Special Announcement - Kickstarter

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BadByBirth

Hi Doug,

I must state I disagree with the logic.
If you buy a house over renting you don't state that after x years of buying it, you are living in it rent free.
They are different products and different services.
Comparing them like this is treating those who bought a 1-time fee like 2nd class citizens.
If you don't want people paying a 1-time fee for your product, don't offer the option, or don't 'punish' them for doing so when they do.
I know software development costs time and money (I was a developer myself at some point in my career), and you need to fund it.
I get you are creating a product which has value.
I don't get why when someone bought it should matter.

Another point I feel conflicted about is this:

"FGC will continue to work fine for you and you can go on about your business."
Q. Will the current version of Fantasy Grounds still be available after Unity is released?
A. Yes. But not necessarily indefinitely
This reads to me like all effort will go into FGU, FGC will just be expected to keep on working, but don't expect any more updates on it.
And after a couple of ??? we'll pull the plug out of it anyway...

That being said, it doesn't really matter since your prices are set and mind is made up.
I however won't be upgrading to the FGU version since I think $60 on top of the $110 Ultimate + $200 worth of content is more than I'm willing to spend.

Good luck with FGU, hope it turns out well.

---

It will. Thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wndrngdru

The Quickslots at the bottom already correspond with the function keys on the keyboard. F1 will activate the first slot, F2 the second, etc. The Ctrl-F#, Shift-F#, Alt-F# all work as well. (at least on a PC)

---

Thank you wndrngdru, I learn something new all the time about FG. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Styrmir

Thank you wndrngdru, I learn something new all the time about FG. :)

---

I assumed you knew this but it was something else that you were looking for. My first though was well that’ll conflict with the fkeys but he must know what he’s on about :)

You'd think right *laughs*! Of all the knowledge I've accumulated about FG since starting to run, create modules and and write extensions for it, that was not one of them. Must have slipped right past me. :D

Luckily we have such a great community here, that someone is bound to know and better still willing to share to help out.

In the future, could line of sight mechanics/layers be used for difficult terrain and modifying movement speed? Could it be used for partial cover (AC bonus) calculations?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hawkward

In the future, could line of sight mechanics/layers be used for difficult terrain and modifying movement speed? Could it be used for partial cover (AC bonus) calculations?

---

Not all rulesets use "AC".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hawkward

In the future, could line of sight mechanics/layers be used for difficult terrain and modifying movement speed? Could it be used for partial cover (AC bonus) calculations?

---

Its possible. There was some discussion on parts of this already. Currently FG doesn't restrict movement based on movement speed, so the ruleset would have to start tracking that first, before terrain could start impacting that. Partial cover is something that could also be done, but IMO its unlikely because again it is going to be ruleset specific and FG would also have to calculate the sight line between the source, target and cover to see if the cover is in the way. Not something technically impossible, just something that would cause many people heartache because of the various ways to interpret such rules.

BUT, all that said, if you want to see something like this, it's always best to check the Wishlist and then add the suggestion there. If lots of people want something, then SW will give it more weight and consideration. https://fg2app.idea.informer.com

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hawkward

In the future, could line of sight mechanics/layers be used for difficult terrain and modifying movement speed? Could it be used for partial cover (AC bonus) calculations?

---

Welcome to FG.

This kind of thing would need to be done for each ruleset so it isn't something that will be part of the initial version of Unity at least since rulesets won't be changing (much) at this stage. As others have noted each ruleset is different so it's not something that could be generally programmed into the FG client itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BadByBirth

I must state I disagree with the logic.
If you buy a house over renting you don't state that after x years of buying it, you are living in it rent free.
They are different products and different services.

---

Pretty much everybody I know who has bought or is thinking of buying tells me they were fed up paying
someone else's mortgage and having little to show for it, they'd rather pay their own.
No harm, but these are exactly the same service—somewhere to live.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BadByBirth

Comparing them like this is treating those who bought a 1-time fee like 2nd class citizens.
If you don't want people paying a 1-time fee for your product, don't offer the option, or don't 'punish' them for doing so when they do.
I know software development costs time and money (I was a developer myself at some point in my career), and you need to fund it.
I get you are creating a product which has value.
I don't get why when someone bought it should matter.

---

I really wish more companies would "punish me" with massive discounts. Seriously 60%. I laughed when I
saw how little they were planning to charge for this. I was chuffed (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chuffed)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BadByBirth

That being said, it doesn't really matter since your prices are set and mind is made up.
I however won't be upgrading to the FGU version since I think $60 on top of the $110 Ultimate + $200 worth of content is more than I'm willing to spend.

Good luck with FGU, hope it turns out well.

---

I'll admit, I don't understand the willingness to throw away a $200 investment in content. Maybe you feel entitled to the 80% they're offering others. Since you have a $200 investment I assume that means you've been using the software you paid $110 for.

One other point, I don't understand how you think they're punishing people for buying the license. Since you're saying it's going to cost you $60 that means you've had the software since at least December 2017

December 2017 - December 2019 (projected release date) 25 months.
25 x 10 subscription = $250
Oh noes they've totally ripped you off by forcing you to pay $110 dollars
for using the software for 25 months instead of $250.

I see you joined the forums in April 2017. That means the difference in Veteran and Rookie $30 is for 10 months of using the software. About $3 a month.

If you'd subscribed in April and bought the following January you'd have been $70 out of pocket. I don't see why you think you're getting shafted here.

Obviously, this a matter for you and your wallet.

I have been playing on a subscription for a year now ( $10 ) a month

Kickstarted for $139 for Ultimate Licence ( was going to full purchase FG anyway eventually )

quite happy, I dont feel cheated at all and looking forward to the beta :)

The sheer amount of entitlement some people feel just leaves me baffled. How many 60% discounts has Microsoft given you when you purchased a new version of Windows?

None, but they did give me the last edition gratis ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anfiach

The sheer amount of entitlement some people feel just leaves me baffled. How many 60% discounts has Microsoft given you when you purchased a new version of Windows?

---

Actually it's more like the office model. I don't buy into the Office 365 model where it's an endless subscription so I paid an unholy amount of money for Office 2000 a long time ago, it functioned fine for a long time but Microsoft didn't give me any discount when I upgraded to Office 2013 even though I was LOYAL (alright, I skipped a few upgrades and dabbled with Open Office). Plus Microsoft REMOVED functionality from excel, so I lost functions in the end. Still ate the new purchase cost because it was the only way Office would work right on my newer system and the wife demanded we have Office, just like she has at work...

FG/Doug and crew are doing an excellent job trying to be fair where they haven't charged for any upgrades in the past. It's wonderful that the allow a DM to purchase an Ultimate license and the offer *free* access to the players. Not many other software companies hand out free clients that allow you access to whatever the DM decides to share from his library of modules. Plus, there's going to be new functionality. Even if I didn't qualify for the newbie discount I've found it would be worth the cost to me for a full price purchase based on what we're getting from the Unity engine, and definitely for the kickstarter goal resources for backing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ampersandrew

None, but they did give me the last edition gratis ...

---

Well, when nobody wants to buy your product you get desperate lol.

Anfiach, That is exactly how I see it, but keep quiet so as to not cause a riot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anfiach

Well, when nobody wants to buy your product you get desperate lol.

---

Well that's just silly. Lots of people bought every edition of Windows, lots of IT managers won't have anything else.

I have no idea what their business model was, but it certainly wasn't no-one buys the new edition of Windows.

They wanted to simplify their updates and program compatibilities, so they moved everyone from Win7 and later to Win10.
But this is way off topic...

- Robert

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ampersandrew

Well that's just silly. Lots of people bought every edition of Windows, lots of IT managers won't have anything else.

I have no idea what their business model was, but it certainly wasn't no-one buys the new edition of Windows.

---

I forgive you for not paying attention to that whole fiasco. Regardless, my point was made and you weren't disagreeing with me on that.

So,....is it December yet?

I worked IR all my life

Anfiach is correct

Just a hint about cover, half cover etc. Some say it's ruleset specific. I don't see it that way : a cover or a half cover is just what it is. Now each ruleset handles it differently. Why not add the "cover thing" and then let the rulesets makers choose to handle it or not ? (I'm not sure I make myself perfectly clear).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lochost

Just a hint about cover, half cover etc. Some say it's ruleset specific. I don't see it that way : a cover or a half cover is just what it is. Now each ruleset handles it differently. Why not add the "cover thing" and then let the rulesets makers choose to handle it or not ? (I'm not sure I make myself perfectly clear).

---

You have made yourself clear; but it is a ruleset specific thing. It is in the rulesets that things like the penalty or advantage for cover are handled, and if it becomes a thing then it will be a thing in the rulesets which makes it possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lochost

Just a hint about cover, half cover etc. Some say it's ruleset specific. I don't see it that way : a cover or a half cover is just what it is. Now each ruleset handles it differently. Why not add the "cover thing" and then let the rulesets makers choose to handle it or not ? (I'm not sure I make myself perfectly clear).

---

The basics of cover are in theory ruleset agnostic, but just look at different RPG systems - for example: draw a line from one corner to any of the corners on the target creature; or draw the line from the middle of one square to the middle of another, or from one corner to one corner, or... etc., etc.. So, I don't see how "cover" itself can be added to a base (CoreRPG) system - as there are too many different ways of working out cover, because it can be so different, there really isn't much that can be programmed into base FGU - other than a basic handler function, like getObstructionsOnThisVector(startX, startY, endX, endY) but then the RPG system would have to work out how to call that, how many times to call it, and how to interpret the "obstruction" data returned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trenloe

The basics of cover are in theory ruleset agnostic, but just look at different RPG systems - for example: draw a line from one corner to any of the corners on the target creature; or draw the line from the middle of one square to the middle of another, or from one corner to one corner, or... etc., etc.. So, I don't see how "cover" itself can be added to a base (CoreRPG) system - as there are too many different ways of working out cover, because it can be so different, there really isn't much that can be programmed into base FGU - other than a basic handler function, like getObstructionsOnThisVector(startX, starty, endX, endy) but then the RPG system would have to work out how to call that, how many times to call it, and how to interpret the "obstruction" data returned.

---

And this becomes even more complex when handling different degrees of cover as well as elevation on what is a 2D map.

I would love to automate cover, but as is I also cannot see any feasible way to building it into fantasygrounds currently.

Thanks for your answers mates !

I understand the problem better now !

Cheers !

With Unity will it be possible to add additional image types for tokens (perhaps not on initial release, but eventually)? Specifically WEBM/VP8 which would allow for animated tokens. I know Unity supports both of them across Win/Mac/Linux platforms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mattekure

With Unity will it be possible to add additional image types for tokens (perhaps not on initial release, but eventually)? Specifically WEBM/VP8 which would allow for animated tokens. I know Unity supports both of them across Win/Mac/Linux platforms.

---

After someone mentioned Devin Night's new animated tokens in the KS chat I took a look and they look great!

So yes please to webm tokens!

Hello FGU

I believe this has been discussed before but am having a horrible time finding the answer in the forum. Regarding the layers for lighting and FOW, will there be a quicker way to add those layers other than plotting lines around walls and obstacles? Where I am coming from? I thought I remember hearing mentioned that perhaps a person might use GIMP or photoshop to create a layer for walls and thereby avoid or significantly quicken the process of plotting points? Simply put will there be any super fast easier way, other than plotting points? I've a massive amount of battlemaps and thinking of the effort involved ... so am just wanting to know what to expect in terms of options when it comes to battelmaps that are not part of modules/adventures from the FG store?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skj310

Hello FGU

I believe this has been discussed before but am having a horrible time finding the answer in the forum. Regarding the layers for lighting and FOW, will there be a quicker way to add those layers other than plotting lines around walls and obstacles? Where I am coming from? I thought I remember hearing mentioned that perhaps a person might use GIMP or photoshop to create a layer for walls and thereby avoid or significantly quicken the process of plotting points? Simply put will there be any super fast easier way, other than plotting points? I've a massive amount of battlemaps and thinking of the effort involved ... so am just wanting to know what to expect in terms of options when it comes to battelmaps that are not part of modules/adventures from the FG store?

---

I have the same gut feel about this as you do. And I asked a week or so ago on the FG Friday stream. Doug's response was that they had looked at some mask or alpha channel options early on, but found that it was easier to create the LOS blockers in FGU with the line segments etc.

I too find that hard to believe because I know how easy it would be for me to make a mask image in CC3+ and GIMP for my maps, but at this point I have to trust that SW has done their hoemwork on this topic. At least for now.

You can still use GIMP to make a mask image and then drag it over top. When I look at LOS for walls, I actually wanted part of the wall to be shown instead of right at the edge. For this reason, you shrink in the mask some. This works great for larger, thicker sections. The problem is that if you have a mix of thin walls and thick walls, the thin walls can become shrunk into non-existence. That and other issues meant to reduce polygon sizes for the final outcome ended up leading me to believe that it was just faster doing it within FGU. Your experience might be different, so we will most likely leave it in for you to experiment with during the beta.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ddavison

You can still use GIMP to make a mask image and then drag it over top. When I look at LOS for walls, I actually wanted part of the wall to be shown instead of right at the edge. For this reason, you shrink in the mask some. This works great for larger, thicker sections. The problem is that if you have a mix of thin walls and thick walls, the thin walls can become shrunk into non-existence. That and other issues meant to reduce polygon sizes for the final outcome ended up leading me to believe that it was just faster doing it within FGU. Your experience might be different, so we will most likely leave it in for you to experiment with during the beta.

---

Thanks Doug.
So the method I make dungeon maps in CC3+ includes what is called a wall/floor mask. It covers half the thickness of the walls and duplicates the background. By doing so it makes the dungeon look sunken into the background.

But, from a FGU perspective, it provides a layer/sheet that would work perfect as a mask. It will allow half the wall to be shown and then block out behind that.

Look at ~2 minutes and then again at ~13 minutes in this video and you can see the difference, and what the wall/floor mask does. https://chronicles-of-arn.net/pf_map...l_Mask_SS4.mp4

Here's another look at just the mask itself; https://youtu.be/cTmiOuLi11Y?t=214

The masks that we support will need to be solid with a transparent background. The solid portion gets turned into polygons which block all LOS past the edge. If your mask is drawn right at the edge (like it appears to do with the CC3 trace tool), then the player won't get to see any part of the actual wall. Their vision will stop immediately at the wall edge. That typically does not look good, which is why I would collapse this in a bit within Photoshop whenever I created a mask. If you have a sample image and mask that you'd like to try, you can attach them here and I can show you what that looks like in FGU when using just the mask. We are traveling this week (tomorrow), so I may not get around to it until I get back next week -- Tuesday or beyond.

Of note, the sort of clicking around he did on the further inset portion is pretty similar to what I do within FGU.

Thanks Doug. I get the clicking around is not much different, but to have to do it twice would be a bummer :) So, when I do the mask, I actually use the alignment tools (snap to grid or snap to entity) so my mask entity falls exactly on the wall node, but since the wall has a thickness, the mask only covers half the width of the wall. So in that case, then the LOS would reveal part of the wall, as desired.

Thanks, and no rush on the demo video, won't matter to me until the beta is available :) And if it helps, I can provide you a map and a mask to go with it if you want.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LordEntrails

And if it helps, I can provide you a map and a mask to go with it if you want.

---

I think this would be useful so that others can see how this would work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trenloe

I think this would be useful so that others can see how this would work.

---

I can do that, and put together instructions on how to make it.

Doug, would a full blackout mask or just a "region" of darkness be preferred? I usually do full blackout, but as you can see in those videos, many others just do a region or variable thickness type of block out.

Doug and I were still debating whether we would leave this auto-LOS generation via mask in, because it didn't perform as good as we wanted. You ended up having to spend a good chunk of time "cleaning" up the things that didn't work as you expected (thin walls, jagged portions, etc.); and an alpha mask only lets you create full blockers (not doors nor terrain), so you had to define and add those in as well.

As Doug mentioned, he can run a sample map you define through the process to give an idea of where it is. You should pick a map with some complexity. Thin/thick walls, doors, secret doors, debris, etc. While we could potentially spend time refining the algorithm, there's only so much you can do that will work in general on every map type.

Regards,
JPG

Understood Moon. Would this map (first post) be adequate? https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forum...Entrail-s-Maps

Maybe if I put some terrain and a secret door ont his one? https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forum...l=1#post343485

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moon Wizard

Doug and I were still debating whether we would leave this auto-LOS generation via mask in, because it didn't perform as good as we wanted. You ended up having to spend a good chunk of time "cleaning" up the things that didn't work as you expected (thin walls, jagged portions, etc.); and an alpha mask only lets you create full blockers (not doors nor terrain), so you had to define and add those in as well.

As Doug mentioned, he can run a sample map you define through the process to give an idea of where it is. You should pick a map with some complexity. Thin/thick walls, doors, secret doors, debris, etc. While we could potentially spend time refining the algorithm, there's only so much you can do that will work in general on every map type.

Regards,
JPG

---

super thankful this conversation is being had and anxious to see these demos. so thank you for taking the time.

Most of the team will be attending the D&D Live stream event this weekend and swamped answering support in the evening, so you might want to ping us again after the event on this one.

The map you posted should be interesting to try, since it has thin walls in the buildings outside, and thick walls inside. There are no doors (secret or otherwise) inside the mined area, but it should be an interesting test. I will say that your map is pretty "clean" relative to how noisy and complex some of the maps can get. (see the Wizards adventures)

Regards,
JPG

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ddavison

The masks that we support will need to be solid with a transparent background. The solid portion gets turned into polygons which block all LOS past the edge. If your mask is drawn right at the edge (like it appears to do with the CC3 trace tool), then the player won't get to see any part of the actual wall. Their vision will stop immediately at the wall edge. That typically does not look good, which is why I would collapse this in a bit within Photoshop whenever I created a mask. If you have a sample image and mask that you'd like to try, you can attach them here and I can show you what that looks like in FGU when using just the mask. We are traveling this week (tomorrow), so I may not get around to it until I get back next week -- Tuesday or beyond.

Of note, the sort of clicking around he did on the further inset portion is pretty similar to what I do within FGU.

---

I am glad that this is still being included. I entirely disagree with your statement that it doesn't look as good being at the edge. When I used dynamic lighting in Roll20 I used to always black out the walls for D&D maps anyway and loved the appearance.

It is really quite easy to black out textured wall sections in photoshop. And when I am making my own maps I can just turn off layers and have a fully functional mask and mostly complete LoS map ready to go. (exceptions being terrain and door elements, but that is easy enough to touch up in fantasygrounds)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LordEntrails

Thanks Doug.
So the method I make dungeon maps in CC3+ includes what is called a wall/floor mask. It covers half the thickness of the walls and duplicates the background. By doing so it makes the dungeon look sunken into the background.

But, from a FGU perspective, it provides a layer/sheet that would work perfect as a mask. It will allow half the wall to be shown and then block out behind that.

---

So are you saying that when you export your file from CC3+ as a jpg that the mask information is still somewhere in that file?