First-Person View Mode for 2024

[ddavison]

Happy New Year!

The year 2023 for us was a down year for us, but a year of big investments. Our team has been working on several cool features and we are close to releasing one of these major features - First Person View.

How does First-Person View work in a world of 2D flat RPGs?

The best thing I can do is show you two small sneak peek videos I put together. The first is from the D&D Dragonlance module. It shows an encampment and the occupants that the players would face within. The 2D map of the area is provided within the module and placed at the feet of the players, complete with rendered line of sight, lighting effects, and even special Fx layers. The NPCs all use the provided art from the book and these are rendered as transparent stand-ups that face towards the camera. They are scaled relative to other creatures and positioned in a way that makes sense. The result is a sort of psuedo-3d environment that allows players to look around (up, down, behind, etc.), target foes and move within this space.

Jg8YyH0LbLw

This second video is from the Fallout 2d20 ruleset. This ruleset has been lighter on maps in general, but it has great NPC artwork we can tap into. We plan to support all rulesets with this new mode.

-l_GWmMTcWA

Is this going to be time-consuming to set up?

We don't think so. We plan to work with internal community developers and module developers to prepare the art from the books to have transparent backgrounds and all the necessary metadata that is needed to properly scale and position everything in first-person view. When that is done, you simply click on the view mode to toggle between 2D and 3D modes.

What if I don't use a map at all? Will this support theater of the mind style play?

Yes! This was my original impetus for developing the mode. In planning for that, it turned out that it also supports modules that already have good maps. In some ways this made it more complicated, and in other ways it made it easier. We plan to support it with additional features that let you quickly generate a scene with some NPCs and players in it when you don't have a map at all. Essentially, these automation functions will build a quick and basic map by painting some graphics on the map floor and auto-positioning NPCs and players to save GM time.

Can I still use 2D mode if I don't like this feature?

Sure. There is a toggle to switch modes. For now, we are undecided if we want the GM to control that toggle exclusively or if we want it to be a per-user toggle. Testing and feedback from our community will help us make that determination.

What are some other future plans for this feature?

We want to support props, terrain, and other objects rendered into the 3D space that are not NPCs. We still need to finalize the UI and data retention for these objects, but it is on our roadmap.

We also want to start looking (probably much later in 2024) into other 3D assets. Perhaps we can allow for full 3D content, walls that extend up from the floor, 3d special Fx, and maybe more.

[ddavison]

Sorry for the repost, but I wanted to restart this conversation in a more centralized space with some more context surrounding it's release.

[spoonhead]

How will you ensure it’s not a memory hog bearing in mind the current FG build can slow down in game pretty quickly with a few assets on the map.

[ddavison]

Drawing images, even in 3D space is very easy for Unity 3D to do. Any sluggishness you are experiencing within FGU in the current version is most likely related to all the implementations of RPG rules calculations to determine LOS and visibility within the 2D space. Work on improving and optimizing that will continue separate from here, but will benefit both modes. This will also have a toggle option, so you will be able to stay in 2D mode if you prefer. We suspect you won't see any difference in performance between the two modes.

[LordEntrails]

Very nice! Initially (as of an hour ago) I was thinking this wasn't going to be much of a use case for me. But I'm thinking it just might be more fun than I was thinking.

To comment a little; I do think it should be a per player mode toggle. Some folks are going to have distinctly different preferences and if the calculations are done locally, independent modes would not tax the server/host with any additional computations. I can imagine a lot of challenges around LOS, but I'm sure you will explore and address those are you get there. Good luck ;)

[Zacchaeus]

I like it!

[Tooting Dog]

I'm curious to see how creatures in-flight would appear

[LordEntrails]

I'm curious to see how creatures in-flight would appear
Good question! I assume any token with an elevation would be shown an appropriate distance above the base image. Not sure what would happen with negative heights :O Or if their would be some sort of shadow, silver string, or tether to indicate where on the base image they are above.

[HywelPhillips]

I'd put my penny's worth in for this being a per-user toggle as well.

I don't think I will like it as the GM, for example - I think I will want to have the complete overview as I do now.

But as a player I might want the greater immersion that it brings, and I might want it in some situations and not in others. NPC conversations at a party - brilliant, will bring an almost visual-novel like sensibility to those scenes and a big improvement on a flat map with a big grid and consequently big tokens as now. Being the barbarian stuck into an intense combat - great. Being more of an area control/buff/commander character - probably would favour the ability to have the 2D top-down overview especially in combat.

There's a human being brain processing power limit at work as well as Unity's rendering and I can see it being quite different for different use cases and configurations, too. Some of my players play via a laptop in a hotel room sometimes and for these people screen real estate is at a desperate premium - I just don't think they will have the real estate to make the 2.5D a pleasant experience. They need to be able to see where they are and navigate and target foes efficiently with as little on-screen information as possible, because pixels are precious. Whereas some of us are on multiple monitors and can devote a large number of pixels to appreciate the immersion, and the hell with efficient transmission of information.

If it is at all feasible to do from a performance point of view, I really think there are many reasons why one might want to allow this to be per-user; the only one I can really see as valid for it not to be is so the GM controls the view and synchronises when everyone switches. But there's a good reason why we don't lock all players viewport on the map to the GM's view, and I think this is just an extension of that. Each player is going to have different needs - and different preferences - for what they look at through the course of the game. So I don't see much sense in locking them into the 2.5D mode. Or, more to the point, locking them out of 2.5D mode if that's what they prefer because I as the GM want to be having the traditional top-down map view where I can see everything, including the hidden foes behind the doors and stuff that's in the darkness and so on.

Cheers, Hywel

[ddavison]

I'm curious to see how creatures in-flight would appear

Our meta-data has an option to define the floor space and an offset. For flyers, we make them "float". Elevation will also move them up or down.

[ddavison]

I'd put my penny's worth in for this being a per-user toggle as well.

I don't think I will like it as the GM, for example - I think I will want to have the complete overview as I do now.

But as a player I might want the greater immersion that it brings, and I might want it in some situations and not in others. NPC conversations at a party - brilliant, will bring an almost visual-novel like sensibility to those scenes and a big improvement on a flat map with a big grid and consequently big tokens as now. Being the barbarian stuck into an intense combat - great. Being more of an area control/buff/commander character - probably would favour the ability to have the 2D top-down overview especially in combat.

There's a human being brain processing power limit at work as well as Unity's rendering and I can see it being quite different for different use cases and configurations, too. Some of my players play via a laptop in a hotel room sometimes and for these people screen real estate is at a desperate premium - I just don't think they will have the real estate to make the 2.5D a pleasant experience. They need to be able to see where they are and navigate and target foes efficiently with as little on-screen information as possible, because pixels are precious. Whereas some of us are on multiple monitors and can devote a large number of pixels to appreciate the immersion, and the hell with efficient transmission of information.

If it is at all feasible to do from a performance point of view, I really think there are many reasons why one might want to allow this to be per-user; the only one I can really see as valid for it not to be is so the GM controls the view and synchronises when everyone switches. But there's a good reason why we don't lock all players viewport on the map to the GM's view, and I think this is just an extension of that. Each player is going to have different needs - and different preferences - for what they look at through the course of the game. So I don't see much sense in locking them into the 2.5D mode. Or, more to the point, locking them out of 2.5D mode if that's what they prefer because I as the GM want to be having the traditional top-down map view where I can see everything, including the hidden foes behind the doors and stuff that's in the darkness and so on.

Cheers, Hywel

This is very similar to our internal discussions and why we built it to be a per-user toggle in our first iteration. Some of the other ruleset level changes we are working on will also reduce the need for some other windows that players have typically needed to leave open in the past, such as the Combat Tracker.

[Valyar]

What is the performance impact of this new feature? I have harder and harder time to convince people to run Unity and performance is one of the reasons.

[Trenloe]

What is the performance impact of this new feature? I have harder and harder time to convince people to run Unity and performance is one of the reasons.
Refer to post #4.

[ddavison]

What is the performance impact of this new feature? I have harder and harder time to convince people to run Unity and performance is one of the reasons.

Addressed this in posts on the first page.

Typical recommendations apply, keep maps within recommended guidelines and draw LOS with as few segments as possible. Don't run 134 active extensions and 500+ modules like a user who sent in a support request over the weekend. Out of the box with FGU and provided content, we expect performance to be good. User-created content and community dev extensions are up to the user to manage and determine how they work within their system, and that of the players.

[rocketvaultgames]

This certainly seems interesting and I'm hoping I can find use cases for it.

I recommend robust options for this.

GM can have the feature show as an available option for GM only/GM and Players/None (to prevent accidental toggles when if no plans to be used)
GM toggle force player view to 2D (on/off) (per map basis) (and global basis??)
GM toggle force player view to 3D (on/off) (per map basis) (and global basis??)

Assuming not actually going full 3D models for everything.... it could be neat to have an elevation assigned to each layer of an image. This would allow "stacking" flat images and specifying the space between floors.

Maybe player view defaults to whatever elevation their token is on but view can be shifted up/down.

For example in the layers panel, each layer would have an elevation field.

Example based on 5' square grid:

(100) Ambient Light - Sunlight
(40) Rooftop
(37) Hanging Chandelier (lighting effect)
(30) 3rd Floor Map
(20) 2nd Floor Map
(10) 1st Floor Map
(00) Ground Floor Map
(-10) Basement Map


Maybe a toggle to "flip" a flat image in the 3D space (to create the ceiling that is the bottom of a floor)

[Tooting Dog]

Any videos of how this looks in a room or hallway? Do you see walls?

[johnecc]

Only videos so far are the ones in the first post. No terrain, ie walls etc, have been shown.

[Trenloe]

Any videos of how this looks in a room or hallway? Do you see walls?
Walls are a "perhaps" in the future. See the last paragraph of post #1.

[ddavison]

Currently walls are simply drawn on the floor. If a wall blocks your LOS, then you only see up to the wall on the floor. It will be black beyond that point.

[Mavrik6666]

As we are right at the beggining of '24 any peek at when in the year we will get this ?

[ddavison]

We are shooting for Q1 into the Test channel, assuming we can get a few key camera controls set up by then.

[fabiocm]

This will be really interesting. I'm surely make good use.

The rocketvaultgames is a good idea (https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?79976-First-Person-View-Mode-for-2024&p=705114&viewfull=1#post705114) that does not look to complicated.

Assuming not actually going full 3D models for everything.... it could be neat to have an elevation assigned to each layer of an image. This would allow "stacking" flat images and specifying the space between floors.

Also, for future rendering of the terrain, maybe a normal map instead of a complete 3d rendering would suffice. I guess this would add some shadows and make the appearance better without the need of a full 3D texture.

[cas206]

Why not both? The DM should have the ability to control this feature in their game. I would like a DM master switch to turn the feature on/off and then a Player switch so they work with their preferred view, if enabled.

[Moon Wizard]

Our current thinking is to let the user decide how they want to view the map (whether top-down or camera-based) using a toggle to let them change their view mode. I'm not sure what is gained by having a toggle that forces a view mode, since the actual graphics/data displayed on the image are the same in both view modes, just displayed slightly differently. (i.e. same tokens visible, same line-of-sight/lighting, same pointers visible, etc.) Plus, it would require extra time to develop the feature and APIs to drive forced view modes. This would not be a major project, but not trivial either. Most likely, initially, we will not do forced view modes, and focus on individual user control of their own view mode preference.

Regards,
JPG

[rocketvaultgames]

Makes sense. I just wanted to throw it out there to maybe keep that avenue open for the future without inadvertently making it hard/impossible down the road.

My thinking was it might be helpful for the GM to with 1 click have every player see the same 3d view and then revert to each player's previous view.

I still think it would be beneficial upfront to be able to activate/deactivate this feature completely for all players from the GM's side.

[Moon Wizard]

What is the advantage of having the GM be able to force block the feature for players completely?
Also, one of the complications is that then we have to have a global toggle as well as an individual image toggle for forcing.

Regards,
JPG

[rocketvaultgames]

My thought is that if the GM doesn't want the 3d view to be available, the players won't ask about it, and the players/gm won't accidentally click on it if it isn't there.

There are times when FGU lags (autosave, or other reasons) and a mouse click is registered in an unintended location. This would be one less thing to click inadvertently or clutter limited real estate if it wasn't planned on being used.

There have been a few time's I've toggled off LOS mid-session having no intention to do so, revealing the whole map.

Definitely not crucial, maybe not worth developing, but I wanted to mention it.

Thanks for all you do!

[Patou]

I guess props and objects on the map to be viewed in 3D ( like a token) would have to have the same properties (PNG files if that is the format your using)? A tree token, for example. This looks great by the way!

[ddavison]

I guess props and objects on the map to be viewed in 3D ( like a token) would have to have the same properties (PNG files if that is the format your using)? A tree token, for example. This looks great by the way!

webp would be better than PNG, but yes, that would be the plan. This is what I did in early prototypes built outside of FGU. I used some of the trees and bushes and stuff that Josh Watmough has in our art packs and I thought they really added a lot.

[Patou]

Very Cool! I found that it did add a lot and gave the viewer a sense of perspective and depth. There is a lot one can do with this. Options are many!

[mattcaron]

You know what would be cool? If we could import arbitrary STLs of the type that I print on my resin printer, paint, and use on my physical tabletop....

[Shlazzargh]

Whether the GM has a force view ability or not, I'm thinking that it would be good to have some indicator or icon that shows which view each player is using. I could definitely see cases where I'd need to describe a situation/combat/trap slightly differently depending on if the player is in 2D or 2.5D mode. Maybe each player's portrait could be rendered like it would be in the 2.5D view? Or have some sort of icon on it?

Also, out of curiosity, will there be any lighting effects on the NPCs/items/etc in the 2.5D view? Thanks!

[rocketvaultgames]

Agreed on the indicator. Maybe it's just a slight alteration to the mini-portraits on any given image being viewed by players. A bold color stroke or a semi-transparent "3D" over the portrait.

[fabiocm]

The switch could be something like the "lock token" button combined with the sync view. The GM sync view to bring every player to the same perspective, then he could "lock" the view, otherwise any player can just see as he wants.

[Desmodaeus]

The switch could be something like the "lock token" button combined with the sync view. The GM sync view to bring every player to the same perspective, then he could "lock" the view, otherwise any player can just see as he wants.

Agreed on showing the view, and I also second having the DM be able to choose whether or not players get to switch views. There are times when I can see wanting a certain map to be viewed by my players in a particular way for immersion/atmosphere which would otherwise be experienced differently than I intended.

[Felderburg]

What if I don't use a map at all? Will this support theater of the mind style play?

Yes! This was my original impetus for developing the mode.

I guess my question there is... why/how would this 3d mode support theater of the mind?

---

I'm generally 'meh' about this feature, it doesn't seem necessary, but I guess folks that are excited about it can use it.

[Zacchaeus]

I guess my question there is... why/how would this 3d mode support theater of the mind?

---

I'm generally 'meh' about this feature, it doesn't seem necessary, but I guess folks that are excited about it can use it.

Any map or any mode would support theatre of the mind - since by it's nature no map is required. As you can probably see from the videos in the first post it can show creatures and players in a 2.5d environment which would visually enhance any theatre of the mind experience.

[Patou]

I think that if you as a DM wish to share for example a 2.5D scene being able to view whatever scene you as the DM are currently looking at and then clicking "bring the character to scene button" on the map wether it is in 2D or 2.5D would be the same as it currently is... No?

Then if you could lock that scene so it stays present until you the DM are done with your explanation of the scene you could unlock it. At which point the players can view whatever as they were..

[ddavison]

I think it will see good use in much the same way people show the actors in a visual novel.

[Pharoid]

Its going to be really nice for subsector maps, space range maps and stuff with planets and ships. This might be the first time I actually make a test environment once it hits test. :-) cool stuff.

[8bitjunkie]

I think it will see good use in much the same way people show the actors in a visual novel.

If alignment and perspective was the correct viewing angle; you could almost create a layered pop-up book effect.

[anstett]

Very fun idea, create a walk through pop-up book for theater of the mind story telling type of session.

[ddavison]

Here is a new one showing some Transformers and GI Joe NPCs next to each other. Transformers should be launching soon. GI Joe is in production.

ahCGHJackuM

[rocketvaultgames]

It just struck me... This feature really reminds me of Menzoberranzan from SSI (1994).

[ddavison]

It just struck me... This feature really reminds me of Menzoberranzan from SSI (1994).

It is a very similar technique - old school method with sprites. 2D images are what we have the most available from the various publishers, so we want to capitalize on that. We might play around with some other shaders and lighting effects to tighten it up further.

[ddavison]

For your viewing pleasure. She's a Brick.... House.

Q62O6YLQziQ

[Zacchaeus]

For your viewing pleasure. She's a Brick.... House.

Q62O6YLQziQ

Too much time on your hands :)

[Patou]

Hi Doug and company.. I was wondering, what determines the background. In the Gi Joe video everything is black. I guess this is determined by the lighting setting?

[Zacchaeus]

Hi Dave and company.. I was wondering, what determines the background. In the Gi Joe video everything is black. I guess this is determined by the lighting setting?

Lighting and Line of sight. And his name is Doug :)

[Patou]

Thanks Zacchaeus

Name corrected! My bad. Sorry Doug.. crazy morning!

[ddavison]

No worries. The 3D background is always black at this point, but we plan to add a skybox option in the future.

[Blackwolfe]

out of the few things I'd love to see added, this isn't even close. *sigh*
How about being able to lock down all windows?
How about support for multiple monitors?
How about printable character sheets?

[Zacchaeus]

out of the few things I'd love to see added, this isn't even close. *sigh*
How about being able to lock down all windows?
How about support for multiple monitors?
How about printable character sheets?
Add your suggestions (or vote for existing suggestions) on the wish list. I think all of the things you mention are there already.

[ddavison]

We made a printable character sheet tool as an external app, but it doesn’t seem super popular and as a result, integrating it into FGU never bubbled to the top of the list. It is still available and modifiable by end users.

Multiple monitors has a number of challenges for any implementation, especially as our app uses a lot of drag and drop functionality. Doing that across application boundaries on Windows, Mac, and Linux would be tough, on top of supporting multiple displays in an efficiency manner.

This feature is something that has the highest chance of bringing in an entirely new customer base while also providing a new experience for existing users.

[Blackwolfe]

Add your suggestions (or vote for existing suggestions) on the wish list. I think all of the things you mention are there already.

Yep they are and have been for years. Kind of My point. Many great things from the wish list have been added. Many more that have been there for years have not.
Wouldn't a lock for all windows in FGU would be a lot easier to code then 3d rendering?
Is anyone really looking at the wish list when deciding what to spend Smiteworks' very limited resources on? Or is someone just worried about competing with other VTTs?
Don't bother answering that, at this point I'm sure I'm just complaining to the wind. *L

[ddavison]

It is helpful and we often reference the perceived popularity of requests when weighing whether or not to prioritize things. Ultimately, stuff that we want to do internally often take priority, but even some of those sit for years before we can get to them.

[Jim1829]

Is there a recommended resolution for these Camera tokens? I saw that using webp was recommended over png, but I am making (testing it) my own, and I'm curious about how big is too big, and how small is too small, independent of the machine on which it is viewed.

Thanks, in advance.

[ddavison]

Our guidelines recommend 1000px or less in any dimension.

[Zacchaeus]

Is there a recommended resolution for these Camera tokens? I saw that using webp was recommended over png, but I am making (testing it) my own, and I'm curious about how big is too big, and how small is too small, independent of the machine on which it is viewed.

Thanks, in advance.

Generally for official content I make images (except maps) 800px tall for portrait images or 1000px wide for landscape.

[alloowishus]

Our meta-data has an option to define the floor space and an offset. For flyers, we make them "float". Elevation will also move them up or down.

Is there a tutorial out there on how to define floor space and an offest? Ideally it would be nice if walls and doors would appear in 3D automatically since this is pretty generic.

[LordEntrails]

Is there a tutorial out there on how to define floor space and an offest? Ideally it would be nice if walls and doors would appear in 3D automatically since this is pretty generic.
One of these two videos:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoWtA-9_psA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eudlt8L0T00

But it's only for PC and NPCs. Walls and doors are not yet able to be done this way (unless you make NPCs for them).

[ddavison]

We don't recommend making NPCs for terrain, objects, etc. NPCs have a lot of extra baggage associate with them and we will undoubtedly come up with a dedicated object type to manage these kinds of assets in the future.

[fabiocm]

We don't recommend making NPCs for terrain, objects, etc. NPCs have a lot of extra baggage associate with them and we will undoubtedly come up with a dedicated object type to manage these kinds of assets in the future.

Good news! Are this too far down on the roadmap?

[Moon Wizard]

Priorities are re-examined after every big release and we generally don't comment on roadmap because the internal roadmap changes as business needs change. For example, we were working on the 2.5D view early last year, but decided to put it on hold to do animated image support before returning to 2.5D.

Regards,
JPG

[woodscanner]

Can we change token height?
I've watched the video, but I'm not sure if he is doing something I'm missing, or if it isn't implemented yet :-)

[ddavison]

Can we change token height?
I've watched the video, but I'm not sure if he is doing something I'm missing, or if it isn't implemented yet :-)


Yes, hold ALT and then mouse wheel up or down over the token base.

[woodscanner]

Thank you!

[Blackwolfe]

The NPC's have two tokens, one for top down and one for 3d. I do not see that for the PCs. Am I missing it? Is it shown in one of the video? (which?) Is this not a feature yet?

[LordEntrails]

The NPC's have two tokens, one for top down and one for 3d. I do not see that for the PCs. Am I missing it? Is it shown in one of the video? (which?) Is this not a feature yet?
I think it only shows for the GM and not for the players (or the otherway?)

[Blackwolfe]

I think it only shows for the GM and not for the players (or the otherway?)


I am the DM.. so.. IF there isn't a way for the DM to access that's going to be another problem on My list, as I build custom tokens for all players.

[Blackwolfe]

I think it only shows for the GM and not for the players (or the otherway?)

I'm only seeing it on player side

[LordEntrails]

I think I remember Moon saying they are looking to change that.

[Zacchaeus]

The NPC's have two tokens, one for top down and one for 3d. I do not see that for the PCs. Am I missing it? Is it shown in one of the video? (which?) Is this not a feature yet?

Clicking on the player token or portrait area brings up the Pictures and Tokens window. If you aren't seeing this then it may be an extension which is causing the issue. You don't mention the ruleset you are using so it may be that. This works for both DM and players by the way.

[Blackwolfe]

I'm generally 'meh' about this feature, it doesn't seem necessary, but I guess folks that are excited about it can use it.

There's a feeling of "they keep breaking our game" at our table. Can't blame My players for feeling that way.
We use FGU live in person with a table mounted flat screen and real minis, no one in our group wants this new feature.
I'm just hoping to get to a place where everything works without missing images and error messages, with the mods I've paid for. *L*
Smiteworks, Please do not abandon 2D.

[HywelPhillips]

There's a feeling of "they keep breaking our game" at our table.

There's some truth in that, but in my experience Smiteworks' bug fixing is absolutely exemplary. They fixed as many bugs as were found in the beta phase when only a small number of highly-motivated people tested the product, and are fixing multiple bugs post-release on a daily basis whilst communicating with the community on an hour-by-hour basis.

Serious suggestion: if you run FGU live in person with a table mounted installation, don't install major new versions of FGU for a couple of weeks. Just hold off hitting "check for updates". Regard your set-up as a production environment - as I have the computers and software for my business set up. I do not install every new thing Apple or Adobe come up with because I need my production machines to just work when I sit down at my desk in the morning. I update judiciously, when I have to, and when I have time to deal with any bug fixing and fallout, not routinely.

Every time SW launch a new version with major new features, it takes a couple of weeks to find and fix the major bugs. This is REMARKABLY QUICK by software dev standards, but it's still imposing pain on you that you can simply omit by holding off running check for updates until the new release has bedded in. That's especially true if the new version doesn't offer any features that are compelling for your use-case.

The situation is worse with Roll20 (they control the code and updates, not you - you can't freeze your game in a production state even if you want to. The bright side is that Roll20 development is so slow it hardly affects us) and Foundry (you control the code and updates, but the number of breaking changes in every release is far worse than FGU and the time taken for the release environment to become stable after a new version is such that some packages don't ever catch up before the next big bundle of breaking changes are released).

I feel for the community ruleset devs with all the breaking changes, for sure, but for those of us who just want a smooth weekly game, holding off running check for updates for a couple of weeks will result in a MUCH smoother experience. Or even just do what I do when forced to use Foundry - get everything into a working state, freeze that installation for production for the duration of the campaign, and don't touch it until your needs change and you move on to the next campaign or have to install the next module in the series to continue the campaign.

Cheers, Hywel

[HywelPhillips]

P.S. for comparison, I (and many other professional photographers) have a rule on Apple updates that we don't ever install a new major version of MacOS until the next major version is about to be released. That usually gives you the most stable platform you are going to get for the next year. If you install the latest shiny OS on release day, you WILL suffer all the bugs all at once. If you wait to the relatively stable xx.5 release your production environment is a lot less likely to break every few minutes.

Cheers, Hywel

[rocketvaultgames]

There's some truth in that, but in my experience Smiteworks' bug fixing is absolutely exemplary. They fixed as many bugs as were found in the beta phase when only a small number of highly-motivated people tested the product, and are fixing multiple bugs post-release on a daily basis whilst communicating with the community on an hour-by-hour basis.

Serious suggestion: if you run FGU live in person with a table mounted installation, don't install major new versions of FGU for a couple of weeks. Just hold off hitting "check for updates". Regard your set-up as a production environment - as I have the computers and software for my business set up. I do not install every new thing Apple or Adobe come up with because I need my production machines to just work when I sit down at my desk in the morning. I update judiciously, when I have to, and when I have time to deal with any bug fixing and fallout, not routinely.

Every time SW launch a new version with major new features, it takes a couple of weeks to find and fix the major bugs. This is REMARKABLY QUICK by software dev standards, but it's still imposing pain on you that you can simply omit by holding off running check for updates until the new release has bedded in. That's especially true if the new version doesn't offer any features that are compelling for your use-case.

The situation is worse with Roll20 (they control the code and updates, not you - you can't freeze your game in a production state even if you want to. The bright side is that Roll20 development is so slow it hardly affects us) and Foundry (you control the code and updates, but the number of breaking changes in every release is far worse than FGU and the time taken for the release environment to become stable after a new version is such that some packages don't ever catch up before the next big bundle of breaking changes are released).

I feel for the community ruleset devs with all the breaking changes, for sure, but for those of us who just want a smooth weekly game, holding off running check for updates for a couple of weeks will result in a MUCH smoother experience. Or even just do what I do when forced to use Foundry - get everything into a working state, freeze that installation for production for the duration of the campaign, and don't touch it until your needs change and you move on to the next campaign or have to install the next module in the series to continue the campaign.

Cheers, Hywel

I very much appreciate this post.

I definitely feel like "they keep breaking our game", but at the same time, they are extremely responsive to issues and committed to making the product better in the long term.

It is refreshing to hear that the grass isn't greener with other VTTs!

Now if only it wasn't so tempting to click that update button, especially when it's red...

[Blackwolfe]

There's some truth in that, but don't install major new versions of FGU for a couple of weeks,Cheers, Hywel

This is good advice and a process I already employ. I have a machine I run each update on, that is NOT the machine we play from, this lets Me demo changes for the players and see what I have to fix before updating our "live" game machine.
The problem with waiting "a couple of weeks" is FGU updates are very frequent, waiting for something new to update you can run right into the next new improvement that breaks your saved game.
I read the forum posts for what has been done, trying to avoid issues, and even then, there are often surprises.
As a customer I want the improvements, but it's a mystery, what's going to be broken in the next batch?

I keep back ups. Several dated back ups, and use them when needed.

[micael]

Hi,

for me its absolute important, that FU 3D view will support other 3D map views for example from Dungeon alchemist mapping software or Campaign cartographer- because there are already 100s of maps around in webp format, that could be used and have a good 3D quality?

In addition its a absolute must, that players and GMs are able to toggle for themself the mapview from 2D to 3d, because depending on position and plans of the combat member its better to use the one or the other - it makes no sense that the GM have to toggle around a lot for every player.
Most probably if you have a lot of combat members it will be hard to don´t loose the overview as GM.

Thanks
Micael

[superteddy57]

We aren't ready for 3D assets quite yet, but everything you asked for is available in Fantasy Grounds at this time.

[wndrngdru]

I don't really need the full 3D world (way too much prep time for my taste), but I would LOVE to be able to make a mini in HeroForge and pull it in as a 3D "token". Just having the classic miniatures-on-a-battlemat feel would make me a very happy camper.

[micael]

Here is a new one showing some Transformers and GI Joe NPCs next to each other. Transformers should be launching soon. GI Joe is in production.

ahCGHJackuM

Hi,

this video looks awesome somewhat but I see a trap FGU is running into... 10 years in the past CC has invented a 3D tool to create features from maps - it seemed awesome but in the end all graphics and especially the textures where not done for extremely near views- they all looked "bad" - similar as in this video - and CC is a vector graphic software which scales automatically. For picture oriented software you need HD textures and the handling of that is best shown in Baldurs Gate 3 - or Dungeon&Dragons online - there you find even after years of development areas which will be not transparent to cameras, so that you can´t look into certain areas or the camera is blocked or the view is blocked. And in first person view DDO has bad looking textures because they are to near to the camera. So if the camera is using only isometric and always looking from a fixed distance above it would be much more easy to do.
I would be very happy if all of these problems could be solved in FGU, but you need every map on each players PC to avoid lagging when HD textures are moved around... not sure how you would handle this - but I know if the textures are looking "bad" nobody in the end will use this feature often.

THANKS
Micael

[Saramund]

IMHO partnering with Hero Forge and Dungeon Alchemist could get to better and quicker 3D enanchements.

[micael]

IMHO partnering with Hero Forge and Dungeon Alchemist could get to better and quicker 3D enanchements.

Another harassment is the long time you need to create a nice map in FGU - normally I import maps from other tools - Dungeon alchemist use KI to support quick strong functions - If you use a base map I needed 15 minutes for a modified 3D awesome stonehenge like battlemap.

Perhaps you can provide a "external" modus, where the DM can use another mapping software to create or modify map directly in FGU or (what would be the main point) use 3D camera/theatre views to show players the map.
You would save a lot of development capacity doing that.