All my TEST server campaign lights just went to solid circles of light with update

[SilentRuin]

TEST just updated and all my fixed lighting just changed to solid circles of light even though they say there are flickering and have bright and dim areas - at least they did before now its just solid white light.

Actually that is all lighting I had previously defined is now solid circle of light.

[kevininrussia]

Same here


https://i.imgur.com/cOZLG6L.png

[Moon Wizard]

Do you see the same thing with newly defined lights? If not, what are the settings saying for the old light points?

JPG

[kevininrussia]

Do you see the same thing with newly defined lights? If not, what are the settings saying for the old light points?

JPG

I am seeing this with new lights too. Just tested

[kevininrussia]

New Torch light added

https://i.imgur.com/Zq53YsQ.png

[Moon Wizard]

I think what you are seeing is by design. Are you just talking about how the lights are a bit brighter overall?

Upon request, we brightened the fog-of-war. Therefore, as soon as lights are seen by a token, the FoW plus the light for each pixel is added together which means that it never got darker than the FoW anyway once seen by a token. In order to address the "dark rings" around lights within FoW, we adjusted the lights to fade to the FoW value, instead of zero.

While it is a little different aesthetically; it is more clear where bright and dim areas are; and prevents "bullseye" effects with lights within token FoW.

JPG

[Moon Wizard]

BTW, this is something we are still refining, so please consider this a discussion.

Regards,
JPG

[kevininrussia]

I was talking about the hard edge on the far light circle. Before there was a falloff. You can see the hard edge even where lights overlap.

[Moon Wizard]

It's because the lights fade to FoW color; as opposed to black. So, the "hard edge" is just because of the greater contrast.

JPG

[Kelrugem]

Hmm, I feel sorry to say this, but it is now too bright, I think :D I just tested, and the Fow is in 3.5e nearly indistinguishable from the darkvision. I first thought that it is a bug and that darkvision does not work anymore, but actually it is there, the FoW seems just to be nearly on the same level as darkvision :) So, when fighting in an area where the players already were (such that FoW appears), it is difficult to see whether something is in range of darkvision now, and maybe also with other visions and lights when they fall off to the FoW value (in case I understood that part correctly) :) (EDIT: though one can still measure things of course with pointers etc. :) and tokens change their visibility automatically if I understood correctly, so, maybe not as much of an issue than I think)

[kevininrussia]

It's because the lights fade to FoW color; as opposed to black. So, the "hard edge" is just because of the greater contrast.

JPG

Here is a room full of light and room has been viewed (no FoW). You can see the hard edge of the light.

https://i.imgur.com/ubs75XV.png

[kevininrussia]

Two overlapping lights. Room explored by token.

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

[Moon Wizard]

Yeah, @cpinder and I are talking about this a little now. I'm getting some pointers from him on what I can adjust in his code on this topic, since he will be out for a few days.

We're going to try falloff to zero with layer lights, but falloff to FoW value for token lights, to see how that looks.

Also, apparently, the FoW is too bright now, though I have a feeling that this is a very "subjective" setting. :)

JPG

[kevininrussia]

Also, apparently, the FoW is too bright now, though I have a feeling that this is a very "subjective" setting. :)

JPG

Maybe a slider so users can adjust it? I mention it as I have been victim of "a little brighter" "a little darker" in my VFX work :-)

[Moon Wizard]

We actually talked about adding a FoW setting as part of our brainstorming; but it's just an initial thought so no design has been done and we still need a default that works for "most everyone".

Regards,
JPG

[SilentRuin]

Yeah there is no contrast between bright and dim and 0 flicker. Just solid white circle of light. This is pretty bad.

It really varies between settings. Before it had some sort of blur at the boundaries of bright and dim and where dim faded out - which allowed you to see flicker. Now depending on background it can be completely hidden on some maps and not so hidden in others.

Also when two lights blend? Dim and dim does not equal bright. Dim and dim - should still be dim. Its not a combination effect - and now it appears to be somehow.

[Ludd_G]

I must agree that I feel the 2 issues at the moment, with the new implementation, are that lights seem to be additive which results in negating "fall-off", leading lights to have a hard edge at Bright and Dim boundaries. As SilentRuin said above, I'm not sure lights should be additive in terms of 2 x Dim results in Bright, but maybe that is the correct functionality in 5e? Doesn't seem right though. And also, whilst I think that FoW revealed areas are now, in my opinion, at a perfect level of visibility, it means that Dim light is too similar in terms of visibility (I'm unable to spot the boundary between to two to be honest). I'd love to see what the effect was of Dim visibility being placed exactly halfway between Bright and FoW?

It does feel like we're really getting there though, so thanks for all your work.

Oh, and I think candles are set up wrong? It should be 5 and 10 Bright/Dim but at present is set 0 and 5.

Cheers,

Simon

[kevininrussia]

We're going to try falloff to zero with layer lights, but falloff to FoW value for token lights, to see how that looks.

Also, apparently, the FoW is too bright now, though I have a feeling that this is a very "subjective" setting. :)

JPG

The image I posted earlier, the light source you can see the "hard edge" on is a Token Light. The room is fully explored so there should be no FoW, yet you can see the hard edge of the dim light. Maybe its the additive effect that is making the dim edge not fall off? Also the token light was flickering but now it expands and contracts. If there was a way to roll back the Test server like we can on Live I would do some comparisons of the lights and how they interact. I thought the lights were awesome in the previous build.

https://i.imgur.com/ubs75XV.png

[Griogre]

@JPG - you might be trying to do too much with greyscale variants. Have you considered just doing something like sepia for FOW, grayscale for dim/darkvision/bindsight and normal for full brightness? Another alternative for dim/FOW might be something like medium alpha, inverted colors (ie less garish photo negatives).

[SilentRuin]

Latest update just now still has the hard edges. In the end, it will be what it will be and I'll leave that up to you guys on what goes live.

[Moon Wizard]

I just pushed a new build that returns lights to fall-off to black; while leaving the FoW at the brighter scale.

Additionally, I found an issue with the intensity option added for Darkvision; so I disabled for this build as well.

Note, that the lights were always additive; but the minimum light amount was compounding. We are talking internally about what we might do differently for light overlap; but most of the discussion will have to wait until @cpinder is back next week.

Regards,
JPG

[Moon Wizard]

@SilentRuin,

There was a change in the far falloff computation; since it was incorrectly computing up until the release on 3/30. Try increasing the far falloff on all your lights to 50, instead of 25.

Regards,
JPG

[SilentRuin]

@SilentRuin,

There was a change in the far falloff computation; since it was incorrectly computing up until the release on 3/30. Try increasing the far falloff on all your lights to 50, instead of 25.

Regards,
JPG

Should I redefine all my lights? I mean I have a brazier at 7' bright 15' dim and 25 on both falloffs. I changed it to 50 falloff but the 15' hard circle was still there. Am I required to redefine all the lights and if so how do I get the blended ending to the light source at the limits? As it used to do. And a flicker of 84.

[Moon Wizard]

Here is a white light on a white background with 20/40 distances and 25/50 falloff values using the current build.
You can see the falloff heading to black at the edges.

Remember that if you have a token selected, that the token's FoW is considered, so the minimum value will be FoW for all regions within FoW for the token.

Regards,
JPG

[Moon Wizard]

Example with token selected.

JPG

[SilentRuin]

Example with token selected.

JPG

Yes that hard border you see in the circles was more blended and not so noticeable in the previous releases. That was what I was trying to avoid. I had a fuzzy blended ending to the outer circles on bright/dim/falloff. Now its a hard line just as in your pictures. If that is the way it is - then there is no real workaround I assume to get the blended transitions between bright/dim/falloff.

[Metlore]

I just wanted to provide my feedback. I really liked how it looked and functioned before the changes. My only complaint to the original system working as intended would be the fog of war of explored areas to be just a DASH lighter to allow me to get my bearings on maps easier without toggling the player view on and off. I felt like I had to squint to make out some details. I think the only way to make everyone happy is to eventually incorporate a slider but I totally agree about finding a good default setting. I do feel that it should look like you're walking around in a dungeons with a torch, and the high brightness and hard edges loses a lot of character and comes across like you're exploring with a modern LED military flashlight.

[SilentRuin]

I just wanted to provide my feedback. I really liked how it looked and functioned before the changes. My only complaint to the original system working as intended would be the fog of war of explored areas to be just a DASH lighter to allow me to get my bearings on maps easier without toggling the player view on and off. I felt like I had to squint to make out some details. I think the only way to make everyone happy is to eventually incorporate a slider but I totally agree about finding a good default setting. I do feel that it should look like you're walking around in a dungeons with a torch, and the high brightness and hard edges loses a lot of character and comes across like you're exploring with a modern LED military flashlight.

Exactly - the feel of a dungeon - not the feel of a spotlight in a Broadway musical :)

[Griogre]

I feel obligated to say I like this version better. Blending like prior is nice looking but not something in the rules, and while I'm not anti aesthetic, I don't like aesthetics overruling clarity. I would also like to point out Moon's example uses a very harsh almost white light and would look more natural in a warmer white.

I voiced my opinion, but I'm also good either way.

[Moon Wizard]

@SilentRuin/@Metlore,

So are you saying you want it to look more like the first picture in the last set I posted, even when tokens are selected?
In that case, you would end up with "dark rings" around lights next to token fog-of-war (due to lighter FoW). But, that is a option we're considering too.

Also, we have talked about aesthetics vs. clarity for vision/lighting a few times internally as well. While lights look aesthetically more pleasing when the falloff is spread out and the edges are blurrier; it also makes it hard to use mechanically within the game (because this is always about the game being played, not how it looks necessarily). If the GM/player can't tell exactly how far they can see, then it's not clear whether the player can "see" things within the game from a mechanical perspective.

These are all trade-offs we are making to try to find the best compromise of usability along with aesthetics.

Regards,
JPG

[SilentRuin]

@SilentRuin/@Metlore,

So are you saying you want it to look more like the first picture in the last set I posted, even when tokens are selected?
In that case, you would end up with "dark rings" around lights next to token fog-of-war (due to lighter FoW). But, that is a option we're considering too.

Also, we have talked about aesthetics vs. clarity for vision/lighting a few times internally as well. While lights look aesthetically more pleasing when the falloff is spread out and the edges are blurrier; it also makes it hard to use mechanically within the game (because this is always about the game being played, not how it looks necessarily). If the GM/player can't tell exactly how far they can see, then it's not clear whether the player can "see" things within the game from a mechanical perspective.

These are all trade-offs we are making to try to find the best compromise of usability along with aesthetics.

Regards,
JPG

Both look the same to me. Hard borders where a light variety ends. No soft feathering. Its different than the original version and the lights I was telling you about were not tokens - not that it makes a difference. Gist is the old version I did not notice the hard borders - even if they were there - now I do.

In the end, as I said, I just want lighting. Any lighting. So I have no qualms of using this regardless. Getting it to LIVE Is my priority. I'm assuming that most of the lighting issues I encountered (which I have workarounds for) are solved with this latest update but I won't know for sure till I try it this weekend in a live game (in TEST).

So I'm good to go. My preferences are for no hard borders (token, fixed, or selected token lighting) but I can easily live without it as long as it works.

[Metlore]

@SilentRuin/@Metlore,

So are you saying you want it to look more like the first picture in the last set I posted, even when tokens are selected?
In that case, you would end up with "dark rings" around lights next to token fog-of-war (due to lighter FoW). But, that is a option we're considering too.

Also, we have talked about aesthetics vs. clarity for vision/lighting a few times internally as well. While lights look aesthetically more pleasing when the falloff is spread out and the edges are blurrier; it also makes it hard to use mechanically within the game (because this is always about the game being played, not how it looks necessarily). If the GM/player can't tell exactly how far they can see, then it's not clear whether the player can "see" things within the game from a mechanical perspective.

These are all trade-offs we are making to try to find the best compromise of usability along with aesthetics.

Regards,
JPG

Yes. The first picture (clip 1) is better in my opinion. While I do agree with Griogre that clarity regarding the rules is important, I still think there can be a nice balance between aesthetics and clarity that make everyone happy. I feel that the first picture is better in achieving that balance. A good balance is why I do not like the idea of having the light be a smooth transition all the way from source to edge as others have suggested. It is nice to be able to discern the different light level areas but also have some mild blending. I find that the clarity in the first image is still plenty sufficient for rules while still appearing more natural. I'm sure there's still room for some tweaking either way as more feedback comes in. In my opinion, completely hard, defined borders are just too stark of a contrast and detract from the mood/imagination/spirit of the game.

[Ludd_G]

Just as an added data point for the discussion, and even though I was one of those asking for more visible FoW revealed areas, I really much prefer how it was a week ago, before the recent couple of rounds of tweaks, with almost invisible FoW revealed areas, but with much more aesthetically pleasing (and thematic) lighting. Whilst I know the fall-off could make it a little difficult to precisely spot where Bright moved to Dim moved to Darkness, I soon got to know to just add an extra grid square. And coming from no dynamic lighting, where it felt like the only way to keep things flowing was to generally handwave away vision distances, it was like night and day. So my vote (if this were indeed a voting situation) would be for more like it was than how it now is.

Oh, and candles are still wrong I think (0/5 rather than 5/10)

Cheers,

Simon

[kevininrussia]

Is it possible to roll back the test server to the previous build?

[SilentRuin]

Is it possible to roll back the test server to the previous build?

There are vital fixes in there so I'd vote NO.

[kevininrussia]

There are vital fixes in there so I'd vote NO.

I meant like how its possible on the Live server, a "Prev" function. Not the actual current Test build server.

So there is still the additive light deal thats happening. Also there is a strange happening around a door when its opened.

https://i.imgur.com/M2sDZXu.png

[Moon Wizard]

I've been doing a comparison of the 3/16 build behavior vs. the 3/31 build behavior; but ignoring the token fog-of-war brightening (which is a separate consideration). This is primarily @cpinder's area; so I'm just trying to cover while he is away.

It appears that the lighting is bright 100% and dim 25%; and that's the same for all versions. Also, it appears that the far falloff calculations in the 3/16 version were very wrong, and created a strange dark banded effect rather than a smooth gradient for the far falloff. The 3/31 build correctly performs the far falloff gradient.

As I mentioned above, this is without the FoW brightening that is currently happening, the lighting is where we expect it to be which is a trade-off between clarity and aesthetics.

If you want something darker on the edges, try increasing the far falloff value upwards (as high as 100%). This is the percentage of the dim ring that is included in the gradient when fading from dim color (25%) to black (0%).

I'll post some examples in a minute.

JPG

[wndrngdru]

I very much prefer the way the lights interacted before. Almost 100% of my lighting is atmospheric and this update pretty much destroys any sense of creepiness or wonder I may have been going for.
If a hard line viewing distance is needed, wouldn't setting the dim blend to 0 do that?

EDIT: Okay, with Moon's post above, as long as I am able to at least make it look like it mostly did before, I'll be happy. I sense a lot of light editing in my future... :D

[Moon Wizard]

Here are some examples:

Clip 1: Current defaults (25% falloff on bright, 50% falloff on dim)
Clip 2: Adjusted to 100% dim falloff
Clip 3: Adjusted to 100% bright and dim falloff

NOTE: Please remember this is done on a white background image for greatest contrast to see what is happening. On real maps, the contrast is not that high.

Regards,
JPG

[Moon Wizard]

@wndrngdru,

As I mentioned to SilentRuin, the behavior of the dim falloff for lights changed slightly, so light far falloff values will need to be adjusted. The calculations were all wrong before (for what they were supposed to represent). See my previous posts.

JPG

[Moon Wizard]

@Ludd_G,

Candles are 5/10 according to 5E rules. I just added the presets for other game systems, so this should be in there now. (i.e. 3.5E is 0/5)

Regards,
JPG

[kevininrussia]

Yes, 100% falloff on dim is the ticket. Gets rid of what looked like an additive effect.

https://i.imgur.com/8W2BFLB.png

[Moon Wizard]

@kevininrussia,

Yes, the light overlaps are an issue currently. I'm not as fluent in @cpinder's code; but I'll be looking at it or he'll fix when he's back next week.

JPG

[kevininrussia]

I noticed that with Enable Lighting active, Enable Line-of-sight active and Enable/Disable Player Vision Preview inactive I no longer see lights on the map as GM. When I Disable Line-of-sight then I see all the lights. Is that how its suppose to work? I forget how it worked before.

[Moon Wizard]

We were asked by @ddavison to make the display more visible for GMs during standard GM play to make placing encounters, viewing rooms, etc. easier. So, the overall display in various modes were generally brightened, while making the Player Preview more for the GM to be able to view what players are seeing.

Also, related to your light overlap observations. I think this was probably around for a while, but the bad dim falloff calculation probably obscured it. As I mentioned before, we plan to review this before release.

Regards,
JPG

[SilentRuin]

We were asked by @ddavison to make the display more visible for GMs during standard GM play to make placing encounters, viewing rooms, etc. easier. So, the overall display in various modes were generally brightened, while making the Player Preview more for the GM to be able to view what players are seeing.

Also, related to your light overlap observations. I think this was probably around for a while, but the bad dim falloff calculation probably obscured it. As I mentioned before, we plan to review this before release.

Regards,
JPG

The 50/100 falloffs work perfectly for the fixed lighting. Token lighting when it has a torch or other Effect - not sure how to get that to do the 50/100 as it only allows "LIGHT: 20 torch" type of thing. So the effects still have the hard border outlines.

[Moon Wizard]

The effects and APIs always use the default fall-off values for token lighting. No plans to change that. We may adjust the defaults some, depending on our discussion. It is unlikely that we would go as high as you are preferring, because of the whole aesthetics vs. mechanics discussion.

Regards,
JPG

[kevininrussia]

The effects and APIs always use the default fall-off values for token lighting. No plans to change that. We may adjust the defaults some, depending on our discussion. It is unlikely that we would go as high as you are preferring, because of the whole aesthetics vs. mechanics discussion.

Regards,
JPG

You mentioned earlier you wanted to keep the effects coding simple but it would be nice to be able to adjust the fall off value in the effect.

[Ludd_G]

@Ludd_G,

Candles are 5/10 according to 5E rules. I just added the presets for other game systems, so this should be in there now. (i.e. 3.5E is 0/5)

Regards,
JPG

Hi Moon,

yes, I agree, that's what I should be seeing in my testing 5e campaign, but candles are showing 0/5 not 5/10. I've just started a new clean 5e campaign in case something has got messed up with the ongoing test one, but again for me candles are still showing 0/5 not 5/10.

Is anyone else seeing this in 5e?

Cheers,

Simon

[HywelPhillips]

You mentioned earlier you wanted to keep the effects coding simple but it would be nice to be able to adjust the fall off value in the effect.

I concur. I'd very much like to be able to set fall off in the effect.

Cheers, Hywel

[Ulric]

The effects and APIs always use the default fall-off values for token lighting. No plans to change that. We may adjust the defaults some, depending on our discussion. It is unlikely that we would go as high as you are preferring, because of the whole aesthetics vs. mechanics discussion.

Regards,
JPG
I agree with the others that I would like the ability to set fall-off values for token lighting. I would not want to delay the release to the LIVE server to add this ability.

[Moon Wizard]

The API partially supports it (direct call, not presets); but I haven't figured out how I wanted to code that into effects yet. Also, per an internal request, I was going to look at building the lighting effects into the Effects window as buttons (similar to Conditions); but these would use the defaults.

Basically, the problem is that everyone has a different "subjective" opinion of how both various color levels and lighting effects should look. While creating a boatload of "options" in another whole window is always a possibility, it also creates a situation where everyone is different, and the consistency for users is not there. (Why does my light look so weak in GM X's game, it looks fine in GM Y's game?)

Regards,
JPG

[Kelrugem]

The API partially supports it (direct call, not presets); but I haven't figured out how I wanted to code that into effects yet. Also, per an internal request, I was going to look at building the lighting effects into the Effects window as buttons (similar to Conditions); but these would use the defaults.

Basically, the problem is that everyone has a different "subjective" opinion of how both various color levels and lighting effects should look. While creating a boatload of "options" in another whole window is always a possibility, it also creates a situation where everyone is different, and the consistency for users is not there. (Why does my light look so weak in GM X's game, it looks fine in GM Y's game?)

Regards,
JPG

Maybe a brave request: But would it be possible that the client defines the colours of presets etc.? May even increase accessibility in case their are problems with visibility for someone (like colour-blindness) :) At least those questions about why it looks different in different games may not arise :D (though some DMs may not want that the player can change how darkvision looks like; I personally would not care)

[Moon Wizard]

There are no APIs for that; and I'm not sure of the repercussions of changing presets mid-session would be. Currently, they are all pre-defined at the loading stage; so everything can be set up and prepared for the various UI elements.

Basically, a lot more API work; plus a lot of changes to make sure everything synchronizes. This is probably not something I'd want to do right now at any rate; since it would push things back.

Regards,
JPG

[SilentRuin]

There are no APIs for that; and I'm not sure of the repercussions of changing presets mid-session would be. Currently, they are all pre-defined at the loading stage; so everything can be set up and prepared for the various UI elements.

Basically, a lot more API work; plus a lot of changes to make sure everything synchronizes. This is probably not something I'd want to do right now at any rate; since it would push things back.

Regards,
JPG

LIVE is priority! ALL OTHER CONSIDERATIONS ARE MOOT! :)

[Kelrugem]

There are no APIs for that; and I'm not sure of the repercussions of changing presets mid-session would be. Currently, they are all pre-defined at the loading stage; so everything can be set up and prepared for the various UI elements.

Basically, a lot more API work; plus a lot of changes to make sure everything synchronizes. This is probably not something I'd want to do right now at any rate; since it would push things back.

Regards,
JPG

Yeah, makes sense, thanks :) Was first hoping for that Unity maybe already allows client settings for graphics like blur etc. and maybe then those, too :) (as in computer games; but I have honestly no idea how codes for such things look like and whether this is possible for vtts :D EDIT: That may have had also the advantage to adjust settings individually in case of performance issues, like the /vsynch macro)

[broodling123]

LIVE is priority! ALL OTHER CONSIDERATIONS ARE MOOT! :)

I'll second this. :) As much as I would love to be able to customize lighting and FoW presets, it's not worth a delay.

[damned]

I personally would have no issue with the light being flat circles.
25' circle at 100% (or even 90%)
50' circle at 25%

When circles overlap the brightest level only is used.

For me there is a trade off between realism and utility and utility always wins out for me.
(and simplicity usually trumps realism too!)

[Asmo]

For me there is a trade off between realism and utility and utility always wins out for me.
(and simplicity usually trumps realism too!)

This. And please release and develop from there on. My group is really hoping for the lighting release and besides that i'm also hoping that the rich text idea gets more votes ;-)

[Neovirtus]

I personally would have no issue with the light being flat circles.
25' circle at 100% (or even 90%)
50' circle at 25%

When circles overlap the brightest level only is used.

For me there is a trade off between realism and utility and utility always wins out for me.
(and simplicity usually trumps realism too!)

I agree that this sounds perfect. Would setting falloff to 0 for all light sources achieve the first part?

[Moon Wizard]

This is why I prefaced this thread as a discussion, instead of a firm position as to how things work. It's a very "subjective" scenario.

I've thrown damned's option into the mix for comparison, along with no falloff version. I personally like the current default because the edges are noticeable (for mechanical needs) but not too stark (nod to aesthetics).

Note, these images are not all exact same pixel size (since I was just freehand snipping), so don't compare relative sizes as much as appearance.

Regards,
JPG

[Ludd_G]

Hopefully your thoughts about the subjectivity of this maybe bode well for having a way to set our own presets up (in the long term obviously, in no way do I think this is something to delay release for! Arrgghhh! :) )

My choice would probably lean much more to the aesthetic end of the spectrum and fall somewhere between the 2nd and 3rd image.

For me if the various lights weren't additive I think the overall look would be much more as I envisage it (probably against the reality of physics but never mind!), I really find pause with the 2 x Dims making a Bright, and that seems to reinforce the artificial looking nature of lights crossing each other, even if it's technically (5e mechanically?) correct.

Anyway, just my thoughts. Really looking forward to getting this in front of my players!

Cheers,

Simon

[Griogre]

For me the clearest version on what is bright and what is dim is damned's (#5) version. However I like the 4th one's mixture of clarity and aesthetics where there is a hard line on the bright but diffusion towards the edge of dim. I don't mind the first one (current default) but it starts to seem a bit "busy" with both the bright and dim having falloff.

[Weissrolf]

My players prefer more clear-cut distinctions, because it is part of the game-mechanics (PF2). But a bit of gradations in between areas sure looks a bit nicer.

[Kelrugem]

Hmm, difficult to say for me honestly, I'd need to test it on maps and in gameplay, in order to see how it plays with maps and atmosphere :) I still think that two settings in the options setting a default falloff may be the best; yes, there is the confusion that users may not know why it looks different at different DMs but that is already the case for other options. Not sure whether this would really have that impact on support requests (but not really sure in that regard in general).

About the addition: I personally like that they're additive :)

[Ludd_G]

Ha-ha! It's like we're never going to please everyone at the same time! Who would've thunk it??! :D

[Griogre]

LOL, True but you can get impressions, and I do think it's clear that the middle one is all aesthetics and no game function and some version of the other 4 is likely best.

@Ludd G: FYI in 5E two dims are *not* additive and should be dim on overlap.

[SilentRuin]

Obviously I like 100/100 best but then all I care about is if the token "shows up" or not and don't know what all the "game function" talk is about as none of the "aesthetics" effect whether the player sees a token or not. For sure people who think that the light source will save them from drawing left/right mouse graphics to determine targeting are dreaming. It might save you a very small amount but really I have no idea what the "game function" here is in FGU 5E. Token seen. Token not seen. Targeting still has to be determined as trusting a light circle to do it for you is not really going to work very well.

In the end though there is only one consideration.


LIVE.

DO IT.

Do IT.

DOOOOO EEEEETT!!!!!

[Ludd_G]

That good to know about the Dims. Hopefully that can be reflected in the lighting implementation as to me it just doesn't look right at the moment.

[Kelrugem]

Obviously I like 100/100 best but then all I care about is if the token "shows up" or not and don't know what all the "game function" talk is about as none of the "aesthetics" effect whether the player sees a token or not. For sure people who think that the light source will save them from drawing left/right mouse graphics to determine targeting are dreaming. It might save you a very small amount but really I have no idea what the "game function" here is in FGU 5E. Token seen. Token not seen. Targeting still has to be determined as trusting a light circle to do it for you is not really going to work very well.

In the end though there is only one consideration.


LIVE.

DO IT.

Do IT.

DOOOOO EEEEETT!!!!!

Not sure about 5e, but 3.5e/PF1 has rules like total concealment in darkness but concealment in dim light, which is one reason why there is the argument about mechanics :)

[kevininrussia]

4e has concealment in dim light also. A light falloff of 50,100 shows the dim light zone fine for me.

My concern at the moment is performance. Not sure how many testers have tried a full game on the Test server but for us (6 players on a 5k map with 10 NPC tokens) FGU slowed, lagged and after 20 minutes became unresponsive.

[Griogre]

In 5E in dim light there is disadvantage to perception checks (effectively -5) which can have a big impact on whether the party is surprised or not. Being able to tell by inspection if the monsters are in dim or bright light before the encounter starts makes determining surprise easier.

[SilentRuin]

In 5E in dim light there is disadvantage to perception checks (effectively -5) which can have a big impact on whether the party is surprised or not. Being able to tell by inspection if the monsters are in dim or bright light before the encounter starts makes determining surprise easier.

This reminds me of players that think sneak and hide means "while in LOS". It doesn't :) At least for me. Dim light though I can see as doing the disadvantage of -5 - not something really worried about without the lighting - but your right it now is a thing. Good point.

[Metlore]

I think the default is the best one for a balance between the two camps of aesthetics and rules. It looks satisfying and it is also not hard to differentiate where the borders for each type of light are. Granted, I could see some people focusing on the wrong border, but this will quickly be learned by everyone after a dash of use.

[Lanu2000]

My concern is with the following:

I have two players that have explored the map (so no unseen areas within the white box).
They are positioned at K3 and C11 (so both about 7 squares from the white box).
Each are holding a torch, and the dim light circles overlapping are what's providing the light in D4, and partially lit boxes in C3, C4, and D3.
A1, A2, B1, and B2 are covered by the Fog of War, but look no basically indistinguishable from the DIM light in A4, B4, D1, and D2

https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=45388&d=1617402460

[Kelrugem]

I agree, the dim light is nearly indistinguishable from the fog of war now :) I had reported something similar with darkvision (and so we are back at too bright FoW, lol :D)

[Zarestia]

Just got a random map and got some hard fall off (this is just for brightness ...) light + dim light + fow explored done. Our pink buddy got teleported into a known, forest :)

These are simply two black (#000) layers over the normal picture. The explored FoW has an opacity of 80%, the dim light 60%.

https://i.imgur.com/xcaZ1Eb.jpg

This is of course totally simplified and does not reflect how FGU works...
What's the opinion? Too dark? Too bright?

[kevininrussia]

I agree, the dim light is nearly indistinguishable from the fog of war now :) I had reported something similar with darkvision (and so we are back at too bright FoW, lol :D)

How about a chat command like /fog 0-100. Then the user can define it themselves. But as was mentioned, still needs a default value.

[Griogre]

The biggest shading problem left, IMO, is differentiating dim light from previously explored areas. I think you need something that is more than just an alpha change: a unique color/shade like sepia, muted negative colors, only black and white - something.

[LordEntrails]

I personally like the current default because the edges are noticeable (for mechanical needs) but not too stark (nod to aesthetics).
This is my opinion/preference exactly :) And I believe is shown with image #1.

The mechanical distinction of bright vs dim is very important. Performance is very important. To me, aesthetics are less important :)

[Weissrolf]

GM token view 03-16:
https://i.imgur.com/WnMwCom.png

GM token view 03-31:
https://i.imgur.com/zJ7GU9U.png

Player token (pre)view 03-31:
https://i.imgur.com/zibpOSo.png

[Khoredran]

So, the solution to please everyone would be to have a Fog of War dimness slider and the dim light circle should be able to recognize that FoW color and automatically blend to the chosen shade of gray selected to avoid hard circles of light or darkness? Maybe the dim light could lighten up proportionally to the fog of war's brightness to adjust to the chosen shade.

Then a toggable option would be needed for dim light superposition since some people seems to think it's useful in certain rulesets?

[Weissrolf]

Personally I would just take the 03-16 GM view for both GM and players. It has distinctive gradations and everything you pay for is visible and discernable (like maps, lighting and CPU/GPU usage). I don't like hardware being (ab)used to either get a mostly black image or not being able to discern differences.

[eriktedesco]

Personally I would just take the 03-16 GM view for both GM and players. It has distinctive gradations and everything you pay for is visible and discernable (like maps, lighting and CPU/GPU usage). I don't like hardware being (ab)used to either get a mostly black image or not being able to discern differences.

Hi all, just my two cents...

I agree with Weissrolf. As of now, the difference between dim light and FOW is truly negligible and yesterday I has to "fight" with my players for that. Sure, FGU automatically shows the exposed tokens but, visually speaking, the previous version was way better.

Hope it will be possible to switch back to the previous version.

Oh...happy easter to everyone!

[Weissrolf]

I did not like the previous version's player view, though, where FoW was just black on black. I would prefer the previous GM view to be available to both GM and players alike. No use in wasting GPU/CPU cycles to either see nothing or see no distinction.

[adminwheel3]

I think a sepia tone for FOW areas as Griogre had mentioned is well worth trying.

I believe I've seen that effect in past computer games, where a previously revealed area becomes more like a hand-drawn map (ie. sepia in this case) once that area of the map is no longer being viewed live.

[anathemort]

I think a sepia tone for FOW areas as Griogre had mentioned is well worth trying.

Agreed, I think sepia would look slick.

[Weissrolf]

I used Sepia to cover a mining pit that the PCs knew was there from descriptions (including rough layout), but didn't personally look into yet. Fit quite well.