Enhanced Images (layers) for FG 3.0 CoreRPG (and rulesets based on CoreRPG)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nickabbey

In the intro/tutorial video from the OP, It references the Enhanced Encounters Extension.
I Can't seem to find that via forum search or in the pinned extensions thread.

---

If you notice the date on that video - 2011, so a lot of the discussion of extensions is no longer relevant as the functionality is now in the standard rulesets (although not layers). The encounter functionality shown in the video is within the standard encounters window (has been for a while even at the time of that video). The specific enhancement Zeus shows in that video was adding a "Skill Challenge" option specific to the D&D 4E ruleset - which is also now in the standard FG D&D 4E ruleset.

Info on encounters here: https://www.fantasygrounds.com/wiki/...ate_encounters

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nickabbey

I've not yet actually started using it, so I don't know if it "just works" in terms of remembering where encounter tokens are placed?

---

As long as you use it correctly, then yes, it does remember token placement etc.. See this video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tx7CtPsdNbA It's for Castles and Crusades, but the process is the same for all FG rulesets that are based on the CoreRPG ruleset.

Cool thanks for the clarification and fast response!

So I've been using this extension, and liking it a lot. I have a usability gripe though, and I'm hoping that there's just a better way to do it that I don't yet see?
Basically, since masking happens on the base layer, and all my tokens (PC and NPC) are on the top layer, I have to keep switching back to the base layer in order reveal portions of the map as my players move around. This slows down play a bit, and since I cannot see the top layer pc tokens when I switch to the base layer, I'm less precise than I'd like to be when revealing the map to them.

Is there a good way to solve this issue? Maybe I'm taking the wrong approach?

@nickabbey - Nicademus asked something similar recently. There is not an easy way to work around this - other than remembering where the important tokens are! ;) Masks can only be placed on the bottom layer as masks need to be on an image created from a file - this always has to be the bottom layer, for various reasons.

With what I learned with my recent experiences of creating the text label extension I've been thinking I might be able to do some form of "shadow" token/image widgets on the lower layers to give an indication of where tokens are on the higher levels. I'll look into it at some point, but this is not at the top of my list at present.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trenloe

@nickabbey - Nicademus asked something similar recently. There is not an easy way to work around this - other than remembering where the important tokens are! ;) Masks can only be placed on the bottom layer as masks need to be on an image created from a file - this always has to be the bottom layer, for various reasons.

With what I learned with my recent experiences of creating the text label extension I've been thinking I might be able to do some form of "shadow" token/image widgets on the lower layers to give an indication of where tokens are on the higher levels. I'll look into it at some point, but this is not at the top of my list at present.

---

Understood, thanks!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trenloe

With what I learned with my recent experiences of creating the text label extension I've been thinking I might be able to do some form of "shadow" token/image widgets on the lower layers to give an indication of where tokens are on the higher levels. I'll look into it at some point, but this is not at the top of my list at present.

---

So, the more I thought about this the more I realised it wouldn't be much work to implement.

Try the attached new v2 extension. This shows the tokens from the higher layers on the currently selected layer, but it shows them as "shadows" - basically, the same as a token that is set to invisible for players.

Let me know how it goes - remember to keep in mind the usual layer extension gotchas mentioned in posts #1 and #2!

Oh, and remember to deselect the "Enhanced Images (CoreRPG+)" and select "Enhanced Images v2 (CoreRPG+)". Don't run both extensions at once.

The shadow tokens will have their name (shown as a tooltip) starting with xPL or xFL to indicate which layer they originate from: play layer (top) or feature layer (middle), respectively. This is used in the code to remove the shadow tokens when the layer is exited, and it has a nice by product of letting the GM know which layer the original is on.

Unfortunately the shadow tokens can be interacted with by the GM - I'm not aware of anything to stop this. If you move the shadow tokens it won't have any effect on the original token and leaving the layer and returning to it will re-initialise the shadow tokens in the correct place.

*** v2 proof of concept extension removed. Functionality now in main extension - download from post #1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trenloe

So, the more I thought about this the more I realised it wouldn't be much work to implement.

Try the attached new v2 extension. This shows the tokens from the higher layers on the currently selected layer, but it shows them as "shadows" - basically, the same as a token that is set to invisible for players.

Let me know how it goes - remember to keep in mind the usual layer extension gotchas mentioned in posts #1 and #2!

Oh, and remember to deselect the "Enhanced Images (CoreRPG+)" and select "Enhanced Images v2 (CoreRPG+)". Don't run both extensions at once.

The shadow tokens will have their name (shown as a tooltip) starting with xPL or xFL to indicate which layer they originate from: play layer (top) or feature layer (middle), respectively. This is used in the code to remove the shadow tokens when the layer is exited, and it has a nice by product of letting the GM know which layer the original is on.

Unfortunately the shadow tokens can be interacted with by the GM - I'm not aware of anything to stop this. If you move the shadow tokens it won't have any effect on the original token and leaving the layer and returning to it will re-initialise the shadow tokens in the correct place.

---

This is awesome, you work ridiculously fast. Thanks for all the time you put in man I hope everyone in the community really appreciates it. I known I do. I'll be trying this soon, and will give some feedback. I'm busy through Sunday evening though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trenloe

So, the more I thought about this the more I realised it wouldn't be much work to implement.

Try the attached new v2 extension. This shows the tokens from the higher layers on the currently selected layer, but it shows them as "shadows" - basically, the same as a token that is set to invisible for players.

Let me know how it goes - remember to keep in mind the usual layer extension gotchas mentioned in posts #1 and #2!

Oh, and remember to deselect the "Enhanced Images (CoreRPG+)" and select "Enhanced Images v2 (CoreRPG+)". Don't run both extensions at once.

The shadow tokens will have their name (shown as a tooltip) starting with xPL or xFL to indicate which layer they originate from: play layer (top) or feature layer (middle), respectively. This is used in the code to remove the shadow tokens when the layer is exited, and it has a nice by product of letting the GM know which layer the original is on.

Unfortunately the shadow tokens can be interacted with by the GM - I'm not aware of anything to stop this. If you move the shadow tokens it won't have any effect on the original token and leaving the layer and returning to it will re-initialise the shadow tokens in the correct place.

---

Works as advertised for me. Superb work, thanks!

So, with hagrids 5E spell tokens I'm finally going to do this. Any reason to still use v1 and not v2 posted here near the end?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LordEntrails

So, with hagrids 5E spell tokens I'm finally going to do this. Any reason to still use v1 and not v2 posted here near the end?

---

I've had no negative reports from it. Let me know how it goes. :)

Make sure you're clear on the process and the gotchas listed in posts #1 and #2.