Feedback Thread - 2025-02 Ruleset Updates

[Moon Wizard]

This thread is to provide feedback on the latest changes located in the beta Test channel. Please post any feedback/issues to this thread.

Regards,
JPG

[SilentRuin]

I'd like to know the vital reason for renaming or repositioning this to break extensions and what it is we do now about it if its not simply changed back?

[1/26/2025 1:23:54 PM] [ERROR] Script execution error: [string "Polymorphism:..pts/manager_polymorphism.lua"]:737: attempt to index field 'actions' (a nil value)


A simple search of existing rulesets shows plenty of things referencing this. Seems it could have been preserved.

In my case Polymorphism on PCs (not NPCs) will go belly up when it tries to check all the relevant tabs...

--Debug.console(" PC ");
-- PC sheet has seven tabs we need to reset the way they were without sub_polymorphism
-- this window is required - let it blow up if not present
window["main"].setAnchor("top", "overview", "bottom", "relative", 0);
if window["skills"] then
window["skills"].setAnchor("top", "overview", "bottom", "relative", 0);
end
if window["abilities"] then
window["abilities"].setAnchor("top", "overview", "bottom", "relative", 0);
end
if window["inventory"] then
window["inventory"].setAnchor("top", "overview", "bottom", "relative", 0);
end
if window["notes"] then
window["notes"].setAnchor("top", "overview", "bottom", "relative", 0);
end
if window["logs"] then
window["logs"].setAnchor("top", "overview", "bottom", "relative", 0);
end
-- this window is required - let it blow up if not present
window["actions"].setAnchor("top", "overview", "bottom", "relative", 0); KABOOM!!!!!!!!!!!
end

[Moon Wizard]

Why do you need to reanchor every tab?
As part of this whole standardization push for all rulesets, the tabs are now dynamically generated. If you want a subwindow in between the header and the tabbed area for some reason, there's a much easier way to do that now.

This kind of update was done for all included/store rulesets, and CoreRPG/5E were the last ones as noted in previous notes.

Even in the script code you posted, the script checks for the existence of some tabs but not others; why not make it consistent and apply to all?

Regards,
JPG

[SilentRuin]

Why do you need to reanchor every tab?
As part of this whole standardization push for all rulesets, the tabs are now dynamically generated. If you want a subwindow in between the header and the tabbed area for some reason, there's a much easier way to do that now.

Regards,
JPG

Because that was the ONLY way to accomplish that previously. Some things required it inserted in screen some don't - and of course dropdowns are useless when they overlap (or were) another area after they expand past the one they are in so they have to have special coding added to keep them from triggering the wrong things. Since forever.

If there is a much easier way to insert a sub window with drop down fields that expand past its borders into particular tabs and remove them when required - then I'm unaware of it.

Why did I do it? The same reason I wrote any of my extensions - because FGU standard 5E did not provide the required functionality. And I had to work around and use giant hobnailed boots through the code to get it to work properly.

Typically, because the code had been done in such an inflexible (assumed it could only be done one way) manner that overriding something simple was not possible.

Now, have I tracked what all the rewrites have been breaking in me over the last year to make things "easier"? I have not. If you have an easy way to replace what I had to do before - great - lead on. But if your saying you have it - but have no idea "why" I had to do what I did - meaning you don't understand the limits I had to break through to get what I needed done - then its probably still the same and I'll still have to "break it" to make it work. I'd rather not figure that out again - as it typically takes about 10 hours of my time every time a TEST has dropped in last year and half - and every time I'm told...

That was it. All done you should be safe.

I'm never safe.

Anyway, if you had some great reason this could not be preserved and I have to change - I guess I have to change. If, however, you simply broke it because you couldn't imagine any reason anyone would need it - I'd request you supply something that does not require me to "refigure out how to do what I have done for years" all over again.

I'm also curious, as "actions" is used for more than tabs I assume (based on simple search of code base and seeing it all over rulesets and some of my other extensions), what I (and anyone else) needs to do now.

[SilentRuin]

Also, is there a hardish date I can know when my extensions will implode?

I know you guys like to hedge on the date something gets out of TEST but it makes it harder on us if we need to plan time to go in after things in TEST are stabilized to THEN check what has happened. Call it a grace time of two weeks after you are done with your TEST fixes.

[SilentRuin]

Oh and if you really want to know what my extension is doing and why pindercarl has that code since the last TEST issues (none that broke me but had multiple map issues that only showed up duplicatable with extensions). I believe he ran the project I gave him with all the extensions I use to find some of those things and should still have that project/modules/extensions someplace. Gist being, it WAS necessary to do what I did when I first wrote polymorphism. Is it still? No idea.

[SilentRuin]

Here is a simple search I did on rulesets and my extensions for the word "actions" in double quotes. I'm sure you guys do this sort of thing for your rulesets also in order to go in and fix all of them if this keyword is for tabs. No idea if all these are to do with tab window name removal/move/whatever - but I stopped checking at the first blowup bringing up a charsheet in 5e gave me with my extensions. One of the big problems is trying to figure out how to fix things after name changes because of the heavy reuse of the exact same names.

[bayne7400]

I noticed we are no longer picking up damage types on damage rolls on core rpg based rulesets. I also checked 5E and it is same thing.

[Moon Wizard]

@bayne7400,
Just pushed a fix that should address that. It's working again for 5E and was a CoreRPG layer change; so assume that should fix for others as well.

JPG

[SilentRuin]

Look, you said it was easy to replace the window["main"] etc. for tab window names in the way you are doing it now.

So, how do I do this easy thing? If your going to change basic window access to tabs you need to explain how I can now use my anchor code based manipulations on them.

Have at it. I'll do what it is you say is easy, I just hope its as easy as window["name of tab"]...

[Moon Wizard]

I'm putting together something already; so just take a breather, and I'll get you something to look at.

Regards,
JPG

[Mephisto]

I very much welcome especially these 2 changes: :)
[ADDED] Custom initiative indicator asset option available, with over 20 included graphics to choose from.
[DEV][UPDATED] ActionsManager script preserves boolean and number data for roll record, when keys start with b[A-Z] and n[A-Z], respectively.

Thank you for including them!

Would it be possible to highlight a token on the map when your mouse hovers over the CT entry field? Or a "ping" button sending out wave from the token to locate them? That would help a lot for crowds.

I would also like to second the idea of having a short "stable" window to have the opportunity to bring forge stuff up to date without revisiting the updates with every change of the beta ruleset.

[SilentRuin]

Moon Wizard,

Best TEST support ever.

I have often lamented about TEST taking huge amounts of my time to figure out what broke me - why it changed - and how to rewrite my stuff so it worked again. The changes you provided for polymorphism to replace my TAB and combobox logic I was forced to use 4 years ago, and no longer need with all the changes since then and in most recent test (with changes you made in TEST on top of that in light of my breakage), would have taken me forever to figure out based on simply "it broke, what now?" per usual.

IMHO, I have never begrudged FORGE (SW/WOTC) taking 1/2 the proceeds as extensions are all just a hack on top of their stuff and cannot exist without them. But today, you earned that take. Showing exactly what changed and how it works is EXACTLY the kind of support for extensions and rulesets I think works best for the community.

Past TEST time taken up to just keep my stuff working as it was? 10+ hours (conservative guess)

This TEST time taken up to just keep my stuff working as it was? 1/2 hour (due to Moon Wizard jumping in and looking at code to see what needs to be done now)

As far as superficial testing goes - polymorphism works fine. I'll have to check all my other extensions as time permits. But even if there are more breakages - hopefully not as no others deal with tabs or overlapping combo boxes - it will not sting nearly so much as it usually would :)

[LordEntrails]

Sounds like this info on windows is ready? Is this new info on how to make these changes available for the rest of us yet :)
I was hoping it would be posted in this thread.

[SilentRuin]

Sounds like this info on windows is ready? Is this new info on how to make these changes available for the rest of us yet :)
I was hoping it would be posted in this thread.

I pretty much glanced over and took the changes Moon made to my code. He would probably have the details - but in general he removed large swaths of my old tab/combobox logic and replaced it with...
In record_char.xml in windowclass removed all my old subwindow and tab callback logic with -


<windowclass name="charsheet" merge="join">
<sizelimits>
<minimum width="470" height="695" />
</sizelimits>
<script>
function onTabChanged()
PolymorphismManager.onTabChanged(self);
end
</script>
<sheetdata>
<sub_content_framed_groupbox_narrow_top name="sub_polymorphism" />
</sheetdata>
</windowclass>


And then changed all my <simplestring> to <string_static> and changed all my anchor points to something more local than what I'd had before for in my sub_polymorphism windowclass. Just a whole bunch of removed code with a few changes basically.

In my manager_polymorphism.lua that controlled the extension - he removed a bunch of code that dealt with managing old tab logic (along with some older ways I was referencing stuff in general) and my window references for my sub_polymorphism window basically stayed the same (though he created a common reference for it as opposed to spelling it out every reference) and changed the windows references to fields to DB references of fields.

It still accessed the same tab logic for display of my window I had before...


local sSub = (window.tabs and window.tabs.getActiveTabName()) or "";
if ((bNPC and sSub ~= "main") or (not bNPC and sSub ~= "actions")) then
return false;
end


So basically, he removed all code I used to previously try and place/add/control my sub_polymorphism window in tabs and replaced it with the xml stuff I referenced above and simply deleted it out of the controlling lua code.

You'll have to ask him for any more details than that as the diff was almost entirely cosmetic stuff to run more efficiently than where I had written it 4 years ago (see above lua comments).

[LordEntrails]

Awesome details, thanks!

[Moon Wizard]

If you have any specific questions, feel free to post here; and I can expand on anything I did. Or you can send me PM or email.

The gist is that with all the standardization changes; I changed all the top level windows to be built in a vertically stacked manner, so it is easier to insert sections at the top/bottom of any top-level window.

For SR's extension, I changed his code to use the new stacked window layout logic; and the rest was getting rid of all the workarounds that he built from years ago.

Regards,
JPG

[AlterZwerg]

Really like the new initiative indicators! Something similar to choose from for the ping animations would be awesome. A real eye catcher, thank you.

[Mike Serfass]

I play tested the upcoming features with my gaming group. They really liked the initiative indicators.
It's always the sparklies that get the most notice. Then again, we're older players, and this makes it easier on our eyes.
There were some question about the indicators.
Will it be easy for users to add their own?
Will they be sold in packs like dice skins?
Can they be included in themes?

[Moon Wizard]

@Mike Serfass,

There's a Folder button on the Initiative Indicator selection window that takes you to the specific folder where you can place your own initiative indicators; just make sure to use Refresh button after.

They can potentially be included in any ruleset using a module asset pack. The default ones are included in the CoreRPG asset pack.

Regards,
JPG

[mattekure]

I like the initiative indicators. I can remove that from my extension. I see you added the ability to use assets in bitmapwidgets now. Thats a huge gamechanger for me.

[Moon Wizard]

Assets in bitmap widgets have been around for a while; but the floor display is new.

Regards,
JPG

[mattekure]

Hmm. I just have missed that somewhere. I haven’t seen any documentation for it. I remember asking about it a few years back but haven’t looked much since

[Farratto]

Could someone post a screenshot of the initiative indicators? I'm having trouble finding it

[mattekure]

Could someone post a screenshot of the initiative indicators? I'm having trouble finding it

Make sure you are in test and do an update. then its in the Options.

https://i.imgur.com/M9v1RBt.png

https://i.imgur.com/vZ773mX.png

[Seleh]

These look awesome. Look forward to playing around with them, and seeing how my players react.

[LordEntrails]

Gotta agree, never knew I needed these initiative trackers but they are great! Have to admit when I've run games with many NPCs it was always a challenge and I never liked the re-center option but it was the best we had.

edit: I would love to see something similar for targeting!

[mattekure]

Gotta agree, never knew I needed these initiative trackers but they are great! Have to admit when I've run games with many NPCs it was always a challenge and I never liked the re-center option but it was the best we had.

edit: I would love to see something similar for targeting!

I have had an extension on DMsGuild and now the Forge for several years that does just that. Both the initiative indicator and targeting indicators. It will need an update after this release, but the functionality has been available.

https://forge.fantasygrounds.com/shop/items/1603/view

[Farratto]

Thank you for the screenshots and thank you very much MoonWizard for adding module indicators to the custom effects list. HUGE time saver going forward.

[MrDDT]

When a token has init indicator it no longer has the hover over to see the threat/reach range.
When a token has init indicator it no longer changes the curser to a hand showing it's draggable or whatever.

This is only with the OVER setting, UNDER setting works correctly.

[MrDDT]

Right clicking on a token with INIT indicator it pulls up the wrong menu.
Using the hotkey B while hovering over a token with INIT indicator is not correctly pulling tokens to the back/front.

This is only with the OVER setting, UNDER setting works correctly.

[Moon Wizard]

Thanks, I've passed along to Carl. Looks like the bitmap widgets are blocking standard hover behaviors.

Regards,
JPG

[rocketvaultgames]

Regarding: "Added automatic player login to Owned characters when connecting."

Any chance of making this a toggleable option? I have players with multiple characters that shouldn't be activated in every session.

[Moon Wizard]

No plans to make it an option at this point; they can Acquire/Release characters just like they could before to switch.

Regards,
JPG

[rocketvaultgames]

No plans to make it an option at this point; they can Acquire/Release characters just like they could before to switch.

Regards,
JPG

Maybe I'm misunderstanding how it works...

If a player has 5 different characters claimed, when they load FGU, they will have all 5 claimed automatically instead of the current 0?

If that is the case, my players will need to release multiple characters every session session rather than just acquire 1.

[Moon Wizard]

When a player releases a PC, it will now also release ownership. So, it won't be loaded in the next connection, unless explicitly selected again.

Regards,
JPG

[rocketvaultgames]

When a player releases a PC, it will now also release ownership. So, it won't be loaded in the next connection, unless explicitly selected again.

Regards,
JPG

This will still add an extra step of releasing one character and acquiring another on load...

For example:

Player 1 owns Characters A, B, and C.

Currently when they log in, they start with no character and then can select A, and/or B, and/or C independently (usually but not always just one of them).

Under the new system, the first time they log in, they will have A, B, and C, and need to release ownership of two of them (let's say B and C for now).

In the next session, when they need to only play character B, they will have the added step of releasing A and then acquiring B rather than just acquiring B.

I'm not sure how much additional load time is added for the character acquisitions/releases, but I would wager it's not 0, especially on slower machines...

Additionally, if releasing the character also releases ownership, there will be more unclaimed characters populating the selection window which can certainly lead to accidentally (or perhaps maliciously (though unlikely for my groups)) acquiring the wrong character(s).


Please let me know if I'm misunderstanding how this is to work.

I would just request an option of "Auto-acquire Owned PCs on Launch" - Yes/No to preserve the existing functionality which seems better to me in most instances.

GM-Only would be acceptable, but honestly per player would be perfect. There is one campaign where I connect with a second computer to run 4 characters from a second computer and it's always those 4 with that account. It will save me some time/clicks in that instance.

[Moon Wizard]

To be honest, the number of steps is a lot less for the vast majority of cases; and for those cases where you are swapping characters, the number of steps is pretty close to the same.

In general, I don't like adding "yet another option" kind of scenarios; as this creates options bloat. I don't know how many times people interally/externally say "just add another option"; but we already have more options than people can grok when getting started.

In this case, this vastly simplifies the player login scenario for the large majority of games; and the number of steps is very close to the same in the other cases (maybe one extra step on the occasions where they're multi-swapping).

Regards,
JPG

[LordEntrails]

I like the new auto-assign feature. I understand it's not going to help all of the people all of the time, but I do know that it will help me as a player and the players at my table when I GM 90% of the time or so. That to me is a win.

[SilentRuin]

The fact players can clear their own ownership makes it a non issue to me. The less I have to do the better.

[rocketvaultgames]

To be honest, the number of steps is a lot less for the vast majority of cases; and for those cases where you are swapping characters, the number of steps is pretty close to the same.

In general, I don't like adding "yet another option" kind of scenarios; as this creates options bloat. I don't know how many times people interally/externally say "just add another option"; but we already have more options than people can grok when getting started.

In this case, this vastly simplifies the player login scenario for the large majority of games; and the number of steps is very close to the same in the other cases (maybe one extra step on the occasions where they're multi-swapping).

Regards,
JPG

I understand. Just giving my feedback. For me it seems likely to be a downgrade in most of my situations, but I understand that it can be an upgrade.

Speaking of groking options... How about making it obvious to the GM which options are Per User for extensions in addition to those in the Per User section? Maybe just make the little left/right arrows a different color for options that are Per User (in and out of the Per User section)?

Also, when closing the Options window, it seems to be immediately cleared from memory so that if you reopen it even a seconds later, it has to rebuild (which takes 4-5 seconds with a lot of extensions loaded even on a fairly powerful machine) Can you keep it loaded and flush it on the same timer as images? (or better yet, keep it loaded if memory is available)

[Moon Wizard]

That’s correct. The Options window rebuilds as needed, because it’s only typically opened a couple of times per campaign.

For extension Per User options; the extensions developers should add to the Per User area or make their own Per User Extension option group. All of the official Per User options are in the Per User option group which makes it very obvious.

Regards,
JPG

[Moon Wizard]

By the way, this is what I was alluding to earlier about “yet another option” syndrome. Extension developers don’t consider how much complexity they are adding, as well as the overhead.

JPG

[MrDDT]

I understand. Just giving my feedback. For me it seems likely to be a downgrade in most of my situations, but I understand that it can be an upgrade.

Speaking of groking options... How about making it obvious to the GM which options are Per User for extensions in addition to those in the Per User section? Maybe just make the little left/right arrows a different color for options that are Per User (in and out of the Per User section)?

Also, when closing the Options window, it seems to be immediately cleared from memory so that if you reopen it even a seconds later, it has to rebuild (which takes 4-5 seconds with a lot of extensions loaded even on a fairly powerful machine) Can you keep it loaded and flush it on the same timer as images? (or better yet, keep it loaded if memory is available)

If you need to change an option often, you should put it on a hotkey.

As MW said, ext devs are the ones that do not put them in the PER USER area. However, I agree with Rock here as it would be nice to have it highlight a different color or something if it's able to be set as a GM setting for the server, or if it's set as a user.

The reason is you don't want all the ext devs to have stuff in the PER USER area because then you don't know what is to what ext.

To the overall topic of opening Owned Sheets on log in, I don't really feel like this is needed. I can only thing of one reason they would be useful. If a person logged out after a session and closed the CHAR sheet before logging out.
In all other cases it makes no sense.
New to the campaign? You don't have a charsheet yet.
Played last session? You already have remembered windows open as an option.

Where is this helpful?

[rhagelstrom]

With the weapon mastery additions in this update for 5E:
It doesn't make a lot of sense to me for the user to check/check each weapon for a mastery they know. It is too much busy work and easy to miss or forget something.

The main missing componet with weapon masteries is the player needs to choose which masteries they know and there is no where on the char sheet to do that. To me it makes more sense to have some sort of UI component to define those masteries. Maybe that is on the abilities tab, or maybe it is in the feature Weapon Mastery itself. That way the check box that is currently on the weapon isn't needed and what is currently there can be automatically shown/hidden based on if the char knows the mastery. One needs to know the chars chosen weapon masteries anyhow if in the future there is plans to automate weapon masteries or if that is left to extension devs.

[rocketvaultgames]

The reason is you don't want all the ext devs to have stuff in the PER USER area because then you don't know what is to what ext.



Completely agree on this!

[rocketvaultgames]

If you need to change an option often, you should put it on a hotkey.



I do... on 2 hotkeys... if only a single hotkey could toggle on/off... (or advance through the options if it's not binary)

[rocketvaultgames]

That’s correct. The Options window rebuilds as needed, because it’s only typically opened a couple of times per campaign.

Regards,
JPG

During the course of play, I agree... but there are plenty of times when I'm testing out a plethora of options and open/close it frequently (with a 4 second delay on open). (i7-13700KF, 64GB DDR5, 990PROs, GTX 4070Ti)

[MrDDT]

During the course of play, I agree... but there are plenty of times when I'm testing out a plethora of options and open/close it frequently (with a 4 second delay on open). (i7-13700KF, 64GB DDR5, 990PROs, GTX 4070Ti)

If it's in cases when you are testing it like that, leave the options open.

[rocketvaultgames]

If it's in cases when you are testing it like that, leave the options open.

...well yeah... except that screen real estate is always at a premium and that isn't always (usually) practical. (Every. Pixel. Counts.)

Yes, letting it stay open and end up behind other windows is an option, but still just a work around.

I definitely might be missing something from a behind-the-scenes tech perspective but, I would sure love to take advantage of extra RAM if possible.

Waiting multiple seconds for a computer to do anything (outside of rendering large A/V files) in 2025 is brutal.

[LordEntrails]

The reason is you don't want all the ext devs to have stuff in the PER USER area because then you don't know what is to what ext.
I see extension devs have two simple ways to solve this.
1) Preface their options and put them in the existing groupd. Such as; "BCEG: Option1" or "MNM: Option2"
2) Create their own groups, such as; "Bob's Ext GM" and "Bob's Ext Per User"

It would be nice if extension devs had a recommended approach to use.

[Moon Wizard]

@rhagelstrom,
We have not tried to tackle Weapon Mastery as a whole feature to build out; but saw a good suggestion that allowed it to at least have a place to track. The players can open the details and mark which ones they have Mastery with, and even change after each Long Rest; which is more support than was available before.

@rocketvaultgames,
Just opened my 5E campaign; and my Options window comes up immediately. Just with the default 5E Options, there are ~60 options.
So, having it run up to 4 seconds implies to me that you must have extensions adding 100+ more options, which is sort of crazy. Maybe suggesting less options to extension developers would be good.
I really try to reduce the number of options when possible to try and keep things more manageable, specifically because of this sort of options overload.

Regards,
JPG

[SilentRuin]

For option page just provide a group option (like spells etc.) that lets you choose which group your looking at. The search option is invaluable and is plenty good enough - but if your looking for a good way to view large numbers of options - being able to limit the view to only one "group" of options would be handy also. For example...

63447

The red squares show what I'm considering option "groups" - you just need to add a dropdown at top with all the names in them and then when selected only shows that "group".

P.S. anything less than 100-200 options in this screen is simply unrealistic case for those who use extensions.

[MrDDT]

I see extension devs have two simple ways to solve this.
1) Preface their options and put them in the existing groupd. Such as; "BCEG: Option1" or "MNM: Option2"
2) Create their own groups, such as; "Bob's Ext GM" and "Bob's Ext Per User"

It would be nice if extension devs had a recommended approach to use.


For option page just provide a group option (like spells etc.) that lets you choose which group your looking at. The search option is invaluable and is plenty good enough - but if your looking for a good way to view large numbers of options - being able to limit the view to only one "group" of options would be handy also. For example...

63447

The red squares show what I'm considering option "groups" - you just need to add a dropdown at top with all the names in them and then when selected only shows that "group".

P.S. anything less than 100-200 options in this screen is simply unrealistic case for those who use extensions.

I do use the groups, first off, I think it would be best to open up the options window in collapsed form. I'm sure this would help it load faster and is easier to use.
Second, I'm talking about being able to see which options are user choice without having a new subgroup. Or extra words on an option.

[rocketvaultgames]

@rhagelstrom,
We have not tried to tackle Weapon Mastery as a whole feature to build out; but saw a good suggestion that allowed it to at least have a place to track. The players can open the details and mark which ones they have Mastery with, and even change after each Long Rest; which is more support than was available before.

@rocketvaultgames,
Just opened my 5E campaign; and my Options window comes up immediately. Just with the default 5E Options, there are ~60 options.
So, having it run up to 4 seconds implies to me that you must have extensions adding 100+ more options, which is sort of crazy. Maybe suggesting less options to extension developers would be good.
I really try to reduce the number of options when possible to try and keep things more manageable, specifically because of this sort of options overload.

Regards,
JPG

Yes. Without a lot of extension options the window opens more quickly. And I will (somewhat begrudgingly) pay that 4 second price once per session. I'd just like to not have to pay it every time the window is opened within a relatively short time... The behavior of Image Windows seems to be a realistic middle ground.

The extension options are what keep me using FG. I am suggesting more options, not fewer. Being able to tailor individual experiences in TTRPGs is critical.

[MrDDT]

@rhagelstrom,
We have not tried to tackle Weapon Mastery as a whole feature to build out; but saw a good suggestion that allowed it to at least have a place to track. The players can open the details and mark which ones they have Mastery with, and even change after each Long Rest; which is more support than was available before.

@rocketvaultgames,
Just opened my 5E campaign; and my Options window comes up immediately. Just with the default 5E Options, there are ~60 options.
So, having it run up to 4 seconds implies to me that you must have extensions adding 100+ more options, which is sort of crazy. Maybe suggesting less options to extension developers would be good.
I really try to reduce the number of options when possible to try and keep things more manageable, specifically because of this sort of options overload.

Regards,
JPG


First Point.
I'm not a big fan of the current system of having to use this action tab. I think its much better to have it pulled from the abilities list of choices they picked and be automatically done and not having to click it each time.
It's on test, now is the time to look at getting it right and not making it worse.

Second Point.
Fresh 5E D&D campaign, no exts. Options takes 1.3 seconds for me to open. I wouldn't exactly call that instant, but it is faster than 4 seconds.

[rocketvaultgames]

I do use the groups, first off, I think it would be best to open up the options window in collapsed form. I'm sure this would help it load faster and is easier to use.
Second, I'm talking about being able to see which options are user choice without having a new subgroup. Or extra words on an option.

This makes me think of how much better of an experience it would be (with a beefy enough computer) to load a lot of things into memory when FG loads (and keep them loaded) Options, Party Sheet, etc.

I'd be happy to wait an extra full minute to load FG if it meant near-instant loading of things during sessions when we are collectively wasting a few seconds here and there with connected players all waiting in addition to the GM. It only takes a few seconds of waiting on technology to offer players a window to check out or become distracted, especially in online games.

[MrDDT]

Yes. Without a lot of extension options the window opens more quickly. And I will (somewhat begrudgingly) pay that 4 second price once per session. I'd just like to not have to pay it every time the window is opened within a relatively short time... The behavior of Image Windows seems to be a realistic middle ground.

The extension options are what keep me using FG. I am suggesting more options, not fewer. Being able to tailor individual experiences in TTRPGs is critical.

I agree with this, if FG didn't work with EXTs or made it so you had to choose playable with no exts, or slow as heck with exts, I would leave the platform. It's 100% the features of custom options that keep me here, else I would go somewhere else that have better options for me, which there are if exts were to be not usable.
Supporting exts as options is part of FG's features.

Having said that, I do agree that there will always be a point where there is a limit on how many exts one can use before it's unplayable. Not every EXT is made the same and not everyone would have the same cost when using an ext. So the # of exts is not really a factor as much as what an ext costs on playable or not.

I think personally in this case of the options, having a 4 second load timer on it each time you need it is not a major factor for me, many more things would be better to work on than this if there is a major issue on the time needed to fix this issue.
My question is mostly for Moonwizard on this part. Why is it so slow? Is this something ext people can work to fix? Is this just because it uses XML and LUA? What is going on? When I use another VTT with lots of exts (aka mods), they do not have this issue. What is going on?

[MrDDT]

This makes me think of how much better of an experience it would be (with a beefy enough computer) to load a lot of things into memory when FG loads (and keep them loaded) Options, Party Sheet, etc.

I'd be happy to wait an extra full minute to load FG if it meant near-instant loading of things during sessions when we are collectively wasting a few seconds here and there with connected players all waiting in addition to the GM. It only takes a few seconds of waiting on technology to offer players a window to check out or become distracted, especially in online games.

Issue with this is people with lower RAM or VRAM would then suffer greatly.

[rocketvaultgames]

While we are talking about grokability of options for new players... Can we only have Per-User options shown on the client side? Especially with Extensions, that would be a let less for them to be confronted with...

...or maybe an on/off of show/hide options they can't interact with anyway.

I don't know what the perfect answer is for Options, but I think there is room for improvement.

[MrDDT]

While we are talking about grokability of options for new players... Can we only have Per-User options shown on the client side? Especially with Extensions, that would be a let less for them to be confronted with...

...or maybe an on/off of show/hide options they can't interact with anyway.

I don't know what the perfect answer is for Options, but I think there is room for improvement.

This is a good option. There is little reason for players to see those options when they go there. It should have another button they click to see the "server settings" which would be GM options, and the "User settings" which would be the per user options.

I think as a player/user, when they open options they should see PER USER options only, without clicking something else to see the server settings.

[Moon Wizard]

The original idea is that the Options for the table would be available to the players to review, below the options they can control (i.e. Per User).

For the slowness, I believe part of the limitation is the Unity UI objects are quite heavy. Carl and I have some ideas that may or may not pan out around adjusting the UI to work faster; but the prototyping and investigation have not made the prioritization cut over other features/changes/game systems.

Regards,
JPG

[rocketvaultgames]

The original idea is that the Options for the table would be available to the players to review, below the options they can control (i.e. Per User).

For the slowness, I believe part of the limitation is the Unity UI objects are quite heavy. Carl and I have some ideas that may or may not pan out around adjusting the UI to work faster; but the prototyping and investigation have not made the prioritization cut over other features/changes/game systems.

Regards,
JPG

Thank you for this reply.

To be clear... I don't want to sound like a demanding jerk... just want to make known what the pain points are for someone that is working in FG multiple hours most days and wants to take full advantage of everything that is possible (including extensions), and suggest possibilities for improvement.

Sincere thanks for all you and the SW team do(es).

[rhagelstrom]

@rhagelstrom,
We have not tried to tackle Weapon Mastery as a whole feature to build out; but saw a good suggestion that allowed it to at least have a place to track. The players can open the details and mark which ones they have Mastery with, and even change after each Long Rest; which is more support than was available before.

That is unfortunate. It's a bit like lipstick on a pig, where as something as a simple as string control somwhere could make it more like tasty bacon.

With the alert feat feature are you planning on adjusting all the CT effects init to act on value of those actors that had their init swapped? Without it, the feature really isn't useful

[Moon Wizard]

No plans to change the behavior; it does the same thing that Stv was trying to do. This is meant for standard D&D play; swap initiative once at beginning of combat.

I believe there is already an extension that swaps effect values based on initiatives changing every turn. I've made that call be independent, so it can be overridden easily by extension developers.

Regards,
JPG

[Farratto]

The original idea is that the Options for the table would be available to the players to review, below the options they can control (i.e. Per User).

For the slowness, I believe part of the limitation is the Unity UI objects are quite heavy. Carl and I have some ideas that may or may not pan out around adjusting the UI to work faster; but the prototyping and investigation have not made the prioritization cut over other features/changes/game systems.

Regards,
JPG

I very much look forward to this if and when you all get a chance. Thank you

[rocketvaultgames]

The original idea is that the Options for the table would be available to the players to review, below the options they can control (i.e. Per User).

For the slowness, I believe part of the limitation is the Unity UI objects are quite heavy. Carl and I have some ideas that may or may not pan out around adjusting the UI to work faster; but the prototyping and investigation have not made the prioritization cut over other features/changes/game systems.

Regards,
JPG

Would the root cause of the 'slowness' of the Options window to load be the same as for the Effects window? That one takes Forever(TM) to load as well (if the CUSTOM list is well-populated).

[rocketvaultgames]

For the slowness, I believe part of the limitation is the Unity UI objects are quite heavy. Carl and I have some ideas that may or may not pan out around adjusting the UI to work faster; but the prototyping and investigation have not made the prioritization cut over other features/changes/game systems.

Regards,
JPG

I'm thinking you found a solution here... Options/Effects/Party Sheet are all super snappy now even with tons of stuff loaded! Night and day difference.

This is a massive improvement that will collectively save many, many hours of waiting and frustration in the long run.

My most sincere thanks!!

Performance improvements like this are soooo high on my list of importance. It's not just the time saved (which is still important) but the disruption to GM flow during a game. Waiting even an extra second for something to load can really pull you out of the moment when you are spinning all of the GM plates.

[Farratto]

I also noticed the snappiness and greatly appreciate it.

[RobboNJ69]

Hello!

For the pending 2025-02 Ruleset update; is there any tentative date? I know things are fluid due to testing, and might get pushed back, but an earliest date would be helpful.

This way we can make sure everyone (players and DMs) can do one last update before the big new release.

Some of the extensions are expecting issues and need some time to update their code.

Thanks for all your hard work and being so responsive to the users. You guys at SmiteWorks really set the bar for communicating with your customers. I don't think most of the users realize how good you are with that.

-Rob

[Zacchaeus]

Hello!

For the pending 2025-02 Ruleset update; is there any tentative date? I know things are fluid due to testing, and might get pushed back, but an earliest date would be helpful.

This way we can make sure everyone (players and DMs) can do one last update before the big new release.

Some of the extensions are expecting issues and need some time to update their code.

Thanks for all your hard work and being so responsive to the users. You guys at SmiteWorks really set the bar for communicating with your customers. I don't think most of the users realize how good you are with that.

-Rob


It was released on Tuesday.

[RobboNJ69]

It was released on Tuesday.

Thanks Zacchaeus.

So much for us all getting in another update and being on the same version.

Is it standard procedure to not set a release date (other than the entire month)? Or did I miss the date? - I've been trying to keep an eye out for it.

[Jiminimonka]

Thanks Zacchaeus.

So much for us all getting in another update and being on the same version.

Is it standard procedure to not set a release date (other than the entire month)? Or did I miss the date? - I've been trying to keep an eye out for it.

The release date.Moon Wizard said was.February. So exactly right. ;)

[MrDDT]

Thanks Zacchaeus.

So much for us all getting in another update and being on the same version.

Is it standard procedure to not set a release date (other than the entire month)? Or did I miss the date? - I've been trying to keep an eye out for it.

Yes this is standard to put a released date as a projected month, then releases normally happen on a Tuesday, so that can help narrow it down.

[RobboNJ69]

Thank you for the replies. I was aware that they get released on Tuesday, but I thought since the threads didn't have a fixed date, it would be next week. Even the release posts don't say the release went live - as of today, they still show 'February'.

Not all of us are gaming as often as we had been, so keeping everyone on the same version has been a challenge.

I would love to hear from the developers - is this something intentional? Can it be changed?

Just announcing a 'soft' Target Date would be great. If more time is needed, the target date gets pushed to the next Tuesday.

Since not all extension developers can get their extensions updated right away, we run into the situation we have now...

We can either exclude players who aren't on the right version or everyone updates now and we we'll have broken extensions. A simple release date would make it a lot easier to avoid this.

Thanks!
Rob

[Jiminimonka]

The GM/DM/Referee/Keeper/Host version is the one that matters.

Broken extensions is part of the deal. As Silent Ruin says, extensions = risk

Edit: if the GM is on Test and the players are Live the players will be on Test as well (no need for them to swap versions or update most of the time).

[LordEntrails]

I think the best advice I can give is if you know an update is coming in February (or any month), simple don't update during that month until you check the City Hall forum to see if the updates have been released or not. Updates are not required and the City Hall will always have an announcement for all new releases.

[MrDDT]

Also you can keep an eye on the announcements channel in discord, they always post them there a couple hours BEFORE they are live, so you can see it and not update.

[RobboNJ69]

Broken extensions is part of the deal. As Silent Ruin says, extensions = risk

Yes. I'm totally aware of that and accept the risk. Banking online = risk. It doesn't mean you should use 2 digit passwords.

What I'm talking about is a seemingly simple solution for mitigating the likelihood of it being an issue.

A release date would let everyone know the cut off point before needing to wait for the extension developers.

I know we're not the only ones running in to this, but in my case, had I known the scheduled date was the 18th, I could have called the players over the weekend and made sure they all updated. Instead we were all just going to update tonight when we game.

[MrDDT]

Yes. I'm totally aware of that and accept the risk. Banking online = risk. It doesn't mean you should use 2 digit passwords.

What I'm talking about is a seemingly simple solution for mitigating the likelihood of it being an issue.

A release date would let everyone know the cut off point before needing to wait for the extension developers.

I know we're not the only ones running in to this, but in my case, had I known the scheduled date was the 18th, I could have called the players over the weekend and made sure they all updated. Instead we were all just going to update tonight when we game.

They said it 5 hours before they sent the update out.
Also you know updates happen on Tuesdays. I mean not sure more can be done here.
Dev's already said they are not going to give dates of the updates. They've this many times.

Because your game wasn't til tonight, you should just tell your players not to update any Tuesday until you check to see if there are updates that would break stuff. I mean also why are they updating anyways if you can call and tell them not to update 5 days before hand just tell them to not update until gameday or the day before unless they check with you. Problem fixed.

[RobboNJ69]

MrDDT - Thank you. I'm not on Discord, but I can look into it.

LordEntrails - Thank you, as well. We'll probably follow your suggestion. Regarding the City Hall - I don't see any post where it actually says that it was released. Am I missing it?

[LordEntrails]

LordEntrails - Thank you, as well. We'll probably follow your suggestion. Regarding the City Hall - I don't see any post where it actually says that it was released. Am I missing it?
https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?84266-FG-Ruleset-Updates-2025-02
They don't make those posts until it is actually released.
There will also be an announcement post in the version thread; https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?83344-Fantasy-Grounds-v4-6-0&p=737457&viewfull=1#post737457
Note that these posts will always be in the City Hall, but not the same post/thread so you can't just subscribe to a single post. But you can Subscribe the sub-forum (Forum Tools > Subscribe to this forum) and then set the notification type to Daily Email. They don't post in their very frequently so the number of emails might be tolerable.

[Jiminimonka]

Yes. I'm totally aware of that and accept the risk. Banking online = risk. It doesn't mean you should use 2 digit passwords.

What I'm talking about is a seemingly simple solution for mitigating the likelihood of it being an issue.

A release date would let everyone know the cut off point before needing to wait for the extension developers.

I know we're not the only ones running in to this, but in my case, had I known the scheduled date was the 18th, I could have called the players over the weekend and made sure they all updated. Instead we were all just going to update tonight when we game.

Like I said. If the GM doesn't update the players (even if they have updated) will be fine and the extensions will be too. Usually, unless its a major update that gives a warning message, this is the case.

[Moon Wizard]

Usually, the “anticipated” release date will be in the announcement for the ruleset versions when loading up in Test mode. The reason “rough” dates are given is because features take longer than expected, or last minute issues are found, that can delay.

Regards,
JPG

[RobboNJ69]

Thank you, everyone.

Rob

[rocketvaultgames]

For the slowness, I believe part of the limitation is the Unity UI objects are quite heavy. Carl and I have some ideas that may or may not pan out around adjusting the UI to work faster; but the prototyping and investigation have not made the prioritization cut over other features/changes/game systems.

Regards,
JPG

I just have to say how helpful this improvement is. Opening Options is now 0.1 sec instead of 4.0 sec. I am going to literally save HOURS this year just in opening Options and Party Sheet...

Sincere thanks!

[Moon Wizard]

The funny thing is that we didn't change anything on the actual Options list in this release. The change that I spoke about that Carl and I were discussing is actually a fairly substantial rewrite of the drawing code to completely change the way clipping/drawing works in general.

Regards,
JPG

[rocketvaultgames]

The funny thing is that we didn't change anything on the actual Options list in this release. The change that I spoke about that Carl and I were discussing is actually a fairly substantial rewrite of the drawing code to completely change the way clipping/drawing works in general.

Regards,
JPG

Certainly fascinating. Something changed last week that massively improved these load times...

[Mephisto]

I can confirm that something seems to have changed as screen rendering for a fairly large skill list is now new instantaneous when it previously took several seconds.

[RobboNJ69]

I can confirm that something seems to have changed as screen rendering for a fairly large skill list is now new instantaneous when it previously took several seconds.

We thought the same, but not just for skills, all the character sheet tabs seem to open much, much faster. It seems as thought there is a little more load time in the beginning, before anything shows, then everything is faster.

[VoltronRocks]

Hello, thanks for all the hard work, the new features are awesome. I only have one request/problem? When I open the options list and minimize the group headers inside, they do not persist and stay closed when I reopen the options window. Otherwise, why have the minimize options at all? Thanks for letting me ponder.

*edit. Sorry if this is in the wrong place. Reading through I saw posts about the option window, so I thought I would ask.

[Moon Wizard]

That's always been how the window worked. You can already use the +/- buttons at the bottom to quickly expand/collapse the whole list.

Regards,
JPG