...or else all the Roll20 converters are quicker gone than u think .
I know this will put a lot of pressure on you, but its a great chance you shouldnt throw away 😄👍
Printable View
...or else all the Roll20 converters are quicker gone than u think .
I know this will put a lot of pressure on you, but its a great chance you shouldnt throw away 😄👍
So they should release something that's not stable?
Has bugs and will probably crash regularly?
Performs poorly?
Can't be used with existing content?
Come on, think about it, if they had something that they were comfortable releasing, they wouldn't be continuing to develop it. Sure, now would be an opportune time to release it, if it were ready, but releasing it before its ready could be enough to set back the company a decade.
So I too am anxious for Unity, but I prefer them to get it close to right as they can before release. I know there may be kinks, but I'm willing to wait.Quote:
Originally Posted by LordEntrails
One option, though I am not necessarily suggesting it, is to release a test version to people actually interested and able to test/play with a non-release version. I know I would do this even if there were bugs and such.Quote:
Originally Posted by thorun09
I doubt anyone who gives the program a real shot will be gone that fast, there aren't really many other VTT of note on the market and what FG does well it does really well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Locotomo
FGU will be great, and I really want it too. But it isn't ready and that is just reality sadly.
What about an ultra light demo version?
A sheet tool, some dice and some map features and most importantly video chat functionality .
You don‘t have to put in all the rules sets, combat tracker and backwards compatibility :)
On the other hand, if you want to stay with the old version for some time , is it not possible to at least make Fantasy Grounds able to open multiple windows?
As someone who has worked in software development... That would likely add months and months of time to the development schedule with little to no benefit. Better to just put out a beta when it is in a polished enough position to do so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Locotomo
And open multiple windows? You can have multiple instances open at once already. I am not sure what you mean by open multiple windows unless you are asking for the elements to be floating windows elements. In which case no the program doesn't support that and I don't believe unity will either.
Sadly this limits multi monitor support to extended mode currently.
Yes, unlocking at the least the character sheets and putting them on a second monitor would be cool.
:)
I wouldn't keep chasing the next high as a user. The current Fantasy Grounds is great as it is. If someone doesn't see the added benefit of FG over Roll20 right as it is now, let them stay with Roll20. Welcome warmly the users who decide to enjoy FG right now, and ensure them that the creators actually enjoy having them as part of the community.
I'd rather not have it released in an unfinished state. I've seen too many games pushed out way before they were ready (total war rome 2 anyone?) and it has taken devs of these games a long time to repair the damage both to their game their reputations. Personaly I think FG & Smiteworks are in a nice place in terms of community relations and I wouldn't want that peed all over by a rushed half arsed release.
So what you are saying is we DON'T want a No Man's Sky? :)
My take, for what its worth.
If folk aren't happy with Fantasy Grounds Classic, they probably won't be happy with Fantasy Ground Unity either. I don't think masssive UI changes are on the cards.
- It will have better networking, less handholding DMs through the connection process.
- It will have better memory management, less worrying about sharing stuff.
- The overwhelming majority (all?) of the stuff that works on Classic will Work on Unity.
I don't see how releasing a half-arsed version of that will convince people to stay.
I 100% agree that Smiteworks should not release Unity until it is ready.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ampersandrew
But I can say that the way maps seem to work in the Unity demos is a huge UI boost. When I first came to FG from Roll20, the way maps work in FG was almost enough to send me back to Roll20.
I could be wrong. But it looks like Smiteworks is making maps work a lot like Roll20, which is huge because that is the best thing about Roll20 compared to FG.
I have seen the map demos and they were very, very impressive. I'm looking forward to having that. I hope you're right and the new version gives you map functions that replace Roll20 (which you obviously liked for its maps).Quote:
Originally Posted by Three of Swords
Anyway, They've held their nerve for four years or so, I don't think they're going to rush anything out at this point.
I think it is fair to say that we've lost some potential customers & users due to port forwarding and lack of dynamic line of sight. FGU should hopefully bring many of those people back. If we lost you because you really don't like the general interface, then I don't think FGU is going to bring you back.
While your map tools could use some improvement, I think the "general interface" gets and keeps players.
Dynamic lighting and line-of-sight would be nice, but those aren't the features I really enjoy when I use other platforms. It's the simple stuff, like being able to type text onto the map, or mix freehand and shapes in different colors, or put an aura around a token. All of those little quality of life map tool things don't really come close to the automation, data organization and record integration, and combat tracker in Fantasy Grounds. That "general interface" is boss.
Well, I for one don't want FG to look like roll20!
Yeah FG is a bit clunky and poorly designed from a UX standpoint, but it is LEAGUES above roll20 in that regard.Quote:
Originally Posted by seycyrus
Clunky, slow, nested.. these are all adjectives I use to describe the roll20 interface.
Fantasy Grounds is excellent for me. It pretty much does what I need it to do to play any game I feel like playing. I really want a dynamic lighting feature but that isn't a must have for me for when/if the Unity version is released. I will buy Unity when it comes out because I expect it will deliver the same level of enjoyment I currently receive from Fantasy Grounds. I have had a few disappointments, sure, that's to be expected, but nothing that I can't manage on my end.
Would I like to see Unity sooner? Yes. Would I be concerned if it had bugs to start with? No, not really. Can I wait until Smiteworks is ready to release? Yes.
True. Port Forwarding is so 2008. I can live with everything else and I really love the interface, but in 2018 it is unacceptable to rely on IPv4 (which is not even supported by my ISP anymorei.Quote:
Originally Posted by ddavison
or lack of updating could drive more people away, or fail to gain new people due to the outmoded and outdated UI design.Quote:
Originally Posted by ddavison
4 years could have given a whole new updated rewrite and allow everyone to remake their content rather than worry with backward compatibility. with running parallel systems.
that is a lot of time wasted to change very little...
those 2 things, shouldn't have taken 4 years as the only major upgrade to an aging software package.Quote:
Originally Posted by ddavison
the post tells people to not expect any better window management from FGU. it will just big as big a mess as it currently is, and cost more money to rebuy something you already own.
By the way: Is there any way, we as users are able to support you guys to make this a thing?
Use your wallet in the Store :) Standard way to support companies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Razortide
It's not about supporting a company, but supporting a cause :-)
Be an awesome DM :)
The problem with that is that it supports the status quo and doesn't in any way let them know that I would be spending even more money if they got Unity out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Valyar
I love Fantasy Grounds and I'm being as patient as I can for the Unity version but my guess is we are at least a year away still. If I remember correctly from previous comments, there was a list of 25 pages of 'stuff' that they wanted for Unity. There are 5 pages left (as of a month or three ago - I don't really remember). They've been working on it for 5 years, so approx 4 pages a year, which means there is approximately a year left before beta.
I'm in NO WAY saying that it's easy. I myself am currently maintaining a growing system while trying to create a completely new version from scratch. The new version needs to do everything the existing one does, but better and more. It's a gigantic pain in the ***. I know it's a lot of work.
When potential new users come to these forums and see that the thread asking for a release date for Unity is over 4 years old they get the (honestly correct) opinion that it's vaporware. Or worse(?), they get the idea that it's coming out 'soon' and don't buy anything. By the time it comes out they are going to be so heavily invested in Roll20 that they won't be able to afford to come back.
My concern is that by the time it's done (if it ever is), it'll be antiquated and in need of a new version.
Unfortunately, all of this.Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnQPublic
When I first came to FG from Roll20, I saw the potential in Unity, and was very excited. Then I realized how long Unity had been in development with very little progress to show for it and had to temper my expectations.
I still feel FG is currently as good as Roll20 overall (each has some strengths and weaknesses compared to the other platform) and that I got my money's worth. FG is, after all, significantly cheaper than Roll20 over time (assuming you upgrade your Roll20 account to Pro, which I did).
But at this point, I'm convinced that Unity will not happen any time soon. So I'm prepared to deal with the platform, as is, for quite some time. In fact, I hope not much changes on the current platform, since that development time means it came from time that could have been spent on Unity.
While dynamic line of sight would be nice, a lot of peoples on roll20 don't have it either because you have to pay for it. And you can show and hide part of the map with the fog of war in FG. Of course we all want FGU for many reasons, but we will get it when it's ready
I am fine with FG at present and would rather wait until Unity is finished.. Problem with releasing something that is half baked even to people who say its fine with them, there are going to be just as many people bitch about things not working correctly and wanting their money back ... Case in point is the "Starfinder" rule set. far as I am concerned its not done until the starship combat tracker is completed . I GM one game and decided to shelf it until the rule set is finished.. Just not worth the aggravation . Until then Ill save my money and go back to D&D .
I have been around FG since mid 2.0. I remember when Unity was announced. It sounded AWESOME, but. I can play my games with FG as is, i would rather Unity is released when it performs to Smiteworks expectations. I have stopped waiting, it will come out when it will come out. All this automation won't do me any good, since i play games that doesn't have a fancy ruleset anyway.
/H
From my XP, I'd argue it's first and foremost port forwarding/network issues as you mentioned, but second IMO is not dynamic lighting. Keep in mind this is just my opinion based on people I know/use FG and you obviously have a better overview but still, I'd say it's the lack of ease to modify things such as character sheets without going into code, the map/images (I've had FG for three years now and I'm still struggling with the map feature) and the lack of options when it comes to dice rolling.Quote:
Originally Posted by ddavison
(No offense intended. Just thoughts I felt like sharing. There's a lot of good things about FG too of course).
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddavison
I have to agree with port forwarding part.. FG always worked on my system with no fiddling of port forwarding.. but I can tell you.. if I had to mess with all that FG would have been deleted immediately and I would have moved on to most likely roll20.. but since it worked ok I have bought well over 800.00 of material.. I imagine more than you can think may have moved on due to having to mess with something to get it up and running.
The only reason port forwarding is needed is to host the game locally instead of using some pool of servers in a permanent farm on the Internet. That, of course, means you would only be able to play if there was a live Internet connection and that the server pool is big enough to never cause lagging game play.
So it would be easier to have users connect and use it, but at the expense of obtaining and maintaining a large pool of servers (hardware and staff).
I personally prefer hosting locally and keeping my costs down substantially.
Port forwarding is not all that difficult to achieve manually. Only the outlier very odd cases make this tricky. I agree that not everyone is familiar with the fun of port forwarding as few ever install server software on their computers.
UPnP technology can (mostly) make this as transparent as using a pool of servers. UPnP will have trouble on those odd network configurations where people have chained multiple routers or have an ISP that blocks the port. So it will work for those with typical connections and be trouble with those outlier cases still.
In the US, UK, AUS this is mostly true - but for many other countries IP addresses are shared and natted outside of the customers control and port forwarding cannot be done.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xemit
I personally believe networking issues is the #1 challenge that needs solving.
I have has issues with the networking over the years, but it is nothing I could not fix with a little fiddling and research. I do agree that the UI is a bit clunky and looks dated. I have to run a double monitor to see all the windows and maps that I need to have open to DM effectivley. That I liked roll20 interface, but not many of the other features. I would love for the new employies to design a new UI that we could load. Iam not talking about the skins, but a new UI that looks more sleek and modern. Now that being said, what I like and what is needed or nessassary are different things. If creating a UI is too time intensive, scrap the idea. I would rather work toward Unity than retrofitting wasting time and effort retrofitting the current FG. All in all, it is clunky but reliable.
FG needs a new UI. The only current saving grace it has is the ability to mold the UI by the user which d20pro and roll20 lack.Quote:
Originally Posted by Batman13
A bunch of the rulesets have 'themes' but none really re-work the UI like such: https://imgur.com/zpg2iAc. It however isn't an excuse to not retrofit the default UI rather than relying on the 'community' to develop it like a set a of crutches.
It doesn't need a new UI, and no matter how many times you say it, there are many of us who disagree. Are there aspects that need improvement? Sure. But I (and others) like the fact that the UI is not like a normal, sterile Windows (or Mac) UI. We use it for fantasy roleplaying, and the different UI helps that suspension of disbelief. The skinning abilities could use some improvement so those who want to play a SCI-FI or modern game can do so easier,
I do thank you, Ken for all your hard work for the community.
Bidmarn, I think Ken and I are saying that we would like to have multiple UI options not just skins. I am in no way lobbying for FG to completely drom the current interface. I would like to have more modern, sleaker options. The software is powerful, but looks veryoutdates. That can push many casual gamers away. I know when I first saw FG, I thought it looked like it looked like a video game from the late 90's/early 2000's. That is not nessassarly bad. I love Baulders Gate, but is is also not attractive to many newer players whos cant get past their inital impressions.
It is that 'antique' look that helps reinforce the fantasy aspect, IMO. And I remain in disagreement. The trend in OSs these days is to remove the OS UI or only have it show up if you cursor up to the top for the menu, e.g. Many are using applications in full-screen mode. I acknowledge that there are UI features we need that don't affect the visual component (why can't you click in the space off the thumb of a scrollbar to move the window contents up/down one window-height, e.g. in some windows), but do decry that it is completely unapproachable or imply that our own personal tastes in interface must be inflicted upon everyone is over the top, IMO. FG was designed for fantasy use, as its very name indicates. The fact that it can easily be used for other genres is a tribute to its strengths, but please do not inflict some sterile, modern-looking UI on the application.
I have never understood why radial menus, for example, are so bothersome. They are much more attractive than the text-based contextual menus that are the alternative. They DO need to be modified to provide for more than 8 selection options.
Oh, I don't know - eight is about the right number of options for one "set" - design theory says a "good" number is 5 to 9 options on a menu / in a set - any less and you're wasting space (assuming you have more, of course) and any more that 8-9 and the human mind shies away from "too many choices".Quote:
Originally Posted by Bidmaron
And its very easy to have submenus as one or more of the eight choices.
But yes, I don't think the UI needs to be "updated" either - it serves it purpose, it does add to the "feel" of the RPG, and even when playing a "modern" game a simple skin change is all you need to help with the "suspension of disbelief" - check out the CoC Ruleset skin, or even the DORCore, for some examples.
Remember: "new" does not necessarily mean "better", nor "different" mean "inferior". Nor do I believe that the interface is turning away players - they many be using that as an excuse (if you were to ask them) but I think you'll find it more likely that their "wham, bam, thank you mam" attitude towards *computer* rpgs is way more likely the reason - ie unrealistic expectations. I've *never* had anyone turn away from the platform over the UI, but I have had people complain bitterly that they can't get in a "pick-up game" when ever they want - but that's not what Tabletop RPGs are about.
Finally don't forget that but "current" windows and mac UI designs can be said to do the same thing (ie turn people off).
Just my $0.02 worth (from over 35 years of gaming experience) :)