Images size & quality in Monsters of Multiverse module

[Valyar]

Since 80% of the games I run and play in are online, the quality and availability of visual content is quite important to keep high level of attention and immersion for many players. I have such players and all of them are also using Foundry, D&D Beyond and Roll20. I have been challenged lately on the quality of the images within the official Fantasy Grounds D&D products and some even expressed desire to switch to Foundry for better support of token animation and effects. All players expressed disappointment in the image size and visible artifacts, compared to the resources in D&D Beyond for example. I spend extra time to replace key images with better ones.

So, the question is - is the size and quality of images within MoM product on the same level as D&D Beyond, or there is resizing and compression that reduce the overall quality as in the old modules?

[ddavison]

Hello Valyar,

You can always check this out and submit a request for refund if you are dissatisfied with it. We applied a different approach to the images in this module that you can see on the screenshots on the store page and I think those are unique among the presentation on Roll20 and D&D Beyond. Foundry doesn't have any official content support for D&D, so that isn't anything to compare with for this module.

Here is an example using 4 of the images from the module and using it to build a scene.
https://www.fantasygrounds.com/images/screenshots/Screenshots/WOTC5EMPMOTM/MOTM_Build_and_modify_your_own_scenes_1.jpg

[Valyar]

Hi Doug,

Thanks for the quick reply. I have no intention to ask for refund, I only sorry I missed the sales of the old two modules that are now deprecated. :D

Looking more carefully at the screenshot, I see that you are now using .PNG files and retain the transparency, exactly as in D&D Beyond presentation. This is fantastic, I really like the approach and I definitely think it is the right one. And D&D Beyond is the tool I compare with.

Are the images same size as the originals (if I can say D&D Beyond is the "original"), or they are downsized if exceeding certain limits (less than 1000px wide and less than 700px tall if my memory serves me well?)

[ddavison]

PNG file sizes balloon very quickly, so I tried to keep them to no more than 800 pixels high for any images that got a PNG treatment. JPG files could have higher resolution but they would have a solid background.

The big difference is how our image tool allows the images to be used to make composite images, recolor, resize, scale, flip, etc. since they have transparent backgrounds.

I only have the Lost Mines of Phandelver and Acquisitions Inc on DDB, but unless I’m missing something, the monster images are all PNG files with backgrounds. Did they change this for newer products?

[Valyar]

All sources I have access to are using .PNG files, which are all core products. When you open images in the browser, it is not immediately visible, but once you download or copy-paste the image in Affinity Photo/Gimp/Photoshop, it pastes with the transparency layer in high resolution. VERY convenient.

[lostsanityreturned]

PNG file sizes balloon very quickly, so I tried to keep them to no more than 800 pixels high for any images that got a PNG treatment. JPG files could have higher resolution but they would have a solid background.

The big difference is how our image tool allows the images to be used to make composite images, recolor, resize, scale, flip, etc. since they have transparent backgrounds.

This is why people are using .webp files for VTTs like foundry. Smaller filesize than JPG, compression has less artifacts and it retains the channels of a PNG file including alpha.

e.g. the kobold warrior from the official foundry pf2e beginner box is 242KB, is 2000x2000 px and has no noticeable compression artifacts. A troll from the same product is 366 KB and 2700x2700 px. All with full transparency.


So, the question is - is the size and quality of images within MoM product on the same level as D&D Beyond, or there is resizing and compression that reduce the overall quality as in the old modules?

There is resizing, but the quality is much higher and it is PNG now where in the past they would use flattened jpgs with what I would guess was medium quality compression that resulted in a lot of artifacts. The images are now no longer tiny on a 4k screen, but also not as large as say the huge and high resolution images given with the official PF2e content on foundry (examples of them given in my prior response to Doug).

[Naurthoron]

This is why people are using .webp files for VTTs like foundry. Smaller filesize than JPG, compression has less artifacts and it retains the channels of a PNG file including alpha.


Don't forget the suggestions for feature updates:
https://fgapp.idea.informer.com/proj/?ia=135712

[jharp]

@Valyar - Just a FYI for modules that use PNGs rather than JPG. The Ultimate Bestiary: The Dreaded Accursed uses PNGs with transparency, so you can also layer these in the same way. https://www.fantasygrounds.com/store/product.php?id=NGFG5ENRG2002

These have some lossy compression done to them, but in my opinion are still far superior than the JPGs normally found in the FG modules.

Jason

[lostsanityreturned]

Don't forget the suggestions for feature updates:
https://fgapp.idea.informer.com/proj/?ia=135712

Already done my friend. Although I guess I could probably vote again given that my ip is different and I am on a mobile device lol.

It would be great to see FG come close to matching the resolution and quality found elsewhere. Whenever I run a 5e module I end up having to align a better quality map as a separate layer over the top of the one provided.

I showed the difference to my players last session and one joked "what difference, I can't see it because my eyes just went really blurry". Unfortunately the borders tend to be cropped differently or added to, so simply giving the artist's original map the same dimensions doesn't work.

[Nick Frost]

Related Request:

https://fgapp.idea.informer.com/proj/?ia=137527

Also the one linked by Naurthoron.

[BushViper]

@Valyar

I 100% agree that far, far too many FG conversions have complete trash for image quality and like yourself, I spend a stupid amount of time replacing fuzzy images with art/maps that are actually useable.

For people playing on highspeed internet (i.e. most folks), I generally do not understand the pearl clutching over keeping image size low because large (higher quality) images have has almost no impact on games whatsoever and I find the argument that it's necessary to keep the size of mod files "low" a complete copout to assist in masking performance/optimization issues with FGU. A single PC game can easily consume 50gigs of hard drive space, and my ENTIRE campaign folder is about 11gigs and that's with literally hundreds of mod files in it.

Furthermore, the concern people have about the file size of maps seriously baffles my mind. I don't know if it's because said people have been fed a bunch of bad information or it's because they're under the (false) understanding that image files in FGU are under the same restrictions that they were with FGC but, whatever it is, it's convinced a lot of people to believe that large images are apocolyptic.

However, I can absolutely assure you that unless you're playing on a potato they're fine.

I regularly use 4k battlemaps that are almost always larger than 100 megs and a few of them have been close to 300 megs. Zero problems. In the worst cases, it takes a few more seconds for the larger image files to load on my players machines, but that's the sum of the 'problems.'

Adding LoS and particularly lighting can (and do) cause performance issues, but it's more of an issue with those two features than image size because they can crush performance on tiny, low-res images.

[raif11152]

Do you ever feel (as I do) that you are sticking with this platform for the sole reason you have invested a couple thousand dollars in it and it's content? And not because its the best contemporary solution?

[Nick Frost]

Do you ever feel (as I do) that you are sticking with this platform for the sole reason you have invested a couple thousand dollars in it and it's content? And not because its the best contemporary solution?

No. It's still the best platform for two of my favourite rulesets. SWADE's implementation is superb, and DnD5e is quite good too (barring a couple hardcoded things/lack of flexibility). The GM's campaign organization tools are way better than the competition, and some of the paid modules are absolutely great, like Kobold Press' Mini Dungeon Tome.

I own a couple other famous "paid, non subscription based" VTTs and at this moment FG is the one better suited for my needs.

What irks me more than a little is seeing "non-official products" with better maps than the official ones.

[Naurthoron]

I concur, it depends on the game system. I use both FGU and Foundry depending on the game system / supported commercial products.

[Laerun]

This type of topic has been kicked around before. It can become somewhat toxic, opinionated, and often not factual.
There is NO arguing that some images look horrible, that is true, but when you know all or most of the contributing factors, it's NOT intentional or lazy. or such.

Most of the older modules, pre-FG Unity, have lower res images as they were created for Fantasy Grounds Classic.

There are still quite a few users that use older machines and have low bandwidth connections, especially regarding wi-fi connections. This is a reality, not another excuse or anything, but this often comes into play. Higher resolutions will be excellent if you have experienced users with decent machines, wired connections, and playing on the same continent. If you ever try to run a game at a convention or someplace where the lowest common denominator is not factored in, it can send some people away, regardless of the images. I ran three events online with 15 total users, 13 of them new to VTTs, all various types of setups and situations. Out of these 15, three people had issues with just the standard images, primarily due to lower spec machines, but the bandwidth factor was/is the biggest issue. I have a decent upload speed, but having faster, more significant, and newer machines did little to address bandwidth issues. Locally, it makes a difference, but transmitting the data worldwide is still limited by distance, wireless signal strength and consistency, ISP data throttling, and firewall or anti-virus issues. The ability to send and receive the files is more complex or constrained than creating and locally hosting images. Regarding image quality from the supplier or publishers and those that create the content, the file size and style guides are not always followed or considered. Not all third-party content has a publishing standard, but there is a guideline for devs and conversion contractors. It is in the hands of the conversion author if they decide to use higher quality images.

Regardless of the game, all platforms will have a visual and graphical memory cap.

Moving forward, once FGU is more optimized and moves further away from the legacy coding, this will open up the platform for better things and image quality amongst this.

I do not think or know that most VTT companies will go back retroactively to replace or swap out older images, relink and update older adventure books, etc. That process would be counterproductive and very time-consuming.
Nothing prevents a GM from importing and using his/her own graphical content to make the table experience more immersive and visually appealing. Unless the publisher demands that the platform do this, there is not very much incentive to do this. Also, the images really depend on the publisher and what they provide to Smiteworks in this case. The production standards at the time were limited by some factors.

Also, when comparing different platforms and rulesets, there are not so many easy ways to illustrate the truths and the actual differences without performing a ton of pointless 'told you so' videos, screenshots, and one-sided opinions.

Let's hope that as the FGU platform evolves, adding more medium to high-quality images can be used and implemented as time goes on. Most gameplay I have seen on Twitch or even in personal campaigns is not zoomed in enough to notice the differences unless one goes out of their way even to point this out. The online streams are limited to one's bandwidth and equipment as well.

Passive-aggressive comments and threats do not really help in these forums other than to create unnecessary drama and force the moderators to shut down the thread due to users piling on insults and opinionated comments with very few facts.

Actually, using the platform and having fun is preferable to just worrying about the value of older content that will likely not receive an overhaul just to look more fabulous.

In all fairness to Smiteworks and the production team, a more detailed example of the issues, the idea informer, and an email will do more to get these issues to be considered, not just ranting in a public forum or on Reddit. Email and service tickets are more accessible to track and address than random posts.
https://fantasygroundsunity.atlassian.net/servicedesk/customer/portals

[Laerun]

Do you ever feel (as I do) that you are sticking with this platform for the sole reason you have invested a couple of thousand dollars in it and its content? And not because it's the best contemporary solution?

Nope,
I honestly do not want to learn a whole other platform and have to go through more and other growing pains with other platforms. I also appreciate this community.

[esmdev]

Do you ever feel (as I do) that you are sticking with this platform for the sole reason you have invested a couple thousand dollars in it and it's content? And not because its the best contemporary solution?

I bought Foundry, the new official Beginner Box and Abomination Vault, installed some cool trendy modules, and my players made characters and we played a couple of four hour sessions. We really enjoyed the animations (from third party modules not official) and the sound (official built in) but generally agreed that the FGU implementation of PF2 was better and decided to continue the game in FGU. The built-in automation is considerably better and I like that out of the box FGU can directly apply damage to a monster without me having to get involved.

FGU is not perfect, my roommate struggled to setup his Magus when we switched over, but whenever I check out other options I generally come away feeling like I wasted my time.

I would like to see SmiteWorks leveraging Unity to integrate their own sound system and animation systems. It would certainly help them to appear as high tech as they actually are. Just to clarify, I think that FGU is generally more high tech in many ways than the newer VTTs, but in a world of animated spell effects and integrated sound along with customized maps for official product releases, they seem behind the times at a cursory (not detailed) comparison (which is often all people do).

[ShadowedHand]

I bought Foundry, the new official Beginner Box and Abomination Vault, installed some cool trendy modules, and my players made characters and we played a couple of four hour sessions. We really enjoyed the animations (from third party modules not official) and the sound (official built in) but generally agreed that the FGU implementation of PF2 was better and decided to continue the game in FGU. The built-in automation is considerably better and I like that out of the box FGU can directly apply damage to a monster without me having to get involved.

FGU is not perfect, my roommate struggled to setup his Magus when we switched over, but whenever I check out other options I generally come away feeling like I wasted my time.

I would like to see SmiteWorks leveraging Unity to integrate their own sound system and animation systems. It would certainly help them to appear as high tech as they actually are. Just to clarify, I think that FGU is generally more high tech in many ways than the newer VTTs, but in a world of animated spell effects and integrated sound along with customized maps for official product releases, they seem behind the times at a cursory (not detailed) comparison (which is often all people do).

I think it mostly hinges on where you are coming from which influences your expectations.

If you are a legacy PnP player, you tend to not sweat the lack of graphical "WOW" factor and appreciate the conveniences that FG provides.

If you started with FPS and other graphically heavy computer games and are just getting involved with VTT type gaming, it probably feels like something is lacking because "its on the computer".

Everyone needs to keep in mind that VTT gaming is in its infancy, and largely grass roots in nature. It may not be everything that everyone is expecting, but its only going to get better from here.

Now, if someone could only merge FG and the Neverwinter Nights engines....that would be grrreeaatt ;)