FGU: The interface

[snupy]

I have been using FGU for a few months now and would like to give my perspective on its interface, one of the most criticised aspects on it. To give some context, I started playing PF1, and using FGU alongside with it, a few months ago. I also briefly used Foundry while I was deciding between PF1 and PF2. I will focus on the negatives, and try to offer constructive observations and criticism.

I think interface complaints tend to come in two forms: looks old/bad and is unintuitive.

The looks old/bad part. While I partially agree and would prefer a more “gamy” look with more animations and the like (e.g. in Foundry it didn’t take much effort to set up various animations with the JB2A module), this is subjective and I also like the look and feel of the official Pathfinder theme. So let’s move on.

Unintuitive. Definitely. A good interface allows you to figure out how to do something without reading the fine manual. Despite having used a good number of softwares and being decently computer literate, I usually have to google even fairly simple stuff. Below are various concrete points.

It is often not clear that something is a button, e.g. most things (faction, targets...) in the combat tracker. While I like the PF theme, the initiative indicator is mimetic. The tooltips are useful.

The use of right click is very unconventional. Usually a right click is a way to access extra options which depend on what is selected. FG has a mix of actually contextual options, e.g. deleting something, and not contextual options, like closing or minimising the window (if you prefer, both are contextual but at different levels). I would remove all the close/minimise items from the right click menu and move them to the right corner of the window. Why would one think of right clicking on the desktop to return to launcher or exit??

In general I think that normal menus, that is text rather than icon + tooltip, are more convenient and easier to use. There is essentially no general FG menu, which causes some of the problems above. No menu at all would at least save space, but on a mac there actually is a completely useless FG menu, and no possibility to run the app full screen.

FG needs a lot of screen space. To some degree this is unavoidable, but the situation could be improved. For example, I started using the extension which allows to replace the icons on the right side with menus (better menus I think), and that helps a lot. Frankly that extension is gold and I think it should be incorporated in the main code.

Also why are some interface elements movable/resizable and others are not? Another good thing that better menu does is to allow you to reposition PC portraits and the dice tower - much more convenient to have the tower close to where the dices are. Yes I could move the dice but I like them where they are.

Supporting user defined keyboard shortcuts would also help a lot. I know you can have actionable things associated to the function keys, and that feature is pretty powerful, but user definable shortcuts would be nice. So would keyboard shortcuts for basic window management, like cycling or minimising.

The interface is not laptop friendly. I am OUTRAGED at the impossibility of conveniently panning with a trackpad. The joystick thing is slow and imprecise, and using arrows keys only works if you have nothing selected, while a lot of times you need to pan during combat. I can’t believe something like shift + drag (or whatever other key you like, I don’t mind) is hard to implement, and this is something people have asked and/or complained about multiple times.

In fact I would get rid of anything middle mouse click altogether. Revealing a hidden roll is a good place for a contextual menu item. I would also substitute, or at least give a quicker laptop friendly option, the left+right click to draw a pointer, although it must be said that this function can be accessed from the right click menu.

The options are confusing, I always have to google (or experiment) to remember e.g. the difference between show GM rolls and show results to players. I remember noticing this and checking why I found Foundry way of doing it much clearer. Simple answer: Foundry used two lines of text to explain what the option does. Doing the same or adding a tooltip would help a lot.

Dragging to duplicate. Who ever thought this was a good idea?????? This is incredibly unintuitive. I have seen no filesystem or software do this (yes dragging + holding a key does copy in some cases, or dragging to a different hard drive, but not moving a file/element within the same window). If you don’t move something, nothing happens to it. You would expect that a very small movement would produce a very small change, or no change at all. But in FG no matter how little you move something you end up with a duplicate. Duplicating would be a good place for a contextual menu item. To noone’s surprise, everyone I play with ends up with undesired duplicates all the time. At least deleting them is a contextual menu item.

The options for managing elements in record lists seem to come from computer interfaces of decades ago. No way to multiple select and the like. Assigning elements to groups is very inconvenient if you have to drag more than a couple or if the list is long. Also, I would give the option when you create a new category to select all the record groups where you want it to appear. Often you want NPC, items, encounters and others, and currently you have to create it in all of them. Not sure why this functionality would be hard to implement, but I seem to recall Foundry is just as bad.

[Zacchaeus]

You can reposition PC portraits and the dice tower without any extension.

One thing to understand is that the windows inside of Fantasy Grounds aren't windows - they are more like templates and therefore the 'windows' don't rely on the OS interface; so things like copying/moving etc all have to be programmed internally and for each ruleset (but the developers have been moving code out of individual rulesets and adding them into Core to make changes easier across all rulesets).

I agree with some of the stuff you mention above but the interface has come a long way from what it was even 2 years ago. There have been incremental changes and I'm sure this will continue. I disagree that right click is unintuitive; outside of games there isn't a piece of software that I use that doesn't have right click options and that's been the case in all the 30 years I've been using computers. I don't like better menus extension - I think it's horrible; so that's subjective as is the use of any extension. I also like the icon menus rather than text; making it text would take away from the quality of the interface (again subjective - as are many of the complaints about the interface).

Fantasy Grounds is a complex program and in order to use and understand it you do, in my view, have to RTFM; otherwise you'll just get lost and probably frustrated. Considerable efforts have been made in the last few years to enhance the documentation so that users have an easier time figuring things out. One last thing; you can click the query icon on the top right of any window that has one to take you right to the help page for that window.

[snupy]

You can reposition PC portraits and the dice tower without any extension.

One thing to understand is that the windows inside of Fantasy Grounds aren't windows - they are more like templates and therefore the 'windows' don't rely on the OS interface; so things like copying/moving etc all have to be programmed internally and for each ruleset (but the developers have been moving code out of individual rulesets and adding them into Core to make changes easier across all rulesets).

I agree with some of the stuff you mention above but the interface has come a long way from what it was even 2 years ago. There have been incremental changes and I'm sure this will continue. I disagree that right click is unintuitive; outside of games there isn't a piece of software that I use that doesn't have right click options and that's been the case in all the 30 years I've been using computers. I don't like better menus extension - I think it's horrible; so that's subjective as is the use of any extension. I also like the icon menus rather than text; making it text would take away from the quality of the interface (again subjective - as are many of the complaints about the interface).

Fantasy Grounds is a complex program and in order to use and understand it you do, in my view, have to RTFM; otherwise you'll just get lost and probably frustrated. Considerable efforts have been made in the last few years to enhance the documentation so that users have an easier time figuring things out. One last thing; you can click the query icon on the top right of any window that has one to take you right to the help page for that window.

Oh, my bad about moving the tower, I went by the extension description.

Maybe I didn't express myself well, but I am perfectly fine with the use of right click per se. In fact I suggested its use for some options, namely duplicating things and revealing a hidden roll. I find the mix of using it for things I would expect to find in a right click menu (like deleting an element) and things which in my opinion do not belong there (like closing a window or quitting the program) confusing. What I proposed to get rid of is *middle click* - which is much more rarely used.

Regarding the icons, I hear you. I don't dislike them per se. But I am using a 15 inch display and prefer to always keep open chat (no choice there), a map and the combat tracker, so space is precious. If I move the menus on top of the top of the chat that saves me quite a bit of it. Another disadvantage of icons is that it takes a bit of time to remember what is what. In fact I would do as the extension does, allowing both options so that each user can decide.

I am fine with reading the manual. I find that some bad interface choices make it so that you need to look at it more often that it needs to be. For example to figure out that the little icons in the combat tracker are buttons. The menu in the combat tracker has options which (imho) belong there, like initiative and effects, and rest, which I would expect to find when right clicking on a PC token in the combat tracker or on a map.

I noticed the effort in better organising the documentation, but I feel it is still not there. The last thing I had to figure out is how can player control NPCs. I don't think there is anything on atlassian (I may have missed it), so I had to look on forum threads. For a while I seemed to have found that dragging the NPC over the PC portrait should do it, took me some more time to find out that for some reasons you also have to enable party vision.

Mind you, FG has many top notch tutorials, for example your videos. Written instructions are so and so though, and the various resources are still quite scattered. In a sense, I'd RTFM, but there really isn't one.

I noticed that things are evolving and I appreciate it. Moreover the community, both developers and users, is very helpful and active. For the time being I have no intention to stop supporting (I have bought several modules) and using it. But FG is a commercial software in a competitive space, and definitely not the cheapest option in its category, so improvement is expected, although I definitely appreciate that it is not subscription based.

[Zacchaeus]

I hear you.

On the question on PCs controlling an NPC the reason why you need to enable party movement is that the player doesn't actually have ownership of the NPC. Technically players shouldn't have any control at all over NPCs but a quirk in sharing semi-allows it. With Party movement on any player can move any friendly token which isn't really desirable but does allow for players to control friendly NPCs. It's not documented because it's not supposed to happen basically.

On exiting the program I'm just used to the right click I suppose. If it were a game I'd be looking to hit escape and get presented with a menu of quitting or returning to the main menu etc and maybe one day that will be the way of things.

[LordEntrails]

I always appreciate a well thought out discussion on this topic. As you noted, it is often a point of contention in the community, and too often turns into something not constructive. Hopefully we can keep it that way.

One thing I will note, is some of your ideas/suggestions should go on the wish list, so that other people can vote on them. Or you might find some of them already there and you can vote on the existing ideas. See: http://fgapp.idea.informer.com/

To give my opinion on some of your points:

Animation on the UI - Honestly do you mean like window frames and things being animated? I like animation on the portraits, tokens and images, but on UI elements the thought actually concerns me. Any examples you could link to?

Unintuitive - I totally believe you on this one, and it's a common opinion. It still amazes me though as for whatever reason I never had a challenge learning the interface. And even though my first recommendation to new users is to read the user guide, I never have actually needed to. I guess I'm a freak, but I've always found the UI very easy and intuitive, it just makes sense to me :)

Right Click - I'm not sure just where you are going with on this one. Context sensitive right mouse if very common. We've been using it in Windows since... the '90s? I've been using it in MCAD programs since that time frame as well. And it's still core to many programs even today. Now you mention Macs, so maybe this isn't something you are familiar with, but every Windows program today still has Right Click to close the application, here's a screen shot of Discord;
59777

I understand the desire for cascading text menu's. It's what a lot of folks are used to. But another subjective opinion (mine) is that they suck. Fortunately for you (and many others) Celestian agrees with you and so he created Better Menus. I'm glad FG doesn't use them. To me, it's the difference between playing an RPG on the computer, and immersing myself in a Virtual Table Top. But again, this is just one view, yours is just as valid as mine.

UI Inconsistencies / Buttons - This is certainly an issue. As Mr Z says, it's getting better than it was a few years ago. And it's one of the areas the devs are working on currently. A lot of it has to do with history, and that the rulesets actually define if they use buttons or fields and it's up to the ruleset developer to chose which to use where, and most rulesets are actually not built by SmiteWorks. But ultimately, it's their responsibility, but they are working on it. We (the community, just have to keep them accountable while giving them the time to make the improvements given their extremely constrained resources.

I like the idea of user defined shortcuts. I would love to be able to program my extra mouse buttons. You should add this one to the Wis List. It's a good idea.

Middle Mouse - I know this is a challenge for Mac users. But it is pretty core to almost ever Windows and many Unix programs. For us, it would be like cutting off you left arm.

Laptop use - I run FG ever week on a laptop. I've got no problems with it. Now I almost always use a 3-button mouse. It really is worth investing $10 to get a mouse and move away from a trackpad. But, there are still several ways for you to pan with a trackpad. The first is the pan/zoom icon in the bottom right corner which anyone can use with just left click/select. Personally, I don't like it, hence why I use a mouse. But, depending upon your trackpad driver, you can also do middle mouse right on your trackpad. But, I do agree that the UI for Macs needs to be given a second look. I know there are major reasons not to use unique channels for different operating systems, but their might be a better solution still out there.

Options - I like the idea of mouse over hints for them. I'll vote for this one on the Wish List...

Duplicating - I agree dragging to duplicate is strange. But my players and I don't seem to have the problem with it you and your players do. Maybe it's just familiarity?

Group/Category management - I agree it would be nice to have a way to multi-select or move multiple items at the same time. When creating stuff, I just make sure I have the right group active. Maybe an enhancement where you could have check boxes or multi-select when in edit mode would be feasible. This is another idea for the wish list of something similar is not already there.

Improvements will keep coming. The devs are always working on things and we get major updates several times a year, and content or bug fixes every week. It takes time though. And good constructive feedback from the community, new users like you, and older ones like me. It's always a challenge to develop and improve an application as it ages and new technologies and expectations develop while maintaining the current users expectations.

[ddavison]

Thanks for writing up your experience and for providing concrete examples of things you dislike about the interface. Several of these are known issues that we have discussed internally and haven't prioritized revamping them yet.

[snupy]

I always appreciate a well thought out discussion on this topic. As you noted, it is often a point of contention in the community, and too often turns into something not constructive. Hopefully we can keep it that way.

One thing I will note, is some of your ideas/suggestions should go on the wish list, so that other people can vote on them. Or you might find some of them already there and you can vote on the existing ideas. See: http://fgapp.idea.informer.com/


Good point, I will do this later.



To give my opinion on some of your points:

Animation on the UI - Honestly do you mean like window frames and things being animated? I like animation on the portraits, tokens and images, but on UI elements the thought actually concerns me. Any examples you could link to?


Mostly thinking of spells and similar effects, tokens and battlemaps. So not really interface, I guess I mentioned it since implementation/availability of these things affects what the software looks like and so the "looks old" perception. For examples: with these assets
https://library.jb2a.com/#Fireball
(Patreon, but good free sample) and the free automated animation module
https://github.com/otigon/automated-jb2a-animations
(essentially scripting to automatically launch the animation of spell launch or similar) one could get nice animations with little effort - I did set it up (for PF2E). Currently in FG there is a (paid? can't remember) extension which allows the GM to place a static overlay image for spell effects - not quite the same.

Many things like
https://www.patreon.com/beneostokens
https://www.patreon.com/BeneosBattlemaps

are available for Foundry. There is also a module which allows stepping on something to trigger effects, it's called active monk tile
https://foundryvtt.com/packages/monks-active-tiles
I have never used it but seems pretty neat.

Now from what you write I suspect that you may not like many of these things as getting too close to a videogame experience. Also I know that FG supports animations, although only a less common format due to being based on Unity. But as a final user what matters to me is that there are much fewer possibilities, and no easy way to set up e.g. automatic spell animations.



Unintuitive - I totally believe you on this one, and it's a common opinion. It still amazes me though as for whatever reason I never had a challenge learning the interface. And even though my first recommendation to new users is to read the user guide, I never have actually needed to. I guess I'm a freak, but I've always found the UI very easy and intuitive, it just makes sense to me :)

Right Click - I'm not sure just where you are going with on this one. Context sensitive right mouse if very common. We've been using it in Windows since... the '90s? I've been using it in MCAD programs since that time frame as well. And it's still core to many programs even today. Now you mention Macs, so maybe this isn't something you are familiar with, but every Windows program today still has Right Click to close the application, here's a screen shot of Discord;
59777


Yeah Zacchaeus wrote similar things, looks like the way right click menus are set up in mac is a bit different. Still have the feeling that some options are not well placed but looks like I need better examples.



I understand the desire for cascading text menu's. It's what a lot of folks are used to. But another subjective opinion (mine) is that they suck. Fortunately for you (and many others) Celestian agrees with you and so he created Better Menus. I'm glad FG doesn't use them. To me, it's the difference between playing an RPG on the computer, and immersing myself in a Virtual Table Top. But again, this is just one view, yours is just as valid as mine.

UI Inconsistencies / Buttons - This is certainly an issue. As Mr Z says, it's getting better than it was a few years ago. And it's one of the areas the devs are working on currently. A lot of it has to do with history, and that the rulesets actually define if they use buttons or fields and it's up to the ruleset developer to chose which to use where, and most rulesets are actually not built by SmiteWorks. But ultimately, it's their responsibility, but they are working on it. We (the community, just have to keep them accountable while giving them the time to make the improvements given their extremely constrained resources.

I like the idea of user defined shortcuts. I would love to be able to program my extra mouse buttons. You should add this one to the Wis List. It's a good idea.

Middle Mouse - I know this is a challenge for Mac users. But it is pretty core to almost ever Windows and many Unix programs. For us, it would be like cutting off you left arm.

Laptop use - I run FG ever week on a laptop. I've got no problems with it. Now I almost always use a 3-button mouse. It really is worth investing $10 to get a mouse and move away from a trackpad. But, there are still several ways for you to pan with a trackpad. The first is the pan/zoom icon in the bottom right corner which anyone can use with just left click/select. Personally, I don't like it, hence why I use a mouse. But, depending upon your trackpad driver, you can also do middle mouse right on your trackpad. But, I do agree that the UI for Macs needs to be given a second look. I know there are major reasons not to use unique channels for different operating systems, but their might be a better solution still out there.


I think trackpads are so good now that many people who have a laptop and don't use software which heavily requires a mouse, which is probably most users, stick to the trackpad. I do have a mouse, I'd just prefer to have the same experience using the trackpad, sometimes I'm on my couch, sometimes I just want to grab the laptop and go, etc. I think the same goes for the people I play with, feels annoying to tell them they should really get a mouse. FG doesn't strike me as the kind of software which really needs a mouse to deliver optimally.
I looked at emulating middle click on a track pad. There is nothing native, you can get middle click via third party, but I could not find a way to get middle click drag. Left+right is also a no go. I hate the icon thing.



Options - I like the idea of mouse over hints for them. I'll vote for this one on the Wish List...

Duplicating - I agree dragging to duplicate is strange. But my players and I don't seem to have the problem with it you and your players do. Maybe it's just familiarity?


Well sure, you can get used to (almost) anything if you have to, doesn't make it a good choice. It irks me, for the reasons I explained, more at a conceptual than practical level. But software can be a barrier, to playing an RPG in this case, and for other users this unusual behaviour makes the software scarier/harder to use, I think it gives them a feeling that it's so easy to mess up things.



Group/Category management - I agree it would be nice to have a way to multi-select or move multiple items at the same time. When creating stuff, I just make sure I have the right group active. Maybe an enhancement where you could have check boxes or multi-select when in edit mode would be feasible. This is another idea for the wish list of something similar is not already there.

Improvements will keep coming. The devs are always working on things and we get major updates several times a year, and content or bug fixes every week. It takes time though. And good constructive feedback from the community, new users like you, and older ones like me. It's always a challenge to develop and improve an application as it ages and new technologies and expectations develop while maintaining the current users expectations.

[Zacchaeus]

I'm sure you know this but FGU supports animated images and tokens in webp codec 8 format. THere's no automation for it as yet - in other words FG doesn't automatically place a token when you cast fireball. However 2.5d is on it's way soon. https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?79976-First-Person-View-Mode-for-2024

[Nylanfs]

When using my laptop I use a trackball as opposed to a mouse or the trackpad.

[HywelPhillips]

I run exclusively on Mac and I use a cheap three-button (well, two buttons and a click-able middle scroll wheel) to control FGU.

That $10 bit of kit made a lot of difference for me and I take one around with me just to use FGU.

I know it's not ideal, and I agree with many of your UI comments, but I would say that just plugging in that cheap mouse really did improve my user experience considerably.

FGU is not in good agreement with Apple UI guidelines but at least we can run it on our Macs :) I'll take the occasional clunky interface to access the huge functionality. A bunch of this stuff does need revisiting and streamlining to be more in line with modern UI expectations. Things have got better since FGU was released, and the more recent functionality has UI that no-one complains about (eg the map making tools).

Cheers, Hywel

[snupy]

I have now added three items to the list of suggested features:

- User defined shortcuts
http://fgapp.idea.informer.com/proj/?ia=142486

- Tooltips for options descriptions
http://fgapp.idea.informer.com/proj/?ia=142487

- Full trackpad support
http://fgapp.idea.informer.com/proj/?ia=142488

[snupy]

Another thing I have often seen people complain about is the duplication of records when several modules are loaded. For example in PF1 if you load both the Core rulebook and the Ultimate equipment you'll have two copies of e.g. the longsword (and most other things). Similar problems with classes, spells, etc. With a few modules loaded it can become quite annoying. In practice it is not something which irks me too much, but I agree with the complaint and don't like the fact that each module has to have a separate copy of each record it wants to access.

The better solution would probably be to have a single master list, possibly encrypted if it has to be, for each type of record, e.g. an items list with all the items. Whenever a module needs a specific record it calls from the master list, so both core rulebook and ultimate equipments call/load/import/whatever the same longsword entity from the master list.

This is the very basic principle of avoiding code (or text) duplication, making consistency, corrections, updates, much easier. Suppose spell or class features effects are added (I believe they should be included in the paid modules but that's for a different thread, very grateful for the great work done for free by members of the community), it would than be enough to update a single list rather than a multitude of modules.

Now I am sure every developer is very familiar with what I wrote. If the unified list solution is not possible or feasible for reasons, allowing to specify which records get visualised in the menus could be a solution. For example if I usually load core rulebook and ultimate equipment I could specify that I don't want core rulebook items to appear in the general items menu. It should be possible to save these settings though, otherwise it's essentially the same as filtering by group which is already possible.

[BaneTBC]

In regards to the animated assets for attacks, spell effects, et al, I recommend you check out SilentRuin's Generic Actions extension. He has already come up with a way to handle the use of the free JB2A animated assets and use them in Fantasy Grounds. He even put together a mod pack with them to make it easy for people to implement.

[BaneTBC]

Well, what you're saying is really what the dropdown menu at the top of the window is for, so you can filter down to a single source for items. The reason that it isn't really viable to put this all into one thing you use is that you have no idea what the person may be using, i.e. for 5E are they using the Player's Handbook, DMG and MM or are they using the SRD? There are things in one that the others don't have. It would become very problematic to try to filter out what is from one book or another and even if they aren't the actual same item.

[Laerun]

YouTube Data Windows UI


https://www.youtube.com/live/uBnqylccxCk?si=vubMUVmPKmwWXctL

[Laerun]

Another thing I have often seen people complain about is the duplication of records when several modules are loaded. For example in PF1 if you load both the Core rulebook and the Ultimate equipment you'll have two copies of e.g. the longsword (and most other things). Similar problems with classes, spells, etc. With a few modules loaded it can become quite annoying. In practice it is not something which irks me too much, but I agree with the complaint and don't like the fact that each module has to have a separate copy of each record it wants to access.

The better solution would probably be to have a single master list, possibly encrypted if it has to be, for each type of record, e.g. an items list with all the items. Whenever a module needs a specific record it calls from the master list, so both core rulebook and ultimate equipments call/load/import/whatever the same longsword entity from the master list.

This is the very basic principle of avoiding code (or text) duplication, making consistency, corrections, updates, much easier. Suppose spell or class features effects are added (I believe they should be included in the paid modules but that's for a different thread, very grateful for the great work done for free by members of the community), it would than be enough to update a single list rather than a multitude of modules.

Now I am sure every developer is very familiar with what I wrote. If the unified list solution is not possible or feasible for reasons, allowing to specify which records get visualised in the menus could be a solution. For example if I usually load core rulebook and ultimate equipment I could specify that I don't want core rulebook items to appear in the general items menu. It should be possible to save these settings though, otherwise it's essentially the same as filtering by group which is already possible.

I agree with the frustration part, and it would also be helpful if the publishers did not repeat content across several books, or not stagger 'onesy-twosy' style releases for character options, and also spread-out across several products and such for five years plus or longer...

[anstett]

I will disagree with the idea that duplication is a bad thing.

Sorting by the drop down categories IS a good thing.

Flexibility and options is the way to go.

[LordEntrails]

. There is also a module which allows stepping on something to trigger effects, it's called active monk tile
https://foundryvtt.com/packages/monks-active-tiles
I have never used it but seems pretty neat.

There has been an extension like this for FG around for years. I think it's one of Rob2E's on the DMsGuild. Dungeon Masters Guild - Virtual Tabletop - (dmsguild.com) (https://www.dmsguild.com/browse.php?keywords=rob2e+extension&filters=0_0_0_0_0_0_45545_0&x=0&y=0&author=&artist=&pfrom=&pto=) And tons of other stuff. Unfortunately, the license with DMsG doesn't allow them to move them to the Forge.



But as a final user what matters to me is that there are much fewer possibilities, and no easy way to set up e.g. automatic spell animations.

There is an extension for that. I believe you will find in the DMsG. There are hundreds, maybe thousands of extensions for FG. It just takes some searching and asking to find one that might do what you want (if you are into extensions. Remember, extensions = risk). But I couldn't find it with a brief search.


Another thing I have often seen people complain about is the duplication of records when several modules are loaded. For example in PF1 if you load both the Core rulebook and the Ultimate equipment you'll have two copies of e.g. the longsword (and most other things). Similar problems with classes, spells, etc. With a few modules loaded it can become quite annoying. In practice it is not something which irks me too much, but I agree with the complaint and don't like the fact that each module has to have a separate copy of each record it wants to access.

So this is actually more of a content issue. Sure, FG could filter out duplicates with some sort of source priority ranking, but the problem is a Ranger from SCAG is not the same as a Ranger from the PHB. Spells, items etc mya have the same name, but they are not identical. So, if you don't show them all, which one do you force upon the table? The current solution is to not force any one version on the table, but instead to indicate the source the version is from and let the human make the intelligent decision. Of course, that's not always easy.

[Nylanfs]

Man, I was looking forward to a video with Brent Spiner in it...

[snupy]

I will have a look at the various extensions suggested, thanks.

I agree that the last thing I mentioned (duplication of entries) is moving towards content, although it affects FG appearance.

The primary solution I was proposing is more sophisticated than "have a list with everything in it and load that", or clever autosorting. Each unique record has a unique identifier. Each module loads the records it needs by calling the corresponding identifiers. I repeat, each module loads what it needs, not everything. But if two modules need the same thing they both call the same id and you get only one instance. Assuming a ranger from SCAG and PHB are different things (not familiar with them), they get different ids. But a longsword from core rulebook and ultimate equipment, and any other module which wants a (unmodified) longsword calls the same id. In fact identifiers would probably be better organised as something like a triple (n1,n2,n3) with n1 identifying the ruleset, n2 the category (item, npc, class, spell,...) and n3 the specific record within the given ruleset and category.

The biggest problem I see with this kind of implementation now is that all the previous material would need to be revisited, a bit like replacing something hard coded with a variable in existing code. Not sure why it was not approached this way initially although there are probably reasons I am missing (I have some experience coding, but never in the real world or for larger scale projects).

[Zacchaeus]

Your last point is correct, but it's more complicated. Things are stored in the module database as an id number. Each items, NPC, etc etc is given an ID number in the order they are created. Thus in the PHB a longsword could be id-00056 and in another module it could be id-00234 and in another a longsword +1 could be another id altogether or it could be a duplicated of the one in the PHB or in the other module. So filtering out what isn't wanted would not be an easy task.

[Moon Wizard]

Also, to complicate the situation,
* Each data module can be loaded individually (and thus the data needs to be always available for that book) (i.e. there is no master data module; it's per book.)
* The records within each module can actually be slightly different data depending on what is published with the book.
* The records within each adventure can be customized by the GM running the adventure.

I think we're all agreeing that the interface could be improved to more gracefully handle multiple items with the same name, but there's no easy way to "consolidate" data across books without taking away capability. I have a couple items on my feature request list to help, but they haven't bubbled to the top as the list is very long and there are only 2.5 ruleset/framework developers on staff (including new system support and ongoing maintenance).

I'll be parsing your feedback from earlier in the thread more closely after I get the beta going next month, and see if there is any small stuff we can do short term.

Regards,
JPG

[Morenu]

And one thing I will add about the FGU user base (at least on the forums). this thread just about anywhere else would've been reduced to poo throwing monkeys by page 3. the users on FGU are some of the best I have encountered on the internet. wonderfully non confrontational discussion everyone. this is how ideas grow.

and from the guy that almost never RtFM, since its not how I can learn/retain new info, Thanks to all that have responded with helpful ideas.

[Metlore]

And one thing I will add about the FGU user base (at least on the forums). this thread just about anywhere else would've been reduced to poo throwing monkeys by page 3. the users on FGU are some of the best I have encountered on the internet. wonderfully non confrontational discussion everyone. this is how ideas grow.

and from the guy that almost never RtFM, since its not how I can learn/retain new info, Thanks to all that have responded with helpful ideas.

Fantasy Grounds users AND STAFF are fantastic at helping people with questions. Once you get used to FGU, I feel like a lot of the design decisions make sense. It's just the initial hump. I do agree that the GUI feels a dash outdated, but honestly, i can't fully put my finger on why. I do hear a lot of the same initial complaints from new people to my games though, such as:

Why can't we just click on empty map and drag it around?
Why did my token just rotate?
Why did I just heal the enemy too? (because they didn't untarget them)

Something that has not come up that I think is a major problem is uniformity among the adventure modules. I think old modules need updated to be consistent with new. For example, off the top of my head, a new DM would encounter the following 2 major points of confusion:

Why do some modules have story entries and some don't because they're supposed to be ran off the Reference Manual?
Why do some modules contain everything in the DM version and others require me to load both the DM and player version to have access to everything?

Just my two cents....

[Zacchaeus]

Why do some modules have story entries and some don't because they're supposed to be ran off the Reference Manual?
Why do some modules contain everything in the DM version and others require me to load both the DM and player version to have access to everything?

Just my two cents....

Because Fantasy Grounds evolves. Adventure modules were never written with reference manuals originally. Originally reference manuals were simply story entries in a different format so there wasn't any point in including them in an Adventure. Reference Manuals were for just that; reference modules, like the PHB, DMG etc.

Then Fantasy Grounds evolved and images could be embedded into reference pages; as well as text could be broken out into sidebars with different coloured backgrounds and text columns. So, now, reference pages became a lot different from stories; they were more colourful and useable as reading material. So adventures started to be developed with reference manuals. Initially they were an adjunct; not meant to be used to run the adventure but as another method that DMs could use to read the story as if it were something close to a PDF. Using an extension created by a community developer older modules were revisited and reference manusl were added based on the story entries. The result wasn't as good as could be produced from scratch but they were more than passable.

Many early modules (at least for 5e) were created using an internal tool called par5e which took text files and converted them into xml files which FG could read. In many respects it was easier to create modules using this tool because it was a bit laborious typing all the text for, say, an NPC into FG. FG evolved again; an NPC importer was introduced; a table importer; copy/pasting text from one source to another preserved formatting; class specialisations became a separate window class as did subraces; it was now possible to create and link spell lists for specific classes within FG. It also became possible to combine player and DM layers in the same map. It therefore became much easier to create modules inside of FG and so there was shift away from the internal tool and modules started to be developed directly in FG. And since reference pages were much better looking than story entries the latter were dropped in favour of the former in the most recent modules.

Now, I'm using another internally developed tool to convert earlier modules into campaigns so that modules can be updated with more up to date image formats and prepare for forthcoming features.

So FG is always evolving; it's a completely different beast than it was 8 years ago when I started producing modules for the store.

Earlier modules did not split DM and player information all that well; but then player modules became the norm containing the player facing data such as classes; races etc. Over time more and more such books were produced and so more and more data became available. In order to cut down on duplication player facing material was dropped from the DM version of the books. However going back and removing such data from earlier modules isn't an option since any characters created using that data will break; and that will cause too many issues for too many people (not to mention a significant increase in support); and there is no easy solution to fixing those character other than recreating them. People who have been playing a character for years would be desperately unhappy if their character suddenly became unplayable.

So, in short, fantasy grounds evolves and improves. Whilst every effort is made to keep everything as uniform as possible sometimes it just isn't an option and indeed not even desirable.

[Metlore]

Because Fantasy Grounds evolves. Adventure modules were never written with reference manuals originally. Originally reference manuals were simply story entries in a different format so there wasn't any point in including them in an Adventure. Reference Manuals were for just that; reference modules, like the PHB, DMG etc.

Then Fantasy Grounds evolved and images could be embedded into reference pages; as well as text could be broken out into sidebars with different coloured backgrounds and text columns. So, now, reference pages became a lot different from stories; they were more colourful and useable as reading material. So adventures started to be developed with reference manuals. Initially they were an adjunct; not meant to be used to run the adventure but as another method that DMs could use to read the story as if it were something close to a PDF. Using an extension created by a community developer older modules were revisited and reference manusl were added based on the story entries. The result wasn't as good as could be produced from scratch but they were more than passable.

Many early modules (at least for 5e) were created using an internal tool called par5e which took text files and converted them into xml files which FG could read. In many respects it was easier to create modules using this tool because it was a bit laborious typing all the text for, say, an NPC into FG. FG evolved again; an NPC importer was introduced; a table importer; copy/pasting text from one source to another preserved formatting; class specialisations became a separate window class as did subraces; it was now possible to create and link spell lists for specific classes within FG. It also became possible to combine player and DM layers in the same map. It therefore became much easier to create modules inside of FG and so there was shift away from the internal tool and modules started to be developed directly in FG. And since reference pages were much better looking than story entries the latter were dropped in favour of the former in the most recent modules.

Now, I'm using another internally developed tool to convert earlier modules into campaigns so that modules can be updated with more up to date image formats and prepare for forthcoming features.

So FG is always evolving; it's a completely different beast than it was 8 years ago when I started producing modules for the store.

Earlier modules did not split DM and player information all that well; but then player modules became the norm containing the player facing data such as classes; races etc. Over time more and more such books were produced and so more and more data became available. In order to cut down on duplication player facing material was dropped from the DM version of the books. However going back and removing such data from earlier modules isn't an option since any characters created using that data will break; and that will cause too many issues for too many people (not to mention a significant increase in support); and there is no easy solution to fixing those character other than recreating them. People who have been playing a character for years would be desperately unhappy if their character suddenly became unplayable.

So, in short, fantasy grounds evolves and improves. Whilst every effort is made to keep everything as uniform as possible sometimes it just isn't an option and indeed not even desirable.

I know the reasons why. My questions are on behalf of newcomers that aren't steeped in the lore and evolution of Fantasy Grounds. All products (of a specific ruleset) should be uniform and behave identically. Joe Smith, the hypothetical new FGU buyer, isn't going to understand why things are different between his 5E modules. He's going to wonder if something is wrong with some modules because his story entries are missing. He's going to wonder why layers on some images behave different than others. He doesn't want to dive through forums to find all the reasons why things change or look up the release dates of all the 5e products so he can figure out which modules use which methods. Instead, he's just going to go to roll20 or some other competitor where things operate identically across the board. Things need to behave consistently. That's a pillar of user interfaces: consistency. I want Joe Smith to have a good experience and stay.

[Morenu]

I know the reasons why. My questions are on behalf of newcomers that aren't steeped in the lore and evolution of Fantasy Grounds. All products (of a specific ruleset) should be uniform and behave identically. Joe Smith, the hypothetical new FGU buyer, isn't going to understand why things are different between his 5E modules. He's going to wonder if something is wrong with some modules because his story entries are missing. He's going to wonder why layers on some images behave different than others. He doesn't want to dive through forums to find all the reasons why things change or look up the release dates of all the 5e products so he can figure out which modules use which methods. Instead, he's just going to go to roll20 or some other competitor where things operate identically across the board. Things need to behave consistently. That's a pillar of user interfaces: consistency. I want Joe Smith to have a good experience and stay.

Its no different than many versions of older D&D. (think TSR days) modules had similarities within the same D&D Version and the same publisher but yet they were typically setup somewhat different and evolved every 6 months or so. things were tried and hopefully the good things were kept. but unless the modules were SO good that a reprint was called for with the intention of getting existing owners to buy the updated version (think temple of elemental evil), monetarily it makes no sense. Smiteworks is a small company. A rewrite would be a ton of work hours without any return on investment.

perhaps a labeling system like the LOS FG FGU type or even a "title or web" page explaining the version differences?

[Zacchaeus]

I know the reasons why. My questions are on behalf of newcomers that aren't steeped in the lore and evolution of Fantasy Grounds. All products (of a specific ruleset) should be uniform and behave identically. Joe Smith, the hypothetical new FGU buyer, isn't going to understand why things are different between his 5E modules. He's going to wonder if something is wrong with some modules because his story entries are missing. He's going to wonder why layers on some images behave different than others. He doesn't want to dive through forums to find all the reasons why things change or look up the release dates of all the 5e products so he can figure out which modules use which methods. Instead, he's just going to go to roll20 or some other competitor where things operate identically across the board. Things need to behave consistently. That's a pillar of user interfaces: consistency. I want Joe Smith to have a good experience and stay.

I’m interested in your solution then.

The original post in this thread is about changes the user would like to see; but your view seems to be that nothing should change and modules produced today should be the same as those produced 10 years ago and not take advantage of any new features added to FG. Am I being unfair in that assessment?

[Metlore]

I’m interested in your solution then.

The original post in this thread is about changes the user would like to see; but your view seems to be that nothing should change and modules produced today should be the same as those produced 10 years ago and not take advantage of any new features added to FG. Am I being unfair in that assessment?

Yes that is an unfair assessment. My view is quite the opposite: older modules of a specific ruleset (the current, popular ruleset) should be updated to function the same as newer releases.

5E is the current D&D edition. It has also already been stated by WOTC that all existing 5E adventure modules will not be redone for 5.5/One D&D. That means all 5E modules, including early releases, are going to continue to be popular for new FGU users. It doesn't make sense for these earlier modules to function differently because they are still very relevant among players and buyers. Since older modules are already being updated to support the new first person view, LOS, etc... Why not update them to all function consistently with new releases? Smiteworks has already been offering rewards to its user base to assist with these updates. I think this should be achievable at not a high cost to the company.

Two changes that would make a tremendous stride in this area:
1. Ensure all modules have a reference manual and then remove the separate story entries from older modules.
2. Remove player content from older modules that were the whole book so module information is consistent. (DM specific example: Loading the regular Xanathar's module contained both the DM and Player material. If I load a newer book, the player information will be missing because it is now only in the player version.)

Video game parallel:
World of Warcraft adds new features all the time. They also change the level cap, skills, standards, GUI, etc. It would be quite confusing for a player if their GUI, skills, map, etc changed based on the release date of the area they were playing in because it wasn't updated to match the new standard.


Now obviously when a full new edition comes out it doesn't make sense to keep updating the previous edition modules, but I think within the same edition, there should be uniformity. All 5E modules should behave the same. All 4E modules should behave the same. All 6E modules should behave the same. What we have now is 5E modules that all behave differently simply on the standard at the given time.

[Zacchaeus]

Two changes that would make a tremendous stride in this area:
1. Ensure all modules have a reference manual and then remove the separate story entries from older modules.
2. Remove player content from older modules that were the whole book so module information is consistent. (DM specific example: Loading the regular Xanathar's module contained both the DM and Player material. If I load a newer book, the player information will be missing because it is now only in the player version.)
.
But given that I explained above why that can’t be done; or at least it can’t be done without breaking existing ongoing campaigns isn’t that not going to make a lot more people angry and frustrated for no material gain?

[Metlore]

Yeah. I don’t pretend to know the inner workings as I’ve never dove into it so I trust you, but I don’t feel that makes my new user perspective inaccurate. It might be as simple as making a story entry that states “for this module, please use the reference manual” and vice versa. There are other ways to tackle these issues.

[Kazuto217]

Not sure if this is the right spot, but my players have been complaining about the change for quick opening the map their character is on. Used to be they could double click their character sheet token and it would open the map they were on. Now it opens a new window where they have to click another button.

This is in PF2e if that matters.

I did tell them they could do it through the combat tracker instead but they liked the old way more haha.

[LordEntrails]

Yeah. I don’t pretend to know the inner workings as I’ve never dove into it so I trust you, but I don’t feel that makes my new user perspective inaccurate. It might be as simple as making a story entry that states “for this module, please use the reference manual” and vice versa. There are other ways to tackle these issues.
I agree with you in that the new (and even old) user experience would be better if all modules for a ruleset behaved the same, and that when FG evolves for better functionality, those old (but supported) modules get updated. Unfortunately, some of the big differences are core to the architecture of FG and the modules. So to update the old modules to the new means that those modules would "break" in any campaigns that are currently running or other modules (homebrew) that use them. (note, many updates don't meaningfully affect old stuff, like the change in NPC spellcasting or the addition of damage thresholds, etc.)

The other side of this is resources, SmiteWorks has limited resources not only for developers, but module conversion as well. So it's a trade-off, a business decision. Do we update old stuff that does work as is, but would be nice to update, or do we convert totally new stuff and have that available instead?

I don't like the inconsistencies either, but I live with them because I understand the trade-offs. Would be nice though if we didn't have to though :)

[Metlore]

I agree with you in that the new (and even old) user experience would be better if all modules for a ruleset behaved the same, and that when FG evolves for better functionality, those old (but supported) modules get updated. Unfortunately, some of the big differences are core to the architecture of FG and the modules. So to update the old modules to the new means that those modules would "break" in any campaigns that are currently running or other modules (homebrew) that use them. (note, many updates don't meaningfully affect old stuff, like the change in NPC spellcasting or the addition of damage thresholds, etc.)

The other side of this is resources, SmiteWorks has limited resources not only for developers, but module conversion as well. So it's a trade-off, a business decision. Do we update old stuff that does work as is, but would be nice to update, or do we convert totally new stuff and have that available instead?

I don't like the inconsistencies either, but I live with them because I understand the trade-offs. Would be nice though if we didn't have to though :)

Yeah. It really depends on the user metrics and I'm sure Fantasy Grounds pays attention to those. I will admit though, the announcement of official D&D support for Foundry has me concerned. They were growing market share quickly even before the official partnership announcement. I think Fantasy Grounds is going to have to make some of these tough choices to stay competitive on a surface level. Consumers shop with their eyes first.

[LordEntrails]

Good discussion :)
Glad for Foumdry getting the license, but they have a ton of content to convert to catch up.
Doug, John and crew have been pretty good keeping FG on track as a business, I have faith they will keep doing so

[Metlore]

Good discussion :)
Glad for Foumdry getting the license, but they have a ton of content to convert to catch up.
Doug, John and crew have been pretty good keeping FG on track as a business, I have faith they will keep doing so

I agree. Everyone has good points and they're all because we care. I also appreciate the technical side of things being openly shared. I do think it's fairly normal in the programming industry where changes have to be rolled out that result in users having to redo their own content. I also appreciate trying to avoid that.

[Myrdin Potter]

As a community developer that has been at it for a while, there is not enough interest (which means sales) for me to go back and spend hours updating all the work I did on older variations of the system that work fine. When I started and reference manuals firstr showed up, you needed a special tool or the ability to write in XML. I had neither. As soon as the Author tool showed up, I created reference manuals but story entries were created first and all the map links and such used them (as was the norm now).

I could spend hours redoing all that work or I can convert new material. I choose to add new material, not redo old material.

[HywelPhillips]

...

I could spend hours redoing all that work or I can convert new material. I choose to add new material, not redo old material.

Speaking as a non-developer, the one time I tried to convert a module myself to FGU by hand left me with a great deal of respect for those who do it to a high enough standard for the rest of us to use! Thank you and all the community devs, your work was instrumental in getting me onto FGU and keeping me here.

I think it's great that Smiteworks and the community jointly maintain old material in a playable state, and I don't think it is reasonable to ask for support beyond the original material remaining usable, given that a lot of these products are done by community developers in their spare time.

Personally I'm fine with eg the shift from stories to reference manual. Sure, it's a bit less than ideal. But I'd really much rather community devs do spend all their time adding new material.

The only exception I'd suggest is for introductory material, or material with "heavy newbie footfall". It's worth keeping Dragon of Icespire Peak, Mines of Phandelver (and its recent expansion) up to the latest standards to aid with on-boarding new GM's because I'm willing to bet a large fraction of new FGU 5E GM's started with one of those to learn the platform, even if they'd previous run it offline. (I know I did).

Similarly starter scenarios and introductory boxed sets for other systems- if we know new Cthulhu GM's tend to start with (say) The Lightless Beacon, it might be worth revisiting that every so often to be kind to the newcomers.

And obviously if something stops working, it should be fixed.

Apart from that I think it's much better to have a constant exciting stream of new releases each week than to go back and prettify or reorganise old material. Makes FGU an exciting and active place to be.

Cheers, Hywel

[Zacchaeus]

Starter modules are usually the first to get updated when new stuff comes out. All the ones you mention are as modern as you can get; and in fact the LMoP successor module was one of the first to be built entirely with all the bells and whistles from scratch. And the update process continues with almost all of the modules being updated now to support forthcoming features.

So older modules, at least the ones that I’m in some way responsible for, are continually updated and improved.

[HywelPhillips]

Ah didn't mean to imply that this level of support WASN'T being done for starter sets, Zaccheus! I applaud and appreciate that they are kept very up to date, and I think that it is worth devoting the time and resources to continuing. Whereas I think older modules for minority systems can be left as-is unless stuff breaks, to prioritise making new material available.

[JohnD]

I never had much of a problem with the interrface, but I was using NWN and later NWN2 for around 12 years before coming to FG - those games had almost everything off of a radial menu, hot keys and a sidebar of sorts.

I can see how it might be challenging to people, but in my experience, almost everyone I've gamed with on FG hasn't had much difficulty picking it up. It's a good discussion though... never know where the kernel of an idea will come from.

[Metlore]

I will say this upcoming version I think is a fantastic balance of new features that help with a lot of my issues. I think FGU is definitely heading in the right direction. I, personally, am running out of things I'd like to see and a lot of them are addressed on the forge anyway. Here is my list:

1. Aura effects (already high on the Wishlist)
2. Spell targeting using shapes/templates(already high on the Wishlist)
3. Letting players have full control of an NPC(already high on the Wishlist)
4. The sound of the dice - I can't tell you why I dislike it so much but I do. It just reminds me of an old 80's computer game. I fully acknowledge this is my own petty issue.
5. The GUI = It continuously is improving. I honestly think its down to just font, shading, and color choices at this point.

[Zacchaeus]

You can change the volume of the dice sounds using /dicevolume [0-100] |on |off . Setting it to 0 or setting it to off will turn the sounds off.

[Metlore]

You can change the volume of the dice sounds using /dicevolume [0-100] |on |off . Setting it to 0 or setting it to off will turn the sounds off.

Yeah. I still prefer to have them make some sort of sound though so I don't normally disable it. I just don't like the sound because it reminds of an old flash game. I fully understand this is like the 10,000th thing down their list of things to look at too.

[sedgetone]

One little thing that confuses and befuddles newbies is changing the volume of the dice rolls. That fact that you have to do this via a Chat slash-command, rather than in the more obvious Tool/Dice panel. It's a little thing but it's nuts there isn't an on/off button and a volume slider in the panel.

[snupy]

It is nice to see that, not long after my initial post, the 4.5 update has finally introduced the possibility of trackpad friendly panning in not one but two ways: with keyboard (WASD keys) as well as hold space + drag. There is also a better way to pan and zoom by clicking, although it takes more space. Perhaps fortuitously, or maybe not, the hold space and drag method is very well thought for trackpads as it can be done comfortably with one hand. The lack of a trackpad friendly panning option was really irking me, so the new functionality is great news.

Other improvements, among which a more uniform windows interface, ping, larger and better "symbols" which appear when you click on a door or terrain element, and the possibility to enlarge a window so that it stays in place but other interface elements float on top of it (the send to background functionality we had before was much less useful) are also very welcome.

I am more interested in the 2.5 view than I thought I was going to be, and it could be a way for FG to recover some of the (arguably) lost ground in terms of "shininess/coolness" on the graphics department, depending on how it develops. Unfortunately, while I hear that dnd got plenty of bestiary tokens to use with that view, pathfinder got no love so there isn't much for me to play with for now (unless I create the tokens myself, which is not happening). There are other new features (quick maps seems really useful, I haven't tried improved stories but should be nice, and combat tabletop list could be a great space saving option for players who don't need the combat tracker open all the time), but I have only commented on the ones I've discovered/tried so far.

I've seen some complaints about both the redesigned window bars and arrows for panning by clicking as they take more space. While I am definitely sympathetic with lack of space problems, I am not particularly bothered by these two changes, mostly because I suffer mostly from lack of horizontal space, not vertical. While I would consider the possibility of an option for showing/hiding the clickable arrows, as well as a slider to select panning speed with WASD keys (yes I know about shift) improvements, I am now happy where things are on this front.

I will now list a couple other things I've noticed where imho the interface could be improved.

- There is no way to change the name of a campaign. Well there is, you just need to change the name of the folder, but I imagine less tech friendly users would prefer to do it from the software. Really it belongs there.

- Another easy one to fix: the updater and the main software have the same icon (on mac at least), which can be confusing since icons are often visible in recently used items menus. Perhaps just on mac, the way the updater is launched from FG is byzantine: a helper app is opened which opens the updater and quits. Whatever, I am not bothered but it's weird and inelegant.

- With the new functionality, I like keeping a map at its maximum size. However as far as I can see that loses me the possibility to return to launcher without quitting, which is nice to have. As far as I am aware, it can only be done by right clicking. I have already argued (and many disagreed) that I don't think that option belongs there. A menu you access hitting esc as someone suggested would be better Alternatively on a mac FG has an (essentially useless) menu bar, so the option could go there, or maybe in the menu in the combat tracker although I don't think it belongs there either. A command in the console would also do (or is there one already? Not sure).

- I like that FG makes it easy to open its data folder. On the other hand, the usual expectation with modern apps is that if you drag a file the app has some business handling, it will handle it or at least propose something. So for example it would be nice if when dragging an image (from outside FG e.g. Desktop) into the assets "window" it would automatically import it (say copy it to the current campaign image folder). If dragging onto images rather than assets it could first do the same and then open the window you obtain when you click create map record from an asset.

- true full screen (not available on a mac) would be very nice (and I think the os supports it well which should make it not a pain to add), but I wouldn't say is a priority.

- what's the point of the d0 and d1 options under custom dice? As expected, the former returns always 0 and the latter always 1. I am really lost at when/how this could be useful to anyone.

- It would be nice if changing some things in the console (GM icon, font....) was easier and did not require writing an extension.

[LordEntrails]

- With the new functionality, I like keeping a map at its maximum size. However as far as I can see that loses me the possibility to return to launcher without quitting, which is nice to have. As far as I am aware, it can only be done by right clicking. I have already argued (and many disagreed) that I don't think that option belongs there. A menu you access hitting esc as someone suggested would be better Alternatively on a mac FG has an (essentially useless) menu bar, so the option could go there, or maybe in the menu in the combat tracker although I don't think it belongs there either. A command in the console would also do (or is there one already? Not sure).
One of the reasons they use Unity and the set of libraries they do is that they are cross platform capable. This means they only have to make one development stream for the application. The o/s specific behavior is handled by the libraries, and is not (as far as I know) not something SmiteWorks controls (without splitting their development stream). So, o/s specific behavior is not something we will likely see.


- true full screen (not available on a mac) would be very nice (and I think the os supports it well which should make it not a pain to add), but I wouldn't say is a priority.
See above :)


- what's the point of the d0 and d1 options under custom dice? As expected, the former returns always 0 and the latter always 1. I am really lost at when/how this could be useful to anyone.
These are often used with custom effects. They allows you to make a die roll (which can be used as a trigger for various things) and then add a modifier to it to do set damage.

[Nyarly Dude]

I'll note that there are rulesets where d1 vs. a constant 1 differs for game mechanics, too. D&D 5E damage rolls, for instance -- a d1 is rolled twice on a critical hit, but a flat 1 is not doubled.

[Griogre]

You can use the d0 to add a damage type that is usually part of a dice roll ie add five fire damage as 1d0 + 5 fire. You can also use it for creatures like a minion where the damage is always fixed, ie the minions always do 5 slashing damage on a hit (1d0 + 5 slashing damage) but normal monster damage is usually in a dice range (1d8 + 2 slashing damage).

So it's useful for certain corner cases - which if you don't have one - will mean it's not useful. I believe the d0 first appeared for use with 4E monster minions.

[Egheal]

Concerning the true full screen: it is also not available on windows. But if you change the target into the program properties with something like that (depending on your screen size) "C:\Program Files\SmiteWorks\Fantasy Grounds\FantasyGrounds.exe" -popupwindow -screen-width 5120 -screen-height 1440 you will get a full screen FGU.
I don't know where to find the same thing on a mac though.
60279

[Nick Frost]

Concerning the true full screen: it is also not available on windows. But if you change the target into the program properties with something like that (depending on your screen size) "C:\Program Files\SmiteWorks\Fantasy Grounds\FantasyGrounds.exe" -popupwindow -screen-width 5120 -screen-height 1440 you will get a full screen FGU.
I don't know where to find the same thing on a mac though.
60279

Sadly "-popupwindow" does not work on mac... but they can try "-screen-fullscreen".

For a full list of options you can check: this link. (https://docs.unity3d.com/Manual/PlayerCommandLineArguments.html)

[snupy]

Thanks for the explanations about the d0 and d1.

I quickly tried launching from command line with the screen option but looks like it is ignored.

I imagine you need to launch the executable which is inside the FG app, like
[path to the app]/FantasyGrounds.app/Contents/MacOS/Fantasy\ Grounds -screen-fullscreen
?

I have also tried -screen-width and -screen-height with what should be supported resolutions, but these also seem to do nothing. Is there a special way to pass parameters to the unity engine?

On launch I get a bunch of memory settings printed on terminal on launch, here are the first two lines
[UnityMemory] Configuration Parameters - Can be set up in boot.config
"memorysetup-bucket-allocator-granularity=16"
but nothing which has to do with graphics.

Has anyone managed to make it work on a mac?

[indavis]

I played tonight and tried to use the new mini combat tracker. I really liked the flow and it saves space which is at a premium to begin with. I did find a couple of things I wanted to comment on. It looks like it shows the effects that are on your character, but there's just an icon, and no way to either click on the icons or hover over them to see what they actually are. And there's no way from the mini ct to determine who you have targeted. I know I could look at the map, but I still found myself just popping open the actual ct to double check what I had targeted. I was not able to stretch it out further to the right when I unlocked it which would be nice when you just want to see more. Is the mini ct going to be fleshed out more? I really like it, and think with some small additions it would be an even better boon to the players.

[LordEntrails]

I was not able to stretch it out further to the right when I unlocked it which would be nice when you just want to see more.
Check Options, you can set the width to a number of entries. I forget the values, but like 6, 8, 10, etc

[indavis]

Awesome.. I really like the mini ct!

[Vass_Dts]

- true full screen (not available on a mac) would be very nice (and I think the os supports it well which should make it not a pain to add), but I wouldn't say is a priority.



So, by some strange quirk that is due to (I assume) me having had the FGU beta as a kickstarter supporter, my FG still has full-screen capability. At early beta it had that functionality, but SW removed it for some specific reasons that I won't go into right now, but somehow, my Mac never got the memo. It stayed in fullscreen and I can freely go in an out of full screen. And, like all fullscreen apps, FGU takes its own space in Mission Control.

In actuality, it was my old MacBook that had the beta. But when I upgraded to my current Mac mini, I migrated my stuff, so it kept those settings. :P

[snupy]

So, by some strange quirk that is due to (I assume) me having had the FGU beta as a kickstarter supporter, my FG still has full-screen capability. At early beta it had that functionality, but SW removed it for some specific reasons that I won't go into right now, but somehow, my Mac never got the memo. It stayed in fullscreen and I can freely go in an out of full screen. And, like all fullscreen apps, FGU takes its own space in Mission Control.

In actuality, it was my old MacBook that had the beta. But when I upgraded to my current Mac mini, I migrated my stuff, so it kept those settings. :P

Oh nice I am envious! Any chance you can share the config/preference file in case it is some hidden setting? I see two possibly relevant files in ~/Library/Preferences/

~/Library/Preferences/Fantasy Grounds583052619Wine.wineskin.prefs.plist
~/Library/Preferences/unity.SmiteWorks.Fantasy Grounds.plist

I see also a fantasygrounds.conf file, but that has your license number, so do not share that.

If you want to check the file content before deciding wether or not to share them you can open them with text edit (or any editor, vim, bbedit, etc).