FG 2: FOW and lighting effects. [Archive] - Fantasy Grounds Message Boards

primarch

January 9th, 2009, 00:32

Hi!

After much thought and trying out basically every VTT out there for months if not a few years, I have settled on acquiring FG2 to play with some out of touch friends.

After extensively reading the old threads and the very nice tutorial videos, I have a good grasp on what the program offers.

Having also dabbled with Maptools, I realize FG2 doesn't offer the depth of lighting/LOS options, but I would like to know what the current layers and FOW CAN do.

Any input to this as well as play experience is much appreciated.

Primarch

Griogre

January 9th, 2009, 02:23

FG's map really resembles a battlemap in a face to face game. It does have a mask which hides the map image from the players, but it transparent to the GM. The GM can them remove parts of the mask with a "lasso" tool to show the parts of the map the players can see. GM’s can also hide player and monster tokens from the players.

Maptool has some very nifty lighting effects that take advantage of the computer while FG tries to simulate the face to face experience which doesn't have any fancy lighting effects or fog of war.

Maptool is a very nice program that focuses on the game *map.* Because of that focus, it tends to do anything involving the map well - lighting, movement, FOW.

FG on the other hand focuses on simulating the tabletop environment of playing a RPG game face to face. A great deal of its complexity is in the character sheets (and combat tracker) and having realistic dice rolling.

I, personally, believe FG is a better VTT for RPGs than Maptool. On the other hand I think MapTool and Battlegrounds are better for playing games like Space Hulk or 40K which are map focused. Which is better for you depends on what you want to play online.

If you have any other concerns, just ask.

primarch

January 9th, 2009, 03:53

Hi!

Oh, I understand the difference. :)

The main reason for considering FG2 over Maptools is that Maptools does not really have dedicated GM tools for constructing, maintaining and linking adventure notes to images and such. So while the map functions are quite good, without the GM/combat tracking features it can't really replicate the tabletop experience in manner I desire (rolling actual dice helps a lot too.... :D ).

I guess my question is more directed at to where the map functions like FOW, lighting and such are headed in FG2?

While I agree things need not be very elaborate, but some modest lighting LOS functions might be useful.

Thank you for the response and input.

Primarch

Doswelk

January 9th, 2009, 08:08

The best way to think to the FGII lighting effects (to me at least) is like this:

Assume you are GMing a face-to-face game, behind your screen you have a map of the "dungeon", the players each have a miniature for their character, and you have placed a battlemap on the table....

When the players enter the dungeon you draw the entrance (and any thing the players can see due to torches) on the battlemap, when the party moves you consult your map and draw the next bit, as the players move around more of the dungeon is revealed the players do no need to map as the battlemat stays drawn.

FGII is like that except instead of two maps you have a map with a mask, the GM can the map in full (including any tokens he has placed on it), the players see a blank window.

As the players move the GM unmasks the map this allows the players to see the map.

The only "limitation" is that once unmasked you cannot re-hide revealed sections...

Hope that helps...

Elf

January 9th, 2009, 15:00

Fog of War and lighting effects are on the "wish" list for FG. I do not however know where in the list of "things to do" those items are. Perhaps a liason or a dev could answer the question more accurately.

primarch

January 9th, 2009, 19:24

Hi!

While I think FG2 is equal or better than the other programs in hosting and running a game online due to its many easy to use tools, I think its lagging somewhat in this department.

It could use a boost in this regards and as mentioned by Elf perhaps a dev could clue us in as to where they are heading in regards to this particular feature.

Primarch

Griogre

January 9th, 2009, 20:08

primarch

January 9th, 2009, 23:08

Honestly, I do not believe dynamic lighting and FOW to be a high priority with the Devs, but this is just my guess. From comments they have made they are worried about the required processing power these would take and the map mark up to require them to work. In Klooge and even MapTool dynamic lighting can stop a slow computer cold, and it is not the type of thing you can turn off for one player and not another.

I also believe this to be outside of FG's mission statement - which is to simulate the table top environment. Face to face games don’t have dynamic lighting or FOW. On the other hand it doesn't contradict the mission statement either. I'd be shocked if you saw true dynamic lighting or FOW prior to FG 3 - but only the Devs know.

Hi!

No question, regarding the demand on the system. It can an will bog it down, depending on the complexity and size of the maps with such features.

I by no means suggest that this program should equal others in that regard, but the ability to mask, unmask (and re-mask) should be available and the ability to unmask according to used lighting sources (say as in 4e light sources, candles, lanterns and such) would be a useful addition.

Thanks for you kind response.

Primarch

Doswelk

January 10th, 2009, 20:29

Hi!

No question, regarding the demand on the system. It can an will bog it down, depending on the complexity and size of the maps with such features.

I by no means suggest that this program should equal others in that regard, but the ability to mask, unmask (and re-mask) should be available and the ability to unmask according to used lighting sources (say as in 4e light sources, candles, lanterns and such) would be a useful addition.

Thanks for you kind response.

Primarch

There are ways to emulate this, not ideal I hasten to add, but if you really want to only show the players a limited area you can do what has been suggested before (I do not bother as in a face to face session a player always drew a map as they went), but basically after you apply the mask you exit mask mode and then draw on top of the mask the map.

When the mask is applied the GM can still see the map below, using the pen you can then trace the map and then delete it as you go....

Also one of the bonuses FGII has is that you can use any graphic program to create your maps, if I create a map in Gimp and then want to get FGII to show FOW lighting, how would I stop it lighting up another room?

If FGII had a built in rendering system that you had to create your dungeons with then the light could be contained, but a simple .png file it cannot.

primarch

January 11th, 2009, 04:57

There are ways to emulate this, not ideal I hasten to add, but if you really want to only show the players a limited area you can do what has been suggested before (I do not bother as in a face to face session a player always drew a map as they went), but basically after you apply the mask you exit mask mode and then draw on top of the mask the map.

When the mask is applied the GM can still see the map below, using the pen you can then trace the map and then delete it as you go....

Also one of the bonuses FGII has is that you can use any graphic program to create your maps, if I create a map in Gimp and then want to get FGII to show FOW lighting, how would I stop it lighting up another room?

If FGII had a built in rendering system that you had to create your dungeons with then the light could be contained, but a simple .png file it cannot.

Hi!

I believe I understand your explanation on how to achieve this. I will try it out.

Thanks!

Primarch

Ged

January 11th, 2009, 22:25

Enhancing the image manipulating capabilities is actually quite high up in the priority list. Preparation for the (also much requested) mac version includes reworking much of the graphics code, which will precede any improvements to the available graphical tools so that we would not have to make them twice or 1.5 times. When a mac version will be released is a separate issue, but the ground work is in progress.

primarch

January 12th, 2009, 01:26

Oberoten

January 12th, 2009, 08:49

This is excellent news. :) Even if we just get a line-tool it'd be a LOT better than the current freehand drawing.

- Obe

Alyais

January 15th, 2009, 15:35

Honestly, I do not believe dynamic lighting and FOW to be a high priority with the Devs, but this is just my guess. From comments they have made they are worried about the required processing power these would take and the map mark up to require them to work. In Klooge and even MapTool dynamic lighting can stop a slow computer cold, and it is not the type of thing you can turn off for one player and not another.

I also believe this to be outside of FG's mission statement - which is to simulate the table top environment. Face to face games don’t have dynamic lighting or FOW. On the other hand it doesn't contradict the mission statement either. I'd be shocked if you saw true dynamic lighting or FOW prior to FG 3 - but only the Devs know.

I disagree. Dynamic lighting should be included in an effort to give options. I much prefer programs that give me all the options rather than restricting me based on what others can't do. I shouldn't suffer. Hell, my machine's a beast and so are those of my PC's.

I'm not saying FG2 should focus on lighting but again; you have to keep things fresh and the market growing. Wizard's new client will be big-time competition.

primarch

January 15th, 2009, 22:44

I disagree. Dynamic lighting should be included in an effort to give options. I much prefer programs that give me all the options rather than restricting me based on what others can't do. I shouldn't suffer. Hell, my machine's a beast and so are those of my PC's.

I'm not saying FG2 should focus on lighting but again; you have to keep things fresh and the market growing. Wizard's new client will be big-time competition.

Hi!

I totally agree with your stance.

I have always been very interested in VTT's (virtual table tops) and over the years, I've used everything that's out there.

Some programs stress some features above others. FG2, I have found has a good balance across its features. However I think it needs to deal with lighting and FOW, because this is the only feature where FG2 is lagging behind others.

As mentioned before, it doesn't need to develop this in detriment of other features, but its clear that this particular feature is an increasing "draw" for prospective VTT customers.

Once this feature is developed further I would be hard to recommend any other VTT over FG2.

Since I can tell the developers strive for a top notch product, I am glad they recognize this features importance and improve it in the near future.

Primarch

Captcorajus

January 16th, 2009, 04:40

actuallly, I would prefer mood music options over lighting... by that's my two cents.

Oberoten

January 16th, 2009, 08:34

Seeing as how the FOW lifghtning would only work on what you draw inside the program?

With the curent drawing tools in FG I'd rather they just ignored it because the results would be to say the least pathetic.

Some kind of controlled playlist for sound effects and/or music though... that'd be something else entirely.

- obe

Spyke

January 16th, 2009, 22:30

... However I think it needs to deal with lighting and FOW, because this is the only feature where FG2 is lagging behind others. ...Mac support? Hex grid support?

Each of us has our own priorities of course. I personally consider FoW improvement and dynamic lighting to be waaaaaay down the list. While I'd be happy for them to be included as options, I would not be happy if they took developer time away from say... Mac support (so that a lot of players currently excluded could join the party) or hex grid support (so that players of popular RPGs like GURPS could benefit from the current map grid features).

FoW we can already do in FG. At a pinch we could do lighting by dropping a transparent area effect token onto the map. I agree that both of these could be improved, but I'd prefer to see needed functionality that we don't have added first.

Spyke

Angloson

January 17th, 2009, 17:26

FoW we can already do in FG. At a pinch we could do lighting by dropping a transparent area effect token onto the map.

Spyke

Interesting discussion. But this remark really caught my attention, just how do we make a "transparent area effect token"?

As to what priorities should be in the development of the game, I would say that being able to add sound effects and music would be good. But I also like the idea of having a better "draw tool" for the map. The one we have is quite limited being freehand. A tool that lets you set points by clicking and having straight lines automatically connect them for the mask or simple drawings would be good.

Spyke

January 17th, 2009, 17:44

Interesting discussion. But this remark really caught my attention, just how do we make a "transparent area effect token"?Well, as I said "in a pinch" you could do this. It wouldn't be great as it would be fiddly picking up the tokens that you put one down on top of (though see the other thread about improved token functionality that might be added allowing tokens to link to each other).

To make one you would make some filled circles in a graphics program that supports png files with transparency. Make them a yellowish colour and set the transparency so that they are just visible but show tokens beneath them well. You would size them so that they related to each other at typical sizes such as 10 ft, 20ft, 30ft, etc, and then scale them to the right size for the grid when you add them to a map in FG (or better still, get the scale right for your token size in the first place). You'd simply drop them onto the map and move them when your tokens move.

For an example of smaller area effect tokens for we hex grid players, see this thread (https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9431&highlight=area+effect+tokens).

Spyke

Moon Wizard

January 21st, 2009, 23:00

For my 2 cents, I actually previously used a VTT that supported dynamic lighting with the FOW. After attempting to use it for several sessions, we ended up dumping the dynamic lighting for multiple reasons:

* Performance - Can cause significant performance problems, especially as you increase number of light sources and how much each light source moves. One light source was no problem for performance, but 20 map sources plus 2 mobile party sources was a huge drain.

* Light Source Management - Managing the light sources actually required more in-game and up-front time for DM and players. Which light sources are carried, what happens when you drop a light source, setting up adventure map light sources all require a non-trivial amount of time to manage.

* Player Viewable Area Management - Another up-front GM time sink is the requirement to cut out all the holes in the GM mask on the adventure maps as to what the players can view when their light source moves around. This also causes complications for secret areas on the map. You end up just uncovering as the players move around anyway.

* Mapping to Rules - The D&D rules specifically call out differences for bright vs. shadowy vision areas with regards to light sources. Also, low-light vision and darkvision complicate this even further. This is more complex in v3.5 than v4. Now, instead of a global dynamic lighting system, you are really asking that for each client that light source effects are treated differently based on the character's vision attributes. (i.e. Characters with darkvision can always see 60 ft. and ignore light sources, characters with low-light vision can see twice as far with regards to each light source, ...)

As you can see, the holy grail of dynamic lighting is a VERY significant set of features you are requesting, that can generally be handled by the GM revealing the map during an adventure manually with minimal effort. While it would be great to have these features, they cost-benefit reward just is not there.

My vote is for straight line unmasking (rectangular) and re-masking.

Cheers,
JPG

Angloson

January 22nd, 2009, 13:36

My vote is for straight line unmasking (rectangular) and re-masking.

I think moon_wizard has some, obviously, good points. Although I would like to see a dynamic lighting system, I think it would be a drain on each participants systems. Plus, more work for the DM and time away from actual game interaction. However, I think a simple compromise might be doable. Such as allowing "light-token" attachments to tokens to act as torches, lanterns, etc. But I think this has been discussed and the programming is not easy (I do not know, I am not a programmer).

BUT I vote for the straight-line unmasking and re-masking first. Then perhaps a list of sound effects, doors, water, screams, crowds, etc. Background music on a list is usually not ideal in that the choices tend to be either not well liked or begin to be monotonous, at least for most people.

Xorn

January 22nd, 2009, 15:57

I do my own sound effects. I can make a mean lightsaber swipe.

Seriously, this is a very interesting discussion--I just wanted to chime in that I'm more interested in better unmasking tools and token/map layers than dynamic lighting. When I played with dynamic lighting in MapTools, it was very cool--but I found it to be a lot of time investment, as well--which got old quickly, for me.

Griogre

January 22nd, 2009, 18:43

I'm in the better unmasking and remasking group myself. I think the time spent by the developers and DMs to implement dynamic lighting could be much better spent elsewhere.

Phystus

January 22nd, 2009, 23:39

I'm also voting against the lighting effects. One of the nice things about this program is it doesn't make huge hardware demands. Heck, one of my players is still running Win2k.

Better masking tools would be nice. As would the ability to link tokens.

And hex grids. That one is huge for a lot of games. It opens up possibilities for playing wargames too!

~P

joshuha

January 22nd, 2009, 23:39

Yes, I think better masking/remasking tools would also be preferrable to dynamic lighting. However, I do think exposing as much as possible to the scripts as far as unmaskng/masking is concerned could let the community do their own type of dynamic or turn based lighting based on whatever rules system they want to do.

Also as stated above Hex grids and multi-select of tokens would open up the range of games (including board/war games) that FG could be used for as well.

OTG_Wraith

November 11th, 2017, 21:14

I've been in favor of and looking forward to dynamic lighting since I bought Fantasy Grounds. I also ran into it years ago using MapTools and enjoyed it very much. But the real reason I am looking forward to it's addition is for an underlying reason; Individual Player Point of View. MapTools had this and it resulted in a vastly more enjoyable experience as each player had to communicate what they saw. Getting lost became a real issue, players didn't immediately rush to the next unveiled monster to get their hits in as only one might see it and maybe not be able to yell back to them. It expanded combat role-play immensely. It was both funny and exciting watching the teamwork develop and the missteps on that path.

I really hope to get to play that way again in a much more polished environment like Fantasy Grounds.

Zacchaeus

November 11th, 2017, 21:20

Good grief. Didn't this thread die years ago :)

Angloson

November 11th, 2017, 22:34

Good grief. Didn't this thread die years ago :)

It did, but I hope this actually stimulates the devs to hurry. We would love the dynamic lighting!

Oberoten

November 11th, 2017, 23:07

Let me just say that better unmasking tools and perhaps pen/tablet tools would go a LONG way. Pressure sensitive stylus for quick-drawing maps to get various widths and perhaps even a way to lock down drawing lines?

Honken

November 11th, 2017, 23:16

OTG_Wraith

November 12th, 2017, 01:03

Sorry!, was posting on the fly as I went out the door, didn't check the date.
Not sure why this ended up in a highlighted group for me. (Though, I did just roll up a Necromancer...)

I have not tried maptools, or any other VTT that have the FOW or Dynamic lightning. But i can imagines it takes time to set up, time i would rather put on plot and adventure instead.

Most people think of dynamic lighting as automated unmasking for the entire group, like it is now just the torches or whatever the characters are using as lights unmask automatically as a group.

That's why I brought up Individual Point of View, it is not synonymous. It is part of Dynamic Lighting, but different. It actually adds to the role-play. Players don't automatically see what the entire group sees. You only get on your client what your character sees. So you have to actually do some teamwork to not get lost and to coordinate fights. It also makes splitting the party the terror it is supposed to be. It's a lot of fun in combat and RP.

Full Bleed

November 12th, 2017, 06:27

I have not tried maptools, or any other VTT that have the FOW or Dynamic lightning. But i can imagines it takes time to set up, time i would rather put on plot and adventure instead. AND since I am not a huge D&D 5e player, i will probably never see it implemented in the rulesets i usually use. FOR that reason, i would rather see the development resources put into a ruleset maker, and better "map building tools".
If done right, it doesn't take much time to set up at all. Frankly, that's the kind of fear-mongering some used to avoid the tough task of implementing the feature in the first place. It's really a, nearly, non-factor to session prep in MT and in what I saw from TableTop Connect. I can't see FGU making it an arduous task (and, even if it does require some material effort, it will be optional.)

As for having better map building tools. The FGU preview videos have shown that's a done deal.

So, in short, it's not an either/or scenario. FGU will be giving us both.

The Hawk and Sparrow

February 12th, 2018, 10:07

LordEntrails

February 12th, 2018, 15:28

I saw the comment that dynamic lighting is not a high priority due to proc demands. Perhaps an area tool that a DM or players could hover / move around. I imagine a tool kind of like the magnification tool one can pull up and move around the screen.
Though SMiteWorks has not promised or stated that FGU will have dynamic lightning, it has already been demonstrated with FGU in a video posted by one of the developers.

lostsanityreturned

February 12th, 2018, 15:33

Though SMiteWorks has not promised or stated that FGU will have dynamic lightning, it has already been demonstrated with FGU in a video posted by one of the developers.

Yup, and talked about working on it multiple times since then :)

Just recently they were talking about how the masking system was done but now a dev was working on in program masking tools :)

Also, just wanna say that I recognise your name as a frequenter of enworld ;)