Moon Wizard and Doug, salutes for the honest and fair responses. :)
Now with the conversation back on track, of course I was far from being serious with "release NOW". ;)
Printable View
Moon Wizard and Doug, salutes for the honest and fair responses. :)
Now with the conversation back on track, of course I was far from being serious with "release NOW". ;)
Well said.Quote:
If you think that the way FG works is too antiquated in design for your tastes, then please look around at other options and go there.
Bravo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moon Wizard
I think he finaly HAS stopped. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by lokiare1
- Obe
Good!Quote:
Originally Posted by Moon Wizard
I don't think you'll get any blowback from the rest of us, Moon. Thank You for being transparent about this also!
I dunno about that, those teasers regarding image handling suggest a pretty massive improvement for us gms ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Moon Wizard
If I have this rigth Unity will be a different program and cost as if you are buying a new one with maybe some discounts. The longer pushed out the release the more one has to pay. Since they bought the technology in 2015 with no results yet I am guessing at this time they do not have the programmer capable of merging the two codes. Or they are like you and I messing around with python or java to make a "Hello World" script :-)Quote:
Originally Posted by Locotomo
Just forget Unity and enjoy FG as is. It is still better than any other. You may never see Unity as you think.
Please refrain from making derogatory comments about the programming team.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cluanar
It wasn't meant as derogatory. It simply states that there are two different programs that are trying to be meshed by twp programmers that have expertise in their own and not the other. When companies merge it happens all the time. Integration sometimes is not possible with current staff.Quote:
Originally Posted by damned
And with almost 4 yrs in the works I would think it is fair to guess they need help.
Or more accurately that the job is quite complex and requires both expertise and time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cluanar
There are two full time Unity Devs working on the project.
apologies for being a bit gnarly.
there is so much more information about why Unity isnt here already other than it isnt here already.
its not like the info is hidden - there is info and answers in this thread too.
i get gnarly about it because people make statements as facts that are misleading or incorrect and they influence others to repeat or build upon those statements.
i cant talk on behalf of smiteworks and only know what has been stated here and on other channels.
some of the important stuff is:
unity has taken longer than initially expected
unity has turned into a much bigger job than initially expected
smiteworks was only 2 staff when the project was started
smiteworks now has two additional devs who are full time focused on this project
smiteworks now has two additional dull time staff who are focused on other parts of the business which in turn helps the devs do what they do
the current product has not sat still for 4 years while unity has been worked on
the current product has had multiple significant upgrades several times a year plus hundreds of small updates
the volume of content has grown massively over that time
the number of commercial rulesets has increased over that time
so why dont they just hire more people?
why didnt they hire more people earlier?
this is not a big triple A gaming software house - this is a small team who are growing in the right direction and directing their resources into the areas they know they need them to
and are growing at a rate that they can sustain
and that growth has been supported by the additional content that has been added
ultimately - whether we like it or not - smiteworks has the better understanding of where and why they spend their resources on the things that they do and they have to be able to balance expensive development costs against maintaining and growing the revenue to pay for those.
maybe unity will get here *too late*
but im willing to bet that it will get here at the right time and will simply be another step upwards for the team
oh and im sure there will be a bunch of sleepless nights when it launches and really gets stress tested and a whole slew of new bugs get found
and it will im sure still be worth the ride - at least from my perspective
have fun - keep gaming
I've been on Fantasy grounds for five or six years. I find that the software is full of flaws: it is difficult to modulate for the different game systems (and even the More core greatly reduces this problem), the management of maps and images support is now very limited and The difficulty to translate the rulesets (I'm French).
But next to that, the game is now the best thing that can be done. The intrerface, which some people find Old school, is very immersive. The possibility of having interactive links on the images, in the text on the NPC sheets, is great for building these campaigns. As for the ruleset supported by FG, they are not commensurate with with what competing software does.
Finally when I see the number of games that come out badly finished, pressed by distributors and players, that end up with a very bad reputation despite their potential (Hello Pathfinder!), I would have only one advice: "When is done!"
Good luck with the end of Unity development, in the meantime please continue to support the current version!
PS: sorry for my english.
If 4 yrs isnt enough I'd look to more staff :-)Quote:
Originally Posted by damned
I hope that another tabletop option doesnt catch up in other ways that forces bad options for Smiteworks. At this time , IMO, no one touches what FG can do and I have no plans on going elsewhere. The support from FG and FGC is so overwhelming the game almost plays itself. I researched all the D&D options for 6 months before deciding on FG and it wasn't even close.
I invested heavily in FG and will continue to do so and hope they don't lose a race and we lose a great product.
Some perspective:
Take a look at your average video game. It takes 2-4 years plus about 30 or more people to push out the game (no seriously look it up). Smiteworks has been working with 1-2 developers focused on Fantasy Grounds Unity.
Keep in mind the features of Fantasy Grounds:
- Windows program that displays graphics.
- Windows program that runs a LUA interpreter
- LUA interpreter that interfaces with the Windows program to coordinate graphics and data through a dedicated API.
- XML interpreter in LUA that loads up instructions to display windows, controls, etc...etc... which LUA then passes to the Windows part of the program.
- A fully networked system that is exposed to the Windows API so that network calls can be done with and through the LUA interpreter.
The features of Fantasy Grounds are much more complex than most AAA games (short of MMOs).
To be honest, I'm sort of ambivalent about FGU, I'd rather have 64-bit FG. FG generally does enough for me at the moment and with more memory available could likely be coded to do more.
I'll probably update to Unity whenever it rolls around regardless, but that would be more a following the herd reaction than actually needing the new features so far revealed.
Hi all, new to the forums here but been following FG for a while. Just though i'd throw in my 2 cents:
I am purposefully not purchasing FG until FGU because i don't want to have to purchase it again, even at significant discount or whatever they are planning (since thats no guarantee). I am staying on roll20 until then. I want to switch because i've seen how awesome FG is but honestly the lack of communication from the devs regarding FGU updates (what is currently being worked on, what's working, what they are still planning, roadmaps, etc) on a regular basis is pretty offputting. I just hear snippets here and there as i lurk through the forums about it and there isn't any concrete info. I want FGU and i'm going to wait (with all my friends who are also waiting for FGU for the same reason), but it's pretty disappointing not to see more details besides "it's in the works" and "it's taking longer than we thought."
Moreover, responding to this:
These feeatures honeslty are NOT more complex than most AAA games. As a software developer myself i can tell you that having a couple interpreters that pass data around and displaying graphics are really not that complex (especially when the interpreters are probably not written by the devs themselves since there are so many free LUA and XML interpretters that can be packaged into the system. As for networking, that may be the most complex thing about this program, but most AAA games have networking involved (hell even a ton of indie games have it), especially since engines (such as unity) can handle a lot of the networking headaches these days it makes it a lot easier.Quote:
Originally Posted by lokiare1
I don't know why you are saying that these features are extraordinarily complex, it's simply not true.
Hi :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Iotatron
You may not have seen it, but in post #74 MoonWizard explained why they do not want to throw in too much information about FGU (and he talked also about other things there) :) It is very understandable :)
Best,
Kelrugem
Just read it, thanks for direciing me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelrugem
I understand the devs reasoning but i'll be totally honest when i say that I think the news and work around FGU is being handled poorly. Not to mention that if they focused more heavily on switching to FGU then they wouldn't have to split their focus as much. Unity has become extremely powerful as a game engine and allows for a ton of extensibility. If they just focused on making the existing modules work on FGU and made the switch "cold-turkey" then they wouldnt have to double up all their efforts on feature support. This is why Microsoft gave away copies of windows 10 to every 7 and 8 users, so they could focus on one system and drop support for older ones. It makes sense, and doubley-so with such a small team.
My personal thinking is why wait for FGU when it could be years before it comes out. FG is current available, consistently updated and extremely versatile. We already know that FGU will use the same UI with some extra features, so it might not even be important to upgrade for awhile after it actually comes out. I'd wait for awhile anyways just to let them sort out bugs and such.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iotatron
I'm not sure what your level of experience as a software developer is, but my experience is that after a decade of consistent development and upgrading software gets pretty complex. One thing to remember about Fantasy Grounds is that it has passed hands from one company to another, and from developer to developer going all the way back to 2004 (development probably starting before that). Different developers with different writing styles (and level of commenting) can significantly impact the time it takes to make changes. Translating those changes while keeping the same functionality can be quite a lot of work. I'm not sure if you've ever done a major migration from language to language and platform to platform (as in COBOL to C++ and Mainframe to Windows) but it isn't a picnic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iotatron
It is mostly speculation but I assume that FG is written in C or C++ at is core. For Unity you would likely want to (not need to, but want to) migrate the code to C#. While Unity will handle a lot of the graphical work it still needs to be setup and organized to handle the specific functionality that FG already has. You (or I) don't know that FG uses an off the shelf LUA or XML interpreter, both could be custom.
Short of actually seeing the source code it would be difficult to compare it to an actual AAA game, but also the question you'd need to ask is what sort of AAA game are you talking about? They already excluded MMO, and also didn't indicate a timeframe. In it's era, Zork was an AAA game. If you take out the real-time graphical and replace it with turn-based token it is probably at least as sophisticated and versatile than some of the older MMOs, especially the ones initially written in 2004. One comparison I'd make is Neverwinter Nights (specifically 2002 Bioware) the DM capabilities in this game are quite a bit more robust than what a DM could do in NWN. You can build new powers, write new races, classes, backgrounds, items, spells, etc. Of those abilities within the actual toolset you could only add new items in NWN. The effects ability in the NWN toolset is quite limited compared to what is possible in FG. The point is if you compare a AAA game from about the same timeframe (that was in development for a lengthy time) FG actually stacks up quite well.
Anyways it's easy to say without knowing the actual situation that something shouldn't be so hard, but sometimes it is much harder in reality than it appears from the outside looking in.
Many of us (including the developers) respectfully disagree. I am glad to have updates to the legacy while we are waiting for the new one, and if you cannot see how updating an inventory of 10k items to work with a product that is not backward compatible then there is probably not much use in trying to explain their views any further. That is if they were to do what you and others want and abandon the current platform and the attempts to keep new one compatible.
However, we do look forward to welcoming you when you decide to make the leap. Your decision to wait baffles me because if you simply take the monthly fees you are spending on Roll20 now in the bank you could pay for any difference in price that will exist if you buy FGC now and upgrade to FGU when it comes out. And your players wouldn’t have to pay a single dime if you use ultimate license and they use free license. You are missing out on some incredible game enriching experience, as you know.
Welcome to the forums, Iotatron.
I typically refrain from commenting on the progress of FGU and I've asked lokiare1 to exercise the same restraint. It's best if publicly shared information comes from Doug and John (Moonwizard). They are the owners and face of Smiteworks and it reduces confusion to limit the number of voices. Unless you read something from them, it is best to view it as speculation.
Regarding, AAA games, comparing AAA games to Fantasy Grounds is like comparing apples to desk lamps. Other than both being software, there is little else in common. Prior to developing (the now defunct) Tabletop Connect, and subsequently joining the Smiteworks team, I spent 15 years in video game development. The last nine of which were exclusively working on AAA titles, primarily developing tools and pipeline. One the last titles I worked on, Call of Duty:Black Ops 2, had a 200+ member dev team and a budget close to a quarter of a billion dollars. In contrast, FGU has a single full-time developer (that's me) and John does both FGU development and continues development of the current version of Fantasy Grounds. Other than helping the users understand where and why FGU development is where it is, this is mostly irrelevant to the current or future FG user. You're only interest is when will FGU be available and what can it do when it gets here. I can assure you that no one wants FGU to launch more than Smiteworks.
Circling back to game development, there is a habit there to hit alpha dates by redefining alpha. That's not something Smiteworks is prepared to do. Post alpha will primarily be about performance optimization and testing, not bolting on whole features. Do I have a date for you? Nope. Are we close? Yeah, pretty close. Do I have guess? No. We have limited resources and don't have the luxury of a big dev shop that can just throw warm bodies at the problem. I appreciate that you are choosing to stick with Roll20 for now. If there is one thing that I've discovered during my time here is that Smiteworks wants you to be a satisfied customer and you're confident that the current offering isn't everything that you're looking for. FG has a lot of satisfied and passionate users and I'm confident that you'll become one of them when you're ready to come aboard.
There is a really big difference between Microsoft (134k employees and net income of 16B) and Smiteworks (10 employees and likely much lower net income).Quote:
Originally Posted by Iotatron
I for one am glad to have constant updates to FG, since I am currently using FG. I'm sure that without the consistent revenue Smiteworks would be done, so it's not like they can just say hey that's it no more development until Unity is completed and fully tested.
Even once they complete FGU there will likely be a long internal testing as they work their way through who knows how many rulesets, extensions, modules, etc., to figure out what's working and what needs to be reworked.
I agree it's really easy to armchair criticize the devs, and i'm not trying to do that unfairly. I agree that code migrations are a huge pain and it can get extraordinarily ugly fast. But i do want to point out that the listed features i stated as "not that complex" in reality aren't if you are smart about how you choose to implement them and use the right tools available to you. Is implementing a graphical system with networking using raw C++ (assuming FG is written in that) a much bigger task than using unity? hell yes it is, even if you take advantage of a library like Qt. Is writing your own custom LUA and XML interpreter a pain? It sure can be.Quote:
Originally Posted by esmdev
But you don't have to do that all from scratch, if they chose to do so i hope they have very real reason for it.
I only made the AAA comparison because Lokiare decided to make the comparison too. I don't see Smiteworks as a AAA studio and i know they are worlds apart.Quote:
Originally Posted by pindercarl
To make my position abundantly clear, since i don't want to make you all feel like i just came here to rag on FG. I think FG is better in nearly all aspects than Roll20 currently is (save for some stuff like map doodling, video/voice, etc), i am not paying for Roll20 right now but am also choosing to wait to buy FGU. Why? I don't want to have a wishy-washy promise of being able to purchase it at some unknown discount off of some unknown price. I intend to buy whatever the equivalent of Ultimate is in FGU and i'd rather not risk paying nearly that amount twice instead of once.
I understand the difference between the two. But, as i pointed out, if it makes sense for a huge company like microsoft to drop 7 and 8 and push only 10 so they can solely focus on supporting 10, don't you think it would also be a good move for SmiteWorks to do that since FG seems decently capable currently? After making the previous modules like books and adventures compatible with FGU why bother trying to implement everything twice over so you can produce new FG features at the same time as FGU? It makes more sense to me to do a feature freeze on FG so that FGU can advance more quickly. In addition it will incentivise people to switch if they see a new killer feature they want in FGU. When Adobe was working on Photoshop CS6 you didn't see them rolling out new features for CS5 that were also included in CS6, did you?Quote:
Originally Posted by esmdev
Totally valid reasoning.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iotatron
My experience is SmiteWorks has always been totally customer focused, even at their own expense, so I'm not worried that any cost for FGU will be anything but fair. Of course, you don't have that experience with them so caution is certainly understandable. And of course, I've already gotten a great deal out of my FG purchase that it has already been a very worthwhile expenditure, you haven't, yet. But, as Carl said, when you do come over, both the community and the company (from what Carl said) are pretty confident you'll be happy with your decision.
Good gaming :)
Iotatron's reasoning scales with size, however. Any development time spent on FG3 at this point is basically wasted time that's never coming back; a lot of hours are going to be going down a hole for tweaking software that will be obsolete the moment FGU hits the shelf. FG3 is in a pretty decent spot right now, stability-wise; I doubt it's going to burst into flames if it goes unsupported for a few months. The program itself, I mean, you can't pull support off of keeping up with module release for an extended period. Plus I don't know the resumes of the module devs but I'm expecting it's unlikely that they're Unity developers on the side, so taking them off of making new modules would probably not help the program get finished any faster.
Exactly. From what i can tell the community LOVES FG as it already is. So if the devs just said "hey y'all we know you want FGU and we want it too, so as of next update we are freezing the FG3 features to focus solely on FGU" would anyone really get mad? I feel like everyone would encourage it despite potentially being a little sad that they aren't getting more FG3 features.Quote:
Originally Posted by Valatar
Note, Moon Wizard has said a few times that changes he makes to FGC/FG3 are things that are being implemented in FGU as well. Yes it does increase labor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Valatar
We also have to guess that if FGU was only a couple of months away, stopping FGC revisions would be feasible, but if it is still a long way off, that might not be feasible.
But again, now we are well into just speculating, which really doesn't help FGU get released any sooner.
Why a couple months, how is waiting longer than a few months for new features not feasible? Like I pointed out with photoshop: after CS4 came out the users didn't get mad at adobe for not constantly providing new features while also trying to build new features for CS5. They just enjoyed what they had while CS5 was being worked on and then CS5 came out (two years later) with all these new features that people wanted so they purchased the new version. Why do we expect FG to constantly come out with new features especially when FGU is publicly known as being in the works with new features. It's very very nice that the devs provide new features and i think it's important to do so from a business model standpoint to retain customers (especially subscription customers who may expect updates more than one-time buyers). But since FGU is already being worked on with new features does it make sense to double the workload? Clearly FG as it stands is feature-rich; is anyone going to get mad if they have to wait a year or longer without any FG updates (besides bug fixes which degrade the product and potentially new modules from wizards)?Quote:
Originally Posted by LordEntrails
As has always been said by the people in the know on these forums - buy Fantasy Grounds now for what Fantasy Grounds is now. Don't buy it based on what it may be in the future - whenever that is.
Right now Fantasy Grounds is not a legacy application. It's a full blown, main product with over 1,000 DLC titles, active support and development and many tens of thousands of sessions ran every year. FGU will be backwards compatible with any DLC products you purchase, so you can keep on going using the products you may purchase now.
If there's any concern over future upgrade costs and double dipping then, sure, wait for FGU to come out - whenever that may be. It's just a shame, because you'll be missing out on some great games and products for the next however many months/years before FGU comes out, gets stable and you'd be ready to migrate. That being said, I respect anyone's decision to wait. As I said - only buy FG for what it is now...
I'm not trying to argue the merit of buying now vs later; my decision has been made. I am trying to shed some perspective on why i disagree on the devs decision to double their workload. If they want to keep supporting FG with updates that's their decision, but since FGU is their future it makes more sense to me for them to focus on what's ahead of them, which they may be supporting for many decades as opposed to an already feature-rich product.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trenloe
FGU won't be out in the next few months, so the reasoning is pretty straightforward. Current users demand new functionality, new DLC, updates, bug fixes, etc.. Making sure FGU is backwards compatible with DLC and rulesets means that a lot of the work being done now in FGC (FG Classic - working title) is not double the work - it will be used in FGU too. This has to be done so that current customers, who may not make the jump to FGU, are serviced fully and correctly, and new products keep coming out - usually around half-a-dozen each week. But, if someone has been using FG for a long campaign, FGU has to be developed to allow them to migrate their campaign data to the new platform.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iotatron
Sure, a hell of a lot of work in FGU is to support this backwards compatibility - but this has to be done to allow all of the loyal FG customers (new or long standing) to be able to migrate with the minimum of fuss when the time comes. Until then they (we) all still want regular updates, etc.. For example, here is what the next version will contain: https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forum...Release-v3-3-7 And here is an example of the weekly updates: https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forum...mber-27th-2018
I understand how someone looking in and waiting for FGU thinks this doesn't make sense. But I think you'll get very few people who use FG regularly agreeing that this approach doesn't make sense (even though a lot of them want FGU Noooooow!). It's building for the future, taking care of what is there now *and* continuing to move the current product forwards - with functionality that will also be used in FGU. For me it makes perfect sense - we'll just have to disagree on that. Which is OK - it's fine to disagree.
Reinforces my point in that the project is too large for staff in hand to handle to match our "need it now" mind set. We saw the picture of the cake now we want to eat it. :-)Quote:
Originally Posted by pindercarl
But as I also said, as it stands FG is a far better option than anything else out there as my 6 months of research told me before I went all in. I can wait but "DAAAAMN I want it NOOOOOW" .
It will be worth it I am 100% sure of that.
A couple of weeks ago I flew to Florida to game FACE TO FACE with my brother and old friends. There was no Fantasy Grounds. No computers. Just pencils, paper, and real honest to God dice. It was a game. An escape. Great fun and lots of laughs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moon Wizard
I have had the pleasure of meeting and gaming with Carl, John and Doug. I assure you they are good people with a passion to bring the above mentioned tabletop gaming experience to folks where distance is an issue. Please....leave them be to do that. Enjoy gaming over the internet for what it is. They have delivered an awesome product for our hobby as it is right now. Most here at the forums know that already. Newcomers...try to understand this is not a video game. It is simply a way to "table game" over vast distance. Its been doing that for years....
Just play games. Leave the business to them...
My $0.02.
Peace
Really? I wouldn't have done that!Quote:
Originally Posted by mghauber
;)
Only joking - I'm really a little jealous! :)
First off, i don't think this is a video game, i see it as a computer program to facilitate gameplay. Either way, it doesn't invalidate anything i've said. And I believe you when you say the devs are great people; but that also doesn't invalidate my criticisms.Quote:
Originally Posted by mghauber
Secondly, why are we not allow to post criticisms? Why should we just "play games, leave business to them," isn't a healthy interaction with criticism from community a sign of a strong business? I don't understand why people just ask the community to "let devs do what they do and not question it" when the community offers a lot of insight (and in FGs case a lot of content in the form of custom modules).
Being able to criticize something - while still recognizing that you enjoy it and are glad it exists even in its current form - is the basis for healthy growth.
Unless someone tells me otherwise you are free to criticise away. However on the counter side you should also be willing to accept when someone else criticises your criticism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iotatron
My opinion is we don't need FGU as much as access to 64-bit memory. They already sidelined the 64 bit FG in favor of FGU which made me sad.
I'm open to criticisms, and if the devs continue to support FG with new features despite delaying FGU that's there prerogative. I just wanted to share my opinion about what I believe is the best way to approach the situation of FGU taking so long.Quote:
Originally Posted by esmdev
I believe FGU should be 64-bit since the unity engine will handle that.
It seems like some of the tension could be diffused if the "full credit" purchase date were to be set. That way, people could buy with confidence now, and enjoy the program and get to know the quirks while confident that whenever FGU was finally released, they'd be covered.