Fantasy Grounds Unity engine

[lochost]

The problem is that C# is a compiled language, and I don't think that SW is going to distribute and support a compiler. What's needed is an interpreted language. If we're adding new interpreters, I suggest Perl and / or Python.

There's a just-in-time compiler that allows to do the ting "on the fly", just like with Java. It's included in the CLR, no need for SW to distribute it.

[pindercarl]

To help put this into context, the LUA scripts in rulesets and extensions are not simple bindings. That is to say that the LUA does not simply fire-and-forget a function, it is deeply connected to the database. This allows, for example, the character sheet to "talk" to the combat tracker. Furthermore, there is no first-class object for complex controls like the combat tracker. These are all defined in the ruleset and modifiable by extensions. Rulesets and extensions are defined by a combination of XML and LUA.

If an attempt was made to replace LUA with a different language, ALL rulesets and extensions would need to be re-written.

If an additional language was added parallel to LUA, e.g. Javascript, then LUA and Javascript would both have to communicate with the runtime and magically communicate with each other. I can assure you that this would be akin to sorcery.

[Dactylus]

With the move to Unity and native Linux support has there been any thought or discussion of a console mode/dedicated server. It appears to be well documented from the Unity side to do it in the same build. I would love to have it running on my headless media server and connect via my normal desktop which can handle the gui/graphics. This would allow me to leave it up on the lower power machine which is on 24/7 and turn off the gaming machine when not in use. Probably not as much work as you would think, besides gui vs console mode, it would only need be able to ID which client connection was the GM, which you could do with a different password or match the keys. (and hold the scope creep comments, I work in development too, only trying to see if it has been discussed and gauge interest.

It opens a lot of possibilities for cloud hosting. We host stuff local and outsource at work. You can get an account on a shared host starting from <$5 a month. They could offer a premium subscription and include hosting.

[LordEntrails]

With the move to Unity and native Linux support has there been any thought or discussion of a console mode/dedicated server. ..

It is a long standing idea. See the wishlist item; https://fg2app.idea.informer.com/proj/?ia=40890
I suspect it is also something that would require review of all licensing contracts with publishers since it would be so easy for someone to stand up a sever with all WotC/Paizo content and publish the connection info and leave it unregulated. (i.e. not be much more than a distribution server.)

[Dactylus]

Thanks, at a glance you would think that thread would come up as search result for "fantasy grounds headless console".

I am sure something can be done so only the owner of content can see it and there are probably much easier and less risky ways to distribute stuff then to potentially give out access to your FG account and license.

[LordEntrails]

Thanks, at a glance you would think that thread would come up as search result for "fantasy grounds headless console".

I am sure something can be done so only the owner of content can see it and there are probably much easier and less risky ways to distribute stuff then to potentially give out access to your FG account and license.

With a headless server you wouldn't have to give out your FG account info. All you would have to do is stand up an FG server on a hosted server and start up FG and share all your modules. Then give the world your server alias (and campaign password if you bothered with one) and then and then anyone could connect to your "game" and use it to load and read/use anything you have shared.

Not that you can't do that today, but making it a 'headless' server makes it even more appealing to would be IP pirates.

[Trenloe]

A headless server is a good idea. I'm sure there would be a lot of work - both with coding and commercials to sort out. But it would be a nice thing to have sometime in the future.

[Dactylus]

With a headless server you wouldn't have to give out your FG account info.

I was thinking that if you forced it to be tied to both the key and account, it would make it less likely to be published freely. Logging excessive/abnormal GM connection behavior could lock the account/server as well.

Not that you can't do that today, but making it a 'headless' server makes it even more appealing to would be IP pirates.

Using controls similar to what are in place now should be all that are needed. I suspect that there are probably easier ways to pirate any IP in a format that was more usable. It does not have to impossible, only inconvenient, before someone moves on. If you are talking about the IP in a FG usable format, it would be more likely be shared packaged up in a hacked state for running locally. Connecting to a server via the client and reading or screen scraping the IP is probably not a big risk.

I am only recently getting into FG, I am all for adding anycontrols that would be needed to give the comfort level required to any IP owners. I was more thinking about how much better from a logistics/game play standpoint, having a headless dedicated server on a small Linux appliance would make my setup.

[Dactylus]

A headless server is a good idea. I'm sure there would be a lot of work - both with coding and commercials to sort out. But it would be a nice thing to have sometime in the future.

IP risks aside, from an admittedly minimal amount of reading I think it is something Unity supports out of the box or with an add-on. From a proof of concept standpoint, it could probably be mocked up pretty quickly in a test build. I suspect that it would be more work proportionately ensuring that the client role controls were in place to delegate the GM capability to the right client connection. Not that a developer ever has any free time, it's more like "that would be cool and three cups of coffee later" you have a POC mockup which would take a hundred hours to polish and it gets filed away as feasible.

[Speculi]

... I think it is something Unity supports out of the box or with an add-on. From a proof of concept standpoint, it could probably be mocked up pretty quickly in a test build.

Running a Unity application in headless mode in itself is not the big issue here, but Fantasy Grounds doesn't seem to have any kind of "rights management" besides server is always GM and owner of all the content that's shareable, and any connected client is just a player (and can request to open his own stuff, but not share it in any way). From my understanding how FG works, the entire rights management would first have to be changed in a way to allow connected GMs to make something like this feasible.