Animated Maps

[Pigger]

Just curious if Smiteworks is exploring availability to use Animated Maps, i.e, Dungeon Alchemist?

[LordEntrails]

Last I heard, no. They have FX animations native in the FG mapping tool. I suspect incorporating other image type (to support external animated maps) is a bigger challenge, because I suspect if it was simple they would have already done it.

[WinterSoldier7]

There's a popular request for this on the Wish List; https://fgapp.idea.informer.com/proj/?ia=135366

Doesn't mean it's possible or in the pipeline, but you can obviously vote and discuss here.

[Rylan Storm]

Is FGU the only VTT that doesn't suppport animated maps now?

[LordEntrails]

Given that there are several dozen VTTs, I doubt it. But how many of those VTTs actually allow you to created animated map effects in the VTT mapping tool itself?

[celestian]

Given that there are several dozen VTTs, I doubt it. But how many of those VTTs actually allow you to created animated map effects in the VTT mapping tool itself?

If you mean can they drop tiled animated images, at least a few I am aware of. If you mean literally create animated images in the VTT, none and im not sure why'd you want to. VTT should be a VTT, I don't want my VTT to turn into a complex map making tool. I let tools that are focused on mapping like Dungeon Draft or Campaign Cartographer take care of that.

IMO.

[Rylan Storm]

I'm totally with you on that. It feels like a lot of effort went into a part of the product that very few DMs are using, at the expense of features that lots of people, DMs and players alike, need or would appreciate.

It doesn't come close to the functionality afforded by dedicated map making tools, especially considering a lot of those tools now export XML to import LoS and lighting detail into FGU.

And, what those apps are all now moving towards? .webm animated maps.

[damned]

You can however still take a beautiful third party map and a running water effect on the river to one section and some rain to the outdoor sections etc. it is quite a nice touch. I have never used FG to make maps either.

[Agamon]

I would really love to see .webm support. Every other wishlist item is comparatively orbiting out past Pluto for me.

[Rylan Storm]

You can however still take a beautiful third party map and a running water effect on the river to one section and some rain to the outdoor sections etc. it is quite a nice touch. I have never used FG to make maps either.

I do this. I also add a layer of fog marked off near a campfire to imitate smoke. Unfortunately, it doesn't come close to the most basic of animated maps.

[Lo Zeno]

You can however still take a beautiful third party map and a running water effect on the river to one section and some rain to the outdoor sections etc. it is quite a nice touch. I have never used FG to make maps either.

I do this quite often when I play using FGU; another thing I do is add a rain effect with a strong intensity to show a storm, but unfortunately I can't make the trees on the map move and bend with the wind like in many beautiful animated maps I use in other VTTs.
Do I need itto be able to play? Hell no. Would it make my games more awesome? Hell yes.

[LordEntrails]

I do this quite often when I play using FGU; another thing I do is add a rain effect with a strong intensity to show a storm, but unfortunately I can't make the trees on the map move and bend with the wind like in many beautiful animated maps I use in other VTTs.
Do I need itto be able to play? Hell no. Would it make my games more awesome? Hell yes.
Try applying an ocean FX to the trees.

[Lo Zeno]

Try applying an ocean FX to the trees.

I've done that, and I've applied the water effect too - it's the closest I can get, but it's still... watery.

Thing is, it's still just a workaround: there's only so many effects that FGU can apply to an area of a map, while a map that is built as an animated picture by an artist can show animations that are simply not feasible in FGU.
An example: I have a sewers map purchased from a map maker that I use in 2 games, one is a Dishonored 2d20 run on another VTT, and one is a Cyberpunk RED game on FGU. On the other VTT I use the animated version which shows drops of liquid dripping from the pipes, ripples of water where those drops fall, gusts of steam blowing at regular intervals from other pipes at the entrance of the enemies' lair to represent "the trap", rats peeking out of their holes then running towards another hole (in a 45 seconds loop); on FGU, I use the static version, which lacks all these visual niceties - some of those I could replicate partially by applying carefully masked water effects, but the drops falling and the steam gusts and the rats there's just no way. Plus, even the effects that I could somehow replicate take a long time to apply.

Obviously it doesn't prevent my group from playing Cyberpunk RED on FGU - the ruleset implementation on FGU is so good that using the other VTT is simply not a good choice; but animations on a map do improve the player's immersion in the game, create involvement, and keep the players' attention high (if that was not the case then FGU wouldn't even have the set of animations it provides), and as has been said, there are already better map-making tools than FGU, yet FGU can't import the best results from those tools and insists instead on having its own subset of map-making features.

[Mytherus]

I agree. I’m not slamming FGUs effects so I don’t want people, especially employees of smiteworks, to think I’m ripping on the system for the sake of it.

However my mind is a little blown when someone says , in a context of playing online …in front of a computer screen…on a vtt…”I don’t get the big deal people want with visuals like animated maps …that doesn’t make your rpg good”.

Wait what? I can see the argument if you are playing an in person game maybe. Because the immersion is heightened a bit automatically by the fact you are physically there. Facial expressions, emotions , heck you can act out stuff by getting out of your chair and doing so..plus you have miniatures, 3D maps with terrain etc

When I’m playing over a vtt I want all the eye candy , sound effects and general “pop “ I can have to add to immersion.

It does not mean you use it all the time but I want the tools and ability to do so at certain story moments.

That’s why I’ll never take anyone serious who says “just do theatre of the mind” or “animated maps aren’t needed’ and we are talking strictly about playing online with a vtt. More so if your players aren’t on camera.

[LordEntrails]

I agree. I’m not slamming FGUs effects so I don’t want people, especially employees of smiteworks, to think I’m ripping on the system for the sake of it.

However my mind is a little blown when someone says , in a context of playing online …in front of a computer screen…on a vtt…”I don’t get the big deal people want with visuals like animated maps …that doesn’t make your rpg good”.

Wait what? I can see the argument if you are playing an in person game maybe. Because the immersion is heightened a bit automatically by the fact you are physically there. Facial expressions, emotions , heck you can act out stuff by getting out of your chair and doing so..plus you have miniatures, 3D maps with terrain etc

When I’m playing over a vtt I want all the eye candy , sound effects and general “pop “ I can have to add to immersion.

It does not mean you use it all the time but I want the tools and ability to do so at certain story moments.

That’s why I’ll never take anyone serious who says “just do theatre of the mind” or “animated maps aren’t needed’ and we are talking strictly about playing online with a vtt. More so if your players aren’t on camera.
Different people have different desires. Don't dismiss others just because their viewpoint is not yours. Think how easy it would be for someone else to write exactly opposite of what you did, and therefore dismiss your desires as not serious.

Both views, and everything in between, are valid and serious.

[celestian]

Different people have different desires. Don't dismiss others just because their viewpoint is not yours. Think how easy it would be for someone else to write exactly opposite of what you did, and therefore dismiss your desires as not serious.

Both views, and everything in between, are valid and serious.

While people have different viewpoints, it is important to recognize that not all viewpoints are equally valid or deserving of consideration. Perspectives may be based on flawed assumptions and misinformation or bias. Telling someone they dont need something is a flawed assumption.

[Lo Zeno]

Different people have different desires. Don't dismiss others just because their viewpoint is not yours. Think how easy it would be for someone else to write exactly opposite of what you did, and therefore dismiss your desires as not serious.

Both views, and everything in between, are valid and serious.

I beg to differ (for this specific case, because in general I agree with you).
Here one view is: "When I’m playing over a vtt I want all the eye candy , sound effects and general “pop “ I can have to add to immersion"
And the other is: "You don't need animated maps" (sometimes adding "just do theatre of the mind instead")
One view expresses something a person need, another "view" tries to tell someone else that they don't actually know what they need, essentially. In this case, no, the two views are not both equally valid - especially because view n.1 is expressing a desire for an option (animated maps) that would not stop anyone from using only static maps and/or theatre of the mind if they have no desire for it, while view n.2 is effectively dismissing the validity of the first viewpoint.

[Mytherus]

Different people have different desires. Don't dismiss others just because their viewpoint is not yours. Think how easy it would be for someone else to write exactly opposite of what you did, and therefore dismiss your desires as not serious.

Both views, and everything in between, are valid and serious.

Of course all this goes without saying, But I'm expressing my opinion just as others have. I'll always do so. That's me.

[YAKO SOMEDAKY]

I don't know if this has already been said, but animated maps created or imported from other "platforms" would be interesting, but would soon stop being used, I saw this happen in other tables that I participated in that had support for animated maps and animated tokens, but they were difficult to find and then the people gave up I think it's more interesting improvements in sound, light and vision... allowing to control its direction like a flashlight to put muffled music behind a wall, allowing the token to see only in the direction that look and not 360º, I would invest in improvements for high ground...but of course this is just opinion.

[LordEntrails]

While people have different viewpoints, it is important to recognize that not all viewpoints are equally valid or deserving of consideration. Perspectives may be based on flawed assumptions and misinformation or bias. Telling someone they dont need something is a flawed assumption.
Agreed. And telling someone that you can't take their view seriously because they do not want something is also not valid.


I beg to differ (for this specific case, because in general I agree with you).
Here one view is: "When I’m playing over a vtt I want all the eye candy , sound effects and general “pop “ I can have to add to immersion"
And the other is: "You don't need animated maps" (sometimes adding "just do theatre of the mind instead")
One view expresses something a person need, another "view" tries to tell someone else that they don't actually know what they need, essentially. In this case, no, the two views are not both equally valid - especially because view n.1 is expressing a desire for an option (animated maps) that would not stop anyone from using only static maps and/or theatre of the mind if they have no desire for it, while view n.2 is effectively dismissing the validity of the first viewpoint.
Agreed, and telling someone that does not want something that their view is not serious or invalid is not acceptable. Note, I know I have not actually said that wanting animated maps is not a real or valid request. I think it's a great idea and have voted for it on the Idea Informer. I just don't feel it is near the top of my list for enhancements.


Of course all this goes without saying, But I'm expressing my opinion just as others have. I'll always do so. That's me.
And I'm pushing back because you implied you could not take seriously someone who did not want animated maps. That comes across as a dismissal of those with a view different than yours. I think that was just a poor expression of your viewpoint.

[Agamon]

I don't know if this has already been said, but animated maps created or imported from other "platforms" would be interesting, but would soon stop being used, I saw this happen in other tables that I participated in that had support for animated maps and animated tokens, but they were difficult to find and then the people gave up I think it's more interesting improvements in sound, light and vision... allowing to control its direction like a flashlight to put muffled music behind a wall, allowing the token to see only in the direction that look and not 360º, I would invest in improvements for high ground...but of course this is just opinion.

Hard to find? Like the OP stated, you can make your own with Dungeon Alchemist. I already make all my battle maps in DA, I just export the still shot of them because there's no .webm support yet in FGU. And 3rd party maps are becoming a lot easier to find now that a lot of VTTs support them.

[YAKO SOMEDAKY]

I said that about animated maps and animated tokens, referring to Foundry because it supports this since the beta version, at the time there was no Dungeon Alchemist and I don't know of any tool that creates animated tokens (if you know, could you indicate?). I know that Dungeons Alchemist allows you to create maps that can be imported into Fantasy Grounds with lights and LoS, but now be honest do you prefer that feature or improvements in LoS on the platform, improvements in sound, being able to do everything locally and create a greater immersion, improvements in vision, where even if it's daytime and you're a human, you won't see as well when looking at the distant horizon, improvements where an effect is above the token causing the real difficulty of fighting in a place full of smoke (this is just an example ), but most importantly, do you prefer animated maps or stop dropping out of games even if you have a machine and a good connection, do you prefer animated maps or stop being frozen until everyone joins the game table... I prefer what I mentioned, especially stability...yes I want animation...but FGU isn't ready for that yet and we all know that, but I think one day it will be...with FG I learned to be patient because some things take time, but they happen at the but I hope I have not been rude to anyone because this community and forum are amazing!

[Lo Zeno]

I don't know if this has already been said, but animated maps created or imported from other "platforms" would be interesting, but would soon stop being used, I saw this happen in other tables that I participated in that had support for animated maps and animated tokens, but they were difficult to find and then the people gave up I think it's more interesting improvements in sound, light and vision... allowing to control its direction like a flashlight to put muffled music behind a wall, allowing the token to see only in the direction that look and not 360º, I would invest in improvements for high ground...but of course this is just opinion.

It's definitely not my experience: I've been using animated maps for years, since it was first possible in both Roll20 and Foundry, and I spend a fair amount of time applying animation layers on Fantasy Grounds for my games. Some of the players in my groups run games themselves, and when they use a VTT that supports it they definitely use animated maps. I concede that I don't use animated maps 100% of the time in an adventure: not every exploration or battle needs the extra atmosphere, so it's closer to 30% of the maps I use, also in most cases I need to pay an artist to get one done (because free ones are indeed difficult to find as you said); but (within my circle of TTRPG acquaintances) they've never stopped being used.

[Lo Zeno]

I said that about animated maps and animated tokens, referring to Foundry because it supports this since the beta version, at the time there was no Dungeon Alchemist and I don't know of any tool that creates animated tokens (if you know, could you indicate?). I know that Dungeons Alchemist allows you to create maps that can be imported into Fantasy Grounds with lights and LoS, but now be honest do you prefer that feature or improvements in LoS on the platform, improvements in sound, being able to do everything locally and create a greater immersion, improvements in vision, where even if it's daytime and you're a human, you won't see as well when looking at the distant horizon, improvements where an effect is above the token causing the real difficulty of fighting in a place full of smoke (this is just an example ), but most importantly, do you prefer animated maps or stop dropping out of games even if you have a machine and a good connection, do you prefer animated maps or stop being frozen until everyone joins the game table... I prefer what I mentioned, especially stability...yes I want animation...but FGU isn't ready for that yet and we all know that, but I think one day it will be...with FG I learned to be patient because some things take time, but they happen at the but I hope I have not been rude to anyone because this community and forum are amazing!

If I have to be honest, I'd still prefer to see animated maps in FGU before everything you wrote, because the LOS as it's implemented in FGU right now is good enough for 99% of my games; I prefer animated maps over "improvements in sounds" because FGU does not support sounds at all at the moment and that would require a whole platform of support to be created first, while I can run my games satisfactorily using Syrinscape.
As for the stability: you're talking like it's an either/or situation, like we can't get new features while they improve the existing ones or fix bugs - that's not at all how software development works. If that was the case then SmiteWorks wouldn't have rolled out any LOS feature at all because they would have still been working on the stability (the issues you list exist since before the LOS feature was first introduced), and they wouldn't be working RIGHT NOW on the First Person Perspective/Theater Of The Mind feature that they showcased: the fact that they ARE working on new features means that they have capacity to allocate some working resources to stability improvements and notices, and some resources to new features. And that's standard, in software development.

[Nylanfs]

In my mind it's more of a cost benefit ratio,

[YAKO SOMEDAKY]

Lo Zeno It was perfect your explanation! I'm happy to have answered everything I mentioned, I don't know how the bottom alchemist dungeons works, because when I saw the animated maps through the Foundry they were amazing, they were a scenario with a waterfall and even had the sound of falling water, it was Amazing and this map with all the master's care to create the occlusors especially the unidirectional ones who gave us the advantage of being on high terrain (something they wanted to learn to do in the FGU), the sound of the muffled songs behind the passage of the fall of the Water, the humans of the group terrified for seeing nothing right and with immense fear of creating any source of light gave a mood of fear and terror that the master wanted ... I was amazing!It is indeed the animated map will be amazing!
He is about to vote for Idea informer, right?

[celestian]

Agreed. And telling someone that you can't take their view seriously because they do not want something is also not valid.


That was not said and is a bad take on the entire conversation.

[damned]

That was not said and is a bad take on the entire conversation.

Pretty much those exact words were used.

[LordEntrails]

That was not said and is a bad take on the entire conversation.
You and I don't communicate well. Don't know the reason, but this topic is not important enough to me to spend what energy I have tonight to work on it. Maybe another day.

[celestian]

Pretty much those exact words were used.

I can assure you I never did. The quote was you can't take anyone seriously telling you you dont need something because they don't think you need it. Anyone asking for animated feature set asked for it, people told them they didnt need it. If there is some confusion on that then hopefully that cleared it up.

[damned]

You are correct - you didnt say it but it was said in this thread. If you check the post you were replying to you can see that he is quoting multiple people in the response.

[celestian]

You are correct - you didnt say it but it was said in this thread. If you check the post you were replying to you can see that he is quoting multiple people in the response.

He quoted my message and made his statement there, below my quote.

I'm not going to go back through every single post and re-read to find what he might/might not be talking about at this point but the quote "And telling someone that you can't take their view seriously because they do not want something is also not valid." is not what I said nor is it what the bulk of anyone asking for Animated support here is saying. The problem clearly is that there are people telling others they dont need a feature, that is the problem. This is objectively not a "both sides" situation. It's an exhausting and pedantic discussion and the only reason I responded was because it was a moderator.

[damned]

I can see why you read it that way - it makes sense, he was replying back to you. I read it that he was replying back to what you said about viewpoints and someone else dismissing viewpoints. The original quote he referred to was:
That’s why I’ll never take anyone serious who says “just do theatre of the mind” or “animated maps aren’t needed’ and we are talking strictly about playing online with a vtt. More so if your players aren’t on camera. and in that context his reply also makes sense.

I dont think anyone could disagree that animated maps are cool. Similarly it is highly likely that everyone in this thread prioritises all their wishlist items differently to each other.

[adminwheel3]

I don't post much, but I've been using Fantasy Grounds for nearly 15 years, so you could say I have some sunk costs.

Even so, the ongoing lack of 3rd party animated map support (.webm or .mp4) will likely be what eventually pushes me to another platform.

I don't want or need my VTT to be a computer game and I've always felt that FG best captures the feel of being at the table, but there are animated maps available through 3rd parties which go far, far, beyond a flickering light source or layers of snowfall without detracting from the tabletop feel.

Ultimately, what I want most of all is a straight answer on if this is even on the production roadmap, but I can understand why that's not likely to happen. "Yes we could do it, but given the time and effort involved it's unlikely to see release before 2025" is a little demotivational.

[Rylan Storm]

I don't post much, but I've been using Fantasy Grounds for nearly 15 years, so you could say I have some sunk costs.

Even so, the ongoing lack of 3rd party animated map support (.webm or .mp4) will likely be what eventually pushes me to another platform.

I don't want or need my VTT to be a computer game and I've always felt that FG best captures the feel of being at the table, but there are animated maps available through 3rd parties which go far, far, beyond a flickering light source or layers of snowfall without detracting from the tabletop feel.

Ultimately, what I want most of all is a straight answer on if this is even on the production roadmap, but I can understand why that's not likely to happen. "Yes we could do it, but given the time and effort involved it's unlikely to see release before 2025" is a little demotivational.

I'm in a similar boat but it won't be the lack of animated map support that will push me to another platform. It will be that the general attitude with those other platforms seems to be more positive. It's more along the lines of "That's a cool idea. Let's see what we can do" as opposed to Fantasy Grounds "You don't need X in a VTT" which seems inherently negative.

If only there was a way where we could capture peoples ideas and we could all vote on them and then the developers could work out what is a priority instead of people on the forums telling us what we do and don't need.

[Temmpest]

This has just been my experience, so please don't jump all over me for my opinion. I have recently been playing a PF2 campaign on Foundry. And there's no denying, the animated maps and special effects from attacks are pretty. However, I have found FGU to be much more stable and functional. We've already canceled two weekly sessions because the DM couldn't get Foundry to work right. He's not sure what the issue is. With FGU, if there's an issue, I can post it in the forums and within a week or less, it's resolved. And any problems we've experienced on FGU have never led to having to cancel a session. Again, this is just one person's experience.

[Trenloe]

I'll admit I would like to see animated maps, or at least animated token support - to add things like fires to a map. I recently played a game on another VTT (GMs choice, not mine) and one of the PCs drank a potion of gaseous form. The GM quickly changed their token to a small roiling mist shape, which was a nice touch. Is it "needed" and vital for the game - of course not. Was it cool and did I think "I wish FG could do that" - yes!

As mentioned in an earlier post, there's an item in the FG wishlist that you can vote on: https://fgapp.idea.informer.com/proj/?ia=135366 I've voted!

[Pigger]

Wow, never expected all the response this thread has generated and I appreciate everyone's feedback, opinions, etc. Each of us has our own perspective which is great! Bottom line is all I was looking for was if anyone knew if there was a possibility of animated maps at some point being integrated into FG as I recently started using Dungeon Alchemist to generate some of my own maps and there are some cool features in it. Seems it's not on the immediate future so will continue without it for the time being. FG still is an awesome VTT that I prefer over others. Thanks again everyone for weighing in and educating me on the subject!

[Zacchaeus]

I'm pretty sure animated maps - or at least webm support - is on the devs wishlist as well. One thing to bear in mind is that FGU isn't a web app so cannot tap into the already existing libraries which allows animated maps to play in a browser like other VTT's; so getting that kind of functionality will require a ground up especially written interface and programming. With a small development team and with at least two major projects currently under development resources are probably not available in the short term. But that's not to say it won't arrive one day.

I'm on the same page as Trenloe here; sure it would be cool, but I don't see it as a necessity; and I'm happy to wait for it over other ( I hesitate to say) more useful features.

[Lo Zeno]

I'm on the same page as Trenloe here; sure it would be cool, but I don't see it as a necessity

I am not trying to diminish Zacchaeus words here, I quote his words only because he's the last one who wrote this kind of words ("it would be cool, but I don't see it as a necessity"):
Most of the people who replied to this thread have been pretty reasonable and balanced in their opinion, but there's a trend that often pops out in other parts of the forum (which has been mentioned) to disregard any discussion for possible improvements as "it's not necessary" or "it's not needed". When we use these words, we should always remember one thing: FGU (and any other VTT as well) wasn't made because of a necessity, but because it was a cool idea. We don't need FGU to play online, we can still play with any multi-call software (Discord, Skype, whatever), a free online canvas software or Discord's screenshare to share maps, sketches, or whatever the master wants, and physical dice, online dice rollers, Discord bots...
We use VTT applications because it makes playing RPGs online with other people 1- easier and 2- cooler. So if anything makes us say "yeah, that would be cool!" then it is enough motivation to pursue support from SmiteWorks for that idea. Dismissal because "it's not necessary" should be avoided because, well... VTTs are not a necessity at all.

[Temmpest]

I am not trying to diminish Zacchaeus words here, I quote his words only because he's the last one who wrote this kind of words ("it would be cool, but I don't see it as a necessity"):
Most of the people who replied to this thread have been pretty reasonable and balanced in their opinion, but there's a trend that often pops out in other parts of the forum (which has been mentioned) to disregard any discussion for possible improvements as "it's not necessary" or "it's not needed". When we use these words, we should always remember one thing: FGU (and any other VTT as well) wasn't made because of a necessity, but because it was a cool idea. We don't need FGU to play online, we can still play with any multi-call software (Discord, Skype, whatever), a free online canvas software or Discord's screenshare to share maps, sketches, or whatever the master wants, and physical dice, online dice rollers, Discord bots...
We use VTT applications because it makes playing RPGs online with other people 1- easier and 2- cooler. So if anything makes us say "yeah, that would be cool!" then it is enough motivation to pursue support from SmiteWorks for that idea. Dismissal because "it's not necessary" should be avoided because, well... VTTs are not a necessity at all.

I have to disagree with this statement. VTT are absolutely needed if I want to play D&D 5e. I live in NV and I play with a group from England and players from NY, AZ, and FL. This would not be possible without a VTT.

[Lo Zeno]

I have to disagree with this statement. VTT are absolutely needed if I want to play D&D 5e. I live in NV and I play with a group from England and players from NY, AZ, and FL. This would not be possible without a VTT.

I play D&D with friends from Ohio and Italy, and I live in UK. Before using any VTT, we were playing with Discord and Sketch.io - it is absolutely possible. I didn't write what I wrote out of my *** but out of my experience.

[Temmpest]

I play D&D with friends from Ohio and Italy, and I live in UK. Before using any VTT, we were playing with Discord and Sketch.io - it is absolutely possible. I didn't write what I wrote out of my *** but out of my experience.

If you read what I wrote I said "VTT are absolutely needed if I want to play." I was referring to myself. I need a VTT. If you don't need it, that's great for you. But I love FGU and Smiteworks. The software is incredible and their customer service is absolutely the best of any company I have ever dealt with.

[Zacchaeus]

My comment was that I don't see animated maps as a necessity. That does not mean that I am saying that anyone else shouldn't see it as a necessity or as a desired feature; nor is it a negative comment. I'm merely stating a personal view. This thread, like many others, reflect the wide range of things that people will see as must have or needed features and equally features that people see as not needed or unnecessary. No-one is saying here that you must think the same thing as anyone else, and I'm pretty sure that the devs are keenly aware of the number of people who would like animated maps since it is very high on the wishlist.

[viviolay]

Wanting animated maps is a very valid desire and I thank OP for bringing it up. I would love to see that eventually as well - even if a DM doesn't make it themselves, there's been patreons that release video maps for years now - so it definitely has its audience.

OP, in the interim, you can achieve some cool things with the animated effects FG does have atm (I can simulate wavy water by overlaying one of the effects on a still map with water). You can use clouds + a still of a horse carriage to make it appear the horse it moving.
It's not the same - but just offering an alternative for now.

I just wanted to share that I think it's a good idea and something I'm gonna hope for too :)

EDIT to ADD: I see others mentioned effects - so my bad on bringing it up again. I don't want OP or others voicing this are being dismissed when mentioning effects. I offer it as a "for now" type of thing, not a "we don't need this" statement. Cause again, animated maps would be really cool! I just wanted to be sure that was clear - as I know how frustrating it can be to not feel heard.

[Lo Zeno]

My comment was that I don't see animated maps as a necessity. That does not mean that I am saying that anyone else shouldn't see it as a necessity or as a desired feature; nor is it a negative comment. I'm merely stating a personal view. This thread, like many others, reflect the wide range of things that people will see as must have or needed features and equally features that people see as not needed or unnecessary. No-one is saying here that you must think the same thing as anyone else, and I'm pretty sure that the devs are keenly aware of the number of people who would like animated maps since it is very high on the wishlist.
Zaccheus, as I said my reply was not a direct reply to you, I used your words only as an example to explain why talking about anything at all "necessary" is not a good approach.
But see below:

If you read what I wrote I said "VTT are absolutely needed if I want to play." I was referring to myself. I need a VTT. If you don't need it, that's great for you. But I love FGU and Smiteworks. The software is incredible and their customer service is absolutely the best of any company I have ever dealt with.

...and that's exactly what I was talking about, thank you for making my point stronger.
When something is necessary it means that it's indispensable, unavoidable, to perform a task. People have been playing D&D online without the use of any kind of VTT basically since the dawn of the internet and they still do to this day, that proves that there is no such thing as necessary when talking about VTTs.
It's a problem of language, but for something to be necessary it means that its absence is a show stopper. A game breaking thing. A no-way-for-no-one to play. Each time someone makes a distinction on what they feel it's necessary in a VTT and what is not, they are 1- making a false point by shifting to a personal feeling and 2- making a disservice to their own point that they are trying to make by rendering the concept of "necessity" basically a synonym of "it is my personal preference".
A VTT is not necessary, but it's a huge step up in quality for online games - one can be absolutely unwilling to degrade the experience of the game, and refuse to play with anything but a VTT (or a specific VTT due to features, rulesets or other details) because without it the effort is not worth the result, and that's 100% a totally valid sentiment to which personally I can get behind, it still does not mean that the VTT platform is necessary to play D&D, because as long as there is people who can play without it, it's just not necessary.
The same argument applies to specific features: no feature is necessary, because each feature is a nice-to-have improvement over the experience of playing without it. For example, is LOS necessary? Fantasy Grounds Classic didn't have any LOS functionality but we have played with it just fine for years. You can make the same argument for every feature, from specific automations to the upcoming first person view.
If we used a more honest language and admitted that we just have some bloody preferences of some features over others, instead of pretending that there is anything at all out there that's necessary, we would at least have some more positive discussions instead of the constant, annoying, repetitive and frankly at this point really old dismissal of everyone else's words. THIS is why other communities give off a more positive vibe when discussing potential new features.

[Temmpest]

Again, I need a VTT. I would not be playing D&D online without it.

[Agamon]

I like how FGU works now. Nothing added from this point on seems like a necessity, in my opinion. But as for what would really add to the experience, animated maps would be great. The map effects already on FGU are great, I use them whenever I can, but webm support would be next level.

[SmackDaddy]

Absolutely would love animated (webp) map support as a DM, so many mappers now are going to that file type and it's a standard now, I understand there is mixed opinions, but, I, for one, think SW should get in on this standard in FGU!

[Rylan Storm]

Man....we all got so heated for a feature that was well on the way to being implemented.

[Zacchaeus]

Man....we all got so heated for a feature that was well on the way to being implemented.

Indeed. But even the other Devs didn't know Carl was working secretly on making it happen.

[Mytherus]

Man....we all got so heated for a feature that was well on the way to being implemented.

Truth! I’m too lazy to scroll back but if it wasn’t in this thread it was another I got a bit “passionate “ on the topic as well. And bam now we have animated maps. Apologies if I got a bit “rammy” as my mom would say when I was a kid.

[Lo Zeno]

Truth! I’m too lazy to scroll back but if it wasn’t in this thread it was another I got a bit “passionate “ on the topic as well. And bam now we have animated maps. Apologies if I got a bit “rammy” as my mom would say when I was a kid.

The discussion got heated because people had a strong interest in this feature. I'm sure that seeing this discussion heat up helped SmiteWorks see how much interest was actually there for animated maps in FGU.

[Laerun]

The discussion got heated because people had a strong interest in this feature. I'm sure that seeing this discussion heat up helped Smite Works see how much interest was actually there for animated maps in FGU.

And when we do get other features, a new set of challenges arise. However, it is really cool to have animated content. I don't think most of us realized initially that the Unity Engine does not natively support codec VP9. I think the word is finally spreading now and we are getting used to all of the changes and meeting the challenges as a community and a team. Some of the artists and creators are creating for Web Based VTTs and VP9 would be supported on those more web-based platforms, as well as audio and sound, etc.

Good times.
Laerun

[Pigger]

As the originator of this thread I appreciate all the feedback, opinions, etc! As with all things, there is a process and as Laerun mentions with change come other challanges and with animated maps it’s the case where FGU is using VP8 format and Dungeon Alchemist exports in the VP9 format. I don’t claim to know the intricacies of the formats but now that we all know about it I’m sure the great community we have, along with FG will figure something out at some point. Main thing is….at this point in time, Smiteworks is giving us some animated options and that is fantastic! Much appreciated and Thanks all!