times that you left the human behind and he can't see, so he is wandering around in complete darkness. What about a bonfire lighting effect for greater light? I know I am asking for more, but I guess I can add multiple torches....

Place a torch or lantern light over a bonfire token and POOF. Fire. After all video showed you can set ranges of light fade etc.

[SilentRuin]

Question: If I have a token - not an NPC - not a PC - but a token that I create and tie to the DB - can I have a lighting effect attached to it?

[YAKO SOMEDAKY]

If I switch to a test or development channel will I be able to access new light and vision tools?

[Moon Wizard]

Any "token" can have a light applied to it. For the initial launch, this will need to be done through the image data control on the side of the image window.

The initial launch will not contain APIs, and that will be part of follow-on efforts.

Regards,
JPG

[Moon Wizard]

No, lighting and vision is not ready for end user testing.

JPG

[SilentRuin]

Any "token" can have a light applied to it. For the initial launch, this will need to be done through the image data control on the side of the image window.

The initial launch will not contain APIs, and that will be part of follow-on efforts.

Regards,
JPG

Fair enough. I look forward to making a glowing magic sword parcel in a pitch black room :)

[A Social Yeti]

[QUOTE=ddavison;574613]These previews are probably too rough for broad circulation, but I thought you might be interested in seeing them.

~


What i can't understand from the demo here is, is the design intent to only be imagination aid for players? Or if the design goal of the lighting & LOS is to include play mechanics meaningful functions too?

he's a still from the demo to help illustrate my question.
43352

If during the demo, there had been a hostile NPC token on the map where the red square is.
Would it be drawn for the players to be able to see in the moment?
Or would FG have known that even though a direct unobstructed line could be drawn from the one darkvision PC to it, it is not illuminated nor in the vision radius of, so should not be drawn yet for any player to have knowledge of?


Is this feature intended to provide mechanically meaningful functions/automation of game rules, or the design intended to provide player imagination aids only?

[Ludd_G]

I think the situation you're seeing is due to the recording be made via the DM instance, and the Player instance would not be seeing the token indicated. I think?

[Kelrugem]

One of the other videos, I think the third one, actually shows that it is combined with mask-sensitivity :) So, tokens will be invisible/visible depending on the vision :)

[A Social Yeti]

i had considered this, it is why i decided ask, as i'm just be assuming otherwise. and i had considered that the demo was done quickly enough that the time and editing to move between GM/player POV had just not been done for a fast demo to get kicked out. So asking for the clarification on that sort of dangling unknown.

[Zacchaeus]

A token won't see another token if a) it is blocked by LoS or b) it isn't blocked by LoS but isn't within the vision range of the viewing token. So in your example above the token with the darkvision would not see the token in the red square because although it has LoS to that token it isn't within it's range of vision.

So to answer your question the combination of LoS and Lighting is both an aid to imagination and has function as well.

[kevininrussia]

A token won't see another token if a) it is blocked by LoS or b) it isn't blocked by LoS but isn't within the vision range of the viewing token. So in your example above the token with the darkvision would not see the token in the red square because although it has LoS to that token it isn't within it's range of vision.

So to answer your question the combination of LoS and Lighting is both an aid to imagination and has function as well.

To be clear, with the new lighting there no longer will be the need to select mask-sensitivity for each token?

[Kelrugem]

To be clear, with the new lighting there no longer will be the need to select mask-sensitivity for each token?

Tokens are mask-sensitive as default when visible in the CT, as long as one does not overwrite it :) But they're probably still always invisible when invisible in the CT, and you are probably asking for mask-sensitivity as default when invisible in the CT :) So, standard behaviour as usual (at least I doubt that this will change now)

[SilentRuin]

To be clear, with the new lighting there no longer will be the need to select mask-sensitivity for each token?

I've never had to do this in my LOS enabled maps. IS this something you have to do currently?

[kevininrussia]

I do, because I want the NPCs not seen in the combat tracker or the map until LOS reveals them. Example, player opens a door and orcs are seen in the room immediately surprising the player.

[Zacchaeus]

To be clear, with the new lighting there no longer will be the need to select mask-sensitivity for each token?

Again, as noted before. Unless a token is visible on the CT then it's invisible on the map no matter how many lights are on it.

[kevininrussia]

Again, as noted before. Unless a token is visible on the CT then it's invisible on the map no matter how many lights are on it.

Unless you select Mask Sensitive Visibility on the token. Currently with Mask Sensitive Visibility selected on a NPC token, that token will become visible when visible to LOS of another token even when the corresponding NPC on the combat tracker is invisible.

[Zacchaeus]

Unless you select Mask Sensitive Visibility on the token. Currently with Mask Sensitive Visibility selected on a NPC token, that token will become visible when visible to LOS of another token even when the corresponding NPC on the combat tracker is invisible.

Yes; your question was will there no longer be a need to set mask sensitive visibility on each token and my answer is no there will be that need if you want what you want.

[kevininrussia]

Understood. Thanks!

[Surge]

*Edit: Okay, I continued watching and pretty much the exact functionality is already in there. Almost. There is the ability to entirely mask the ambient light, including the shadows. What would be also be nice to have is a mask that only stops the shadows being cast in the area, but still illuminates it.

Have just been watching the latest stream on Twitch, and it highlighted a need to be able to map out areas using polygons where dynamic shadows from the ambient light are not cast - in order to stop shadows of structure walls being cast into the structure itself.

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

[Styrot]

so, the big question. When does it roll out live?

[Zacchaeus]

so, the big question. When does it roll out live?

Welcome to FG.

When it's ready.

[Zacchaeus]

*Edit: Okay, I continued watching and pretty much the exact functionality is already in there. Almost. There is the ability to entirely mask the ambient light, including the shadows. What would be also be nice to have is a mask that only stops the shadows being cast in the area, but still illuminates it.

Have just been watching the latest stream on Twitch, and it highlighted a need to be able to map out areas using polygons where dynamic shadows from the ambient light are not cast - in order to stop shadows of structure walls being cast into the structure itself.



You can add a mask to the ambient light and cut holes in it where you don't want the ambient light to shine.

[Kelrugem]

You can add a mask to the ambient light and cut holes in it where you don't want the ambient light to shine.

Yeah, just wanted to write that, too, that it looks like this :) (In the first post is a screenshot where that was used I think)

[SilentRuin]

Yeah, just wanted to write that, too, that it looks like this :) (In the first post is a screenshot where that was used I think)

Yeah that's just going to show the underlying map with no light effects from what the demo showed. Unless the image is black I'm not sure that is going to have the desired effect - or I missed something in that video with the hut when he did it. Because all it looked like it did was leave the original image as it was (unaffected by lighting). Was I wrong? Or are we talking about a different masking option?

[Zacchaeus]

Yeah that's just going to show the underlying map with no light effects from what the demo showed. Unless the image is black I'm not sure that is going to have the desired effect - or I missed something in that video with the hut when he did it. Because all it looked like it did was leave the original image as it was (unaffected by lighting). Was I wrong? Or are we talking about a different masking option?

The first layer of lighting is ambient light which affects the whole map. Optionally you can have shadows as well in this layer. If you are in a dungeon setting then ambient light won't really be needed - in fact it will probably be silly. If you have a map which is partly exterior and partly interior then you can add a mask to the ambient light. You can then draw areas in that mask where you don't want the ambient light to shine. In those areas there will be no ambient lighting and consequently no shadows from that light. Inside such an area you can then place static lights as desired. These can be any colour or range. So you can have one kind of lighting in one area of the map and another kind of lighting in other areas of the map.

[SilentRuin]

The first layer of lighting is ambient light which affects the whole map. Optionally you can have shadows as well in this layer. If you are in a dungeon setting then ambient light won't really be needed - in fact it will probably be silly. If you have a map which is partly exterior and partly interior then you can add a mask to the ambient light. You can then draw areas in that mask where you don't want the ambient light to shine. In those areas there will be no ambient lighting and consequently no shadows from that light. Inside such an area you can then place static lights as desired. These can be any colour or range. So you can have one kind of lighting in one area of the map and another kind of lighting in other areas of the map.

So your saying it was the ambient light showing the hut interior in that demo after he applied the mask?

[Zacchaeus]

So your saying it was the ambient light showing the hut interior in that demo after he applied the mask?
I was answering the post above. I’m not sure what demo you are referring to. But in the image above, yes it looks like the ambient lighting is causing the shadow inside the tower.

[Surge]

If you are referring to the image in my post then yes, the shadows in the tower are from the ambient light.

I took the screenshot before the video went into using the mask, then added the edit afterwards.

[Ratupper]

any word on roll out?

[Jiminimonka]

any word on roll out?

The word is "when its ready"...

[EllivasKram]

The word is "when its ready"...

And not a second before I assume. Can we ask when it’s going to be in test stream ?

[LordEntrails]

We don't know. Nothing has been said.

Typically SW won't answer that question until they are ready to do it, then they will make the announcement.

[Karnas]

I don't want to say that I'm daily refreshing the forum front page waiting for an update.

But I do.

[Valyar]

I don't want to say that I'm daily refreshing the forum front page waiting for an update.

But I do.

Subscribe to the thread. Anxiety will be reduced :D

[Ulric]

Subscribe to the thread. Anxiety will be reduced :D
I have and it didn't help! :)

[SilentRuin]

Is there any chance this is going to be ready by FGCON 16?

[WindrunnerCGG]

My day job involves software development and release cycles, so I totally get it. However, the most recent comment by SilentRuin brings up a good point. I have multiple streams this weekend where I’m going to be demonstrating fantasy grounds for the Goodman Games, Spawn of Cyclops Con. It certainly would be awesome to be able to demonstrate functionality as we showcase the platform.

Garner/Windrunner

[SilentRuin]

My day job involves software development and release cycles, so I totally get it. However, the most recent comment by SilentRuin brings up a good point. I have multiple streams this weekend where I’m going to be demonstrating fantasy grounds for the Goodman Games, Spawn of Cyclops Con. It certainly would be awesome to be able to demonstrate functionality as we showcase the platform.

Garner/Windrunner

Yeah I'm specifically designing my map for lighting and showing how cool it is. Nobody really thinks it through is my guess and will be surprised. A distant group by fire or torchlight - can be seen by anyone in the dark or light - but those in dark cannot be seen. Not a two way thing. Or how about enemies hiding in dark and you... throw your torch. Yes, you throw your light source so the DM drops a light source on you - turns off your token one and starts slowly dragging it away from you leaving you in the dark and... oh what was that it just flew over? A monster? Oh its gone as the torch continues to fly past leaving it in the dark once more.

So many cool things I plan to design an environment so they can be done.

[GhoulHunter]

I guess there are still no news on when the feature will be on live, but I do wonder if something went wrong during debugging process, since the target of release was mid-January if Im not mistaken and its March already. I hope Carl and John are doing alright :)

[ddavison]

It is very, very close. We ended up reworking some of the UI to make it a bit clearer and then we added some other features to pick up vision automatically for several of the more popular rulesets. We still have a little more testing to do, but it will be available soon to start playing with.

[broodling123]

Glad to hear it's coming along! Thanks for the update!

[GhoulHunter]

It is very, very close. We ended up reworking some of the UI to make it a bit clearer and then we added some other features to pick up vision automatically for several of the more popular rulesets. We still have a little more testing to do, but it will be available soon to start playing with.

Thanks for the update Doug! Can't wait, it sounds amazing! I bet most of us can barely sit still :D I've only been part of the community for such a short time now, but I love what the team does for the userbase and how you listen in. I was just telling my friend recently about what DnD is, what Pen and Paper RPGs are, what VTTs are and when I told him how community can vote on new feature ideas, that you guys talk about it internally, he was amazed that the developer team does that at all. Love this community, this VTT and I can't wait to see where you, as a team, take it next.

[Jiminimonka]

Thanks for the update Doug! Can't wait, it sounds amazing! I bet most of us can barely sit still :D I've only been part of the community for such a short time now, but I love what the team does for the userbase and how you listen in. I was just telling my friend recently about what DnD is, what Pen and Paper RPGs are, what VTTs are and when I told him how community can vote on new feature ideas, that you guys talk about it internally, he was amazed that the developer team does that at all. Love this community, this VTT and I can't wait to see where you, as a team, take it next.

Welcome to FantasyGrounds! :)

[Ibrene]

Yep, I definitely concur. In my Age of Worms campaign the players are about to descend into the Dourstone Mines and the "Three Faces of Evil" arc. Being able to set the mood with torches and lanterns will just bring the scenario to.. dare I say it.. ELEVEN

[Valyar]

Is the WiP version in dev channel by any chance? :D

[Patou]

Very exciting stuff!!! It'll be like playing ''Light-Bright''!! Hehehe. See who remembers that toy with the black paper:)

[GhoulHunter]

Is the WiP version in dev channel by any chance? :D

Honestly, doubt it. My best bet is they will release it fully on live when they are ready and not any sooner. Its a big feature that everyone has been waiting for a long time, so I think they want to do it right.

[Nylanfs]

No, it will go into the testing channel so that the extension builders can verify their work.

[SilentRuin]

No, it will go into the testing channel so that the extension builders can verify their work.

Again? Ugh. I thought that was just for "we know yer gonna be dead, so heads up" cases. Or as Monty Python would say... "Bring out yer dead!"

[Imagix]

Egad, why _wouldn't_ you want releases (particularly ones with major subsystem changes) to go through the test channel first? This gives an opportunity for extension developers and module developers to verify their work before it all shows up in front of the entire user population.

[SilentRuin]

Egad, why _wouldn't_ you want releases (particularly ones with major subsystem changes) to go through the test channel first? This gives an opportunity for extension developers and module developers to verify their work before it all shows up in front of the entire user population.

Because they release EVERY? release to the TEST channel. And only once was I warned - "Ye be dead if'n ye don't get in thar!" - I don't plan on checking every test to see if my stuff still works. I plan on being surprised unless "Ye be warned" is sent my way. :pirate:

[I dropped my changes 10 minutes after the one that broke all the extensions - because I was warned it was going to break stuff. No such warning has occurred for this - and I updated all the deprecated stuff that was supposed to be in prep for the new stuff coming later back then. ]

[Imagix]

If I'd paid for an extension, I would expect that the developer is keeping on top of the releases so that I don't have to encounter breakages (or at least be notified of the breakages). And since there is no published interface (that I'm aware of), every release of FG could potentially break extensions. Now, the probability of breakage is likely fairly small, but it is non-zero. And for the last big update, the Smiteworks folk probably saw a bunch of common extensions break during the dev cycle, and so they raised a warning that this set of changes carried a much higher risk of breakage. But _every_ update carries some small risk. Thus, publish to the test channel so that vendors have a chance to catch these issues before their customers do.

[SilentRuin]

If I'd paid for an extension, I would expect that the developer is keeping on top of the releases so that I don't have to encounter breakages (or at least be notified of the breakages). And since there is no published interface (that I'm aware of), every release of FG could potentially break extensions. Now, the probability of breakage is likely fairly small, but it is non-zero. And for the last big update, the Smiteworks folk probably saw a bunch of common extensions break during the dev cycle, and so they raised a warning that this set of changes carried a much higher risk of breakage. But _every_ update carries some small risk. Thus, publish to the test channel so that vendors have a chance to catch these issues before their customers do.

Extensions = RISK. FGU can break them. Other extensions can break them. My advice? Steer clear of them, and you've nothing to worry about. Free or paid.

Now, if they do know there are extension breaking changes in the lighting stuff one hopes we will get a warning about it. Until then?

"Ye take yer risks with the rest of the scallywag's who use extensions" :pirate:

[Kelrugem]

Usually bigger updates are announced in the Laboratory with some list about while script files and templates etc. are affected to help extension developers :) But not the smaller updates like the one yesterday; I usually check which script files and so on got edited since the last update and whether it is a file I used/change/etc. in my extensions in order to check if I need to update my extensions :) Not always an update will cause to "break" an extension; sometimes an extension just overwrites part of a new update and won't cause error messages. Then it be a very hidden "break" until it is noticed, so, keeping an eye on the laboratory and the date of change of the files can help, too :)

[LordEntrails]

IMO, the problem with releasing to Test or Dev before Live, for this case only, is that once the general user population learns they can get lighting by changing a setting, they will do so. Ignorant or uncaring that they should expect it not to work fully. That's going to cause lots of threads, support requests, and complaints on social media.

[Jiminimonka]

IMO, the problem with releasing to Test or Dev before Live, for this case only, is that once the general user population learns they can get lighting by changing a setting, they will do so. Ignorant or uncaring that they should expect it not to work fully. That's going to cause lots of threads, support requests, and complaints on social media.

Yeah!

[Imagix]

Yeah, users are worst! :)

[Trenloe]

Usually bigger updates are announced in the Laboratory with some list about while script files and templates etc. are affected to help extension developers :) But not the smaller updates like the one yesterday; I usually check which script files and so on got edited since the last update and whether it is a file I used/change/etc. in my extensions in order to check if I need to update my extensions :) Not always an update will cause to "break" an extension; sometimes an extension just overwrites part of a new update and won't cause error messages. Then it be a very hidden "break" until it is noticed, so, keeping an eye on the laboratory and the date of change of the files can help, too :)
This. An extension running without errors is not necessarily an extension that is running the correct code and could still have hidden issues.

[Moon Wizard]

Any lighting release WILL go into the Test channel first; with lots of bright red warnings. We already know that the network/data format is changing for the upcoming release; and it's a one-way trip for campaigns. Also, it is expected we'll have a couple things to iron out; and some extension authors may need to adjust their code to not stomp on CoreRPG behaviors to support basic vision/lighting.

Regards,
JPG

[mattekure]

Any lighting release WILL go into the Test channel first; with lots of bright red warnings. We already know that the network/data format is changing for the upcoming release; and it's a one-way trip for campaigns. Also, it is expected we'll have a couple things to iron out; and some extension authors may need to adjust their code to not stomp on CoreRPG behaviors to support basic vision/lighting.

Regards,
JPG

The heads up is appreciated. Will keep an eye out for notification that its available to begin testing against.

[LordEntrails]

with lots of bright red warnings.
Yea!

[SilentRuin]

Any lighting release WILL go into the Test channel first; with lots of bright red warnings. We already know that the network/data format is changing for the upcoming release; and it's a one-way trip for campaigns. Also, it is expected we'll have a couple things to iron out; and some extension authors may need to adjust their code to not stomp on CoreRPG behaviors to support basic vision/lighting.

Regards,
JPG

There are a few annoying places I could not call the original code in some extensions - so I suppose I will have to get into test to prepare the replacements. I trust this thread will be updated when the time comes to insure those of us subscribed notice when it happens? Or do we get personally monogrammed invites? :) Personally, I'd like the monogrammed touch :)

[Zacchaeus]

There are a few annoying places I could not call the original code in some extensions - so I suppose I will have to get into test to prepare the replacements. I trust this thread will be updated when the time comes to insure those of us subscribed notice when it happens? Or do we get personally monogrammed invites? :) Personally, I'd like the monogrammed touch :)

Test releases are always announced in this forum https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?55-The-Laboratory

[SilentRuin]

If you guys are still working the lighting map options (SW), I would like to request to put some thought into some kind of LOS that will increase the fallout for lighting effects that can be placed on the map like terrain, etc. Only call it "rise" or something so that the light will cost more than 5ft going over it. Cliffs - crevasses etc. Just a thought. Also if LOS could have something players can't move through but can see through - that would be great for - cliffs with mountains above etc.

[Kelrugem]

Also if LOS could have something players can't move through but can see through

Windows do that :) Block movement but not vision :)

[amerigoV]

If you guys are still working the lighting map options (SW), I would like to request to put some thought into some kind of LOS that will increase the fallout for lighting effects that can be placed on the map like terrain, etc. Only call it "rise" or something so that the light will cost more than 5ft going over it. Cliffs - crevasses etc. Just a thought. Also if LOS could have something players can't move through but can see through - that would be great for - cliffs with mountains above etc.

Your second item is already there - use a window and put a lock on it (shift close). Or you use a Pit Trap - which lets them fall off the cliff but not see back out :)

[kevininrussia]

I have been having issues with the Pit Trap and tokens. They are hidden when behind an open pit.

Image is DM view. PC view the tokens with arrows pointed at them are invisible.

https://i.imgur.com/cdh8w2Y.jpg


https://i.imgur.com/BOQgLji.jpg

[Moon Wizard]

@SilentRuin,
As mentioned, there is already a window you can use for that. Also, we're not trying to add anything at this point; as that is one of the reasons it has been delayed, as we uncover new needs for rulesets.

@kevininrussia,
I actually submitted that already to @cpinder internally based on your original post. I just haven't been responding as much, since I've been busy.

Regards,
JPG

[SilentRuin]

Thank you all who suggested windows - did not think it through that I could just draw shape along a cliff. I'll give it a try!

[similarly]

I've been using windows for rails and short walls that you can see over but can't move through.

[SilentRuin]

Question on windows - how do you get it to block movement - see through and not have a big yellow stain where it is on the map?

[similarly]

Question on windows - how do you get it to block movement - see through and not have a big yellow stain where it is on the map?

I actually just had this on a lighthouse I did. When I first did the railing, I did it as a circle, and it put that big yellow thing in the middle of the map, so instead, I made a bunch of smaller LOS windows around the edge, and set them close enough that players can't slip through the gap.

[SilentRuin]

I actually just had this on a lighthouse I did. When I first did the railing, I did it as a circle, and it put that big yellow thing in the middle of the map, so instead, I made a bunch of smaller LOS windows around the edge, and set them close enough that players can't slip through the gap.

Yeah I used a line to make an odd contour closed shape. Evidently only a square hides the hover yellow highlight. Anything else and that color is on all the time. Bug?
Actually - after a place a square I can then adjust it and no yellow splotch. Seems like a bug in the other placement shapes as I can modify it and its fine as long as I place with a square. And unlike ghostbusters, crossing the lines is how I create new points to expand my square's 4 points into as many as I want.

[djbreaktime]

Thanks for the update Doug! Can't wait, it sounds amazing! I bet most of us can barely sit still :D I've only been part of the community for such a short time now, but I love what the team does for the userbase and how you listen in. I was just telling my friend recently about what DnD is, what Pen and Paper RPGs are, what VTTs are and when I told him how community can vote on new feature ideas, that you guys talk about it internally, he was amazed that the developer team does that at all. Love this community, this VTT and I can't wait to see where you, as a team, take it next.


I couldn't agree more, this is why I moved here after starting will Roll 20 and why I will never leave, the community of developers and the team are fantastic! Who else has a place for you to vote on new items you'd like to see implemented in which they actually follow up, not many that is for certain..mad props FG Team!

[Olmac1]

Very exciting stuff!!! It'll be like playing ''Light-Bright''!! Hehehe. See who remembers that toy with the black paper:)

I owned one!

[*Neuro*]

I did see the preview on twitch, seems amazing. So is there any informations on the release date? I have scheduled a few games on FG Unity ad GM and wanted to implement this lighting source stuff.

It seems nearly ready, maybe next week?

[Jiminimonka]

I did see the preview on twitch, seems amazing. So is there any informations on the release date? I have scheduled a few games on FG Unity ad GM and wanted to implement this lighting source stuff.

It seems nearly ready, maybe next week?

When its ready.

Josh did say several times its almost ready but needs bugs ironed out. Little bugs.

[Jiminimonka]

Yeah I used a line to make an odd contour closed shape. Evidently only a square hides the hover yellow highlight. Anything else and that color is on all the time. Bug?
Actually - after a place a square I can then adjust it and no yellow splotch. Seems like a bug in the other placement shapes as I can modify it and its fine as long as I place with a square. And unlike ghostbusters, crossing the lines is how I create new points to expand my square's 4 points into as many as I want.

I'm not getting this bug.

[GhoulHunter]

I'm not getting this bug.

Neither do I. Any shape I use for the window - no splotch of any kind. Of course, if you hover over the shape in play mode you get the closed/open highlighted yellow shape, but that's just working like it's supposed to. I'm no pro on this, but I'd suggest for SilentRuin to update if they havan't or try to play around with extensions - maybe some of them could be messing with LOS and keeping it permanently highlighted. Or SilentRuin should contact the devs and consult them, maybe they have encountered this in development. That's my take on it.

[similarly]

Neither do I. Any shape I use for the window - no splotch of any kind. Of course, if you hover over the shape in play mode you get the closed/open highlighted yellow shape, but that's just working like it's supposed to. I'm no pro on this, but I'd suggest for SilentRuin to update if they havan't or try to play around with extensions - maybe some of them could be messing with LOS and keeping it permanently highlighted. Or SilentRuin should contact the devs and consult them, maybe they have encountered this in development. That's my take on it.

Yeah, it's not a bug. When you hover over a door or window in play, it is highlighted. What I originally did is I had a wall around the railing of a lighthouse, but wanted it to be a rail, not a full wall, so made it a window, but when I used the circle tool (to outline the whole circular wall) in play, it turns the entire area inside the circle yellow, and obscures the view of the room, so I made a bunch of little windows around the rail.

[SilentRuin]

Neither do I. Any shape I use for the window - no splotch of any kind. Of course, if you hover over the shape in play mode you get the closed/open highlighted yellow shape, but that's just working like it's supposed to. I'm no pro on this, but I'd suggest for SilentRuin to update if they havan't or try to play around with extensions - maybe some of them could be messing with LOS and keeping it permanently highlighted. Or SilentRuin should contact the devs and consult them, maybe they have encountered this in development. That's my take on it.

All I can say is if you have an odd contour with big spacing the yellow highlight was on permanently. Got around it by using the square placement. This was a cliff circumventing a valley in a very large swath of my map. Since I have a work around - and nobody else can duplicate it - I'm just going to move on.

And a comment on the new lighting going to test first - not that anyone will pay attention but I feel it must be stated somewhere....

Extensions have bits of CoreRPG and other ruleset code inside them sometimes because they cannot be changed and still call the old version (should always try to do this but not always possible). The new lighting changes will change some of these bits. When TEST comes out the extensions will have to make sure their bits are updated with any new stuff. This only happens if people are paying attention and know to do this. So fair warning:

When TEST comes up with lighting I predict a bunch of regular users will get on and try to play with it. I predict they will leave their extensions turned on when they do this. I predict they will report a whole bunch - of what I like to call - extension spam bugs as if its the actual lighting code with the issue. So I'd like to say to the people who do pay attention, that the only VALID bug to report during TEST phase to FGU is if you have 0 extensions turned on. And if you do have 1 extension turned on to test the behavior with it - then you can report that to the person who wrote it and say that their extension is messing up the lighting because you tested it with it on and with it off to verify it. But gist is - you should be testing with 0 extensions on if your just a regular user playing around with it. Or you will create a wall of SPAM errors that slow things down immensely.

END SPEACHIFICATION TO THE FUTURE TEST LIGHTING USERS

[similarly]

All I can say is if you have an odd contour with big spacing the yellow highlight was on permanently. Got around it by using the square placement. This was a cliff circumventing a valley in a very large swath of my map. Since I have a work around - and nobody else can duplicate it - I'm just going to move on.

And a comment on the new lighting going to test first - not that anyone will pay attention but I feel it must be stated somewhere....

Extensions have bits of CoreRPG and other ruleset code inside them sometimes because they cannot be changed and still call the old version (should always try to do this but not always possible). The new lighting changes will change some of these bits. When TEST comes out the extensions will have to make sure their bits are updated with any new stuff. This only happens if people are paying attention and know to do this. So fair warning:

When TEST comes up with lighting I predict a bunch of regular users will get on and try to play with it. I predict they will leave their extensions turned on when they do this. I predict they will report a whole bunch - of what I like to call - extension spam bugs as if its the actual lighting code with the issue. So I'd like to say to the people who do pay attention, that the only VALID bug to report during TEST phase to FGU is if you have 0 extensions turned on. And if you do have 1 extension turned on to test the behavior with it - then you can report that to the person who wrote it and say that their extension is messing up the lighting because you tested it with it on and with it off to verify it. But gist is - you should be testing with 0 extensions on if your just a regular user playing around with it. Or you will create a wall of SPAM errors that slow things down immensely.

END SPEACHIFICATION TO THE FUTURE TEST LIGHTING USERS

Silent Ruin, that is a very valid point. I have a special campaign now called my "clean test campaign" and it's a campaign with no extensions turned on. I can easily test one at a time. I have a second test campaign with all the extensions turned on that I use for testing other things (or making tutorials for my group), but I would encourage everyone to always try FIRST with NO extensions running (and maybe turn off all unnecessary modules as well).

[Jiminimonka]

All I can say is if you have an odd contour with big spacing the yellow highlight was on permanently. Got around it by using the square placement. This was a cliff circumventing a valley in a very large swath of my map. Since I have a work around - and nobody else can duplicate it - I'm just going to move on.

And a comment on the new lighting going to test first - not that anyone will pay attention but I feel it must be stated somewhere....

Extensions have bits of CoreRPG and other ruleset code inside them sometimes because they cannot be changed and still call the old version (should always try to do this but not always possible). The new lighting changes will change some of these bits. When TEST comes out the extensions will have to make sure their bits are updated with any new stuff. This only happens if people are paying attention and know to do this. So fair warning:

When TEST comes up with lighting I predict a bunch of regular users will get on and try to play with it. I predict they will leave their extensions turned on when they do this. I predict they will report a whole bunch - of what I like to call - extension spam bugs as if its the actual lighting code with the issue. So I'd like to say to the people who do pay attention, that the only VALID bug to report during TEST phase to FGU is if you have 0 extensions turned on. And if you do have 1 extension turned on to test the behavior with it - then you can report that to the person who wrote it and say that their extension is messing up the lighting because you tested it with it on and with it off to verify it. But gist is - you should be testing with 0 extensions on if your just a regular user playing around with it. Or you will create a wall of SPAM errors that slow things down immensely.

END SPEACHIFICATION TO THE FUTURE TEST LIGHTING USERS

I predict that unless Smiteworks put a Pop Up window on FGU when they do a major update with a link to a forum post detailing the changes and that extensions need updating there will always be people reporting bugs that are not bugs and that most of FG users will not use the Test version because they would rather play their game and not corrupt their campaign data permanently.

[Nylanfs]

Well users ARE the bane of any developer's existence... :D

Video proof (https://twitter.com/sanjazakovska/status/1352557733787152389)

[SilentRuin]

Removed at request of JPG.

[GhoulHunter]

Sneaky :) I really like the lighting and my extensions seem unaffected in the superficial testing I've done - but just starting really.

But truly sneaky :)

Do you mean to say that the function already in testing? If so, how do I get my hands on it bro? :D

[Egheal]

Ok.

[SilentRuin]

Removed at request of JPG.

[Egheal]

Ok.

[SilentRuin]

Removed at request of JPG.