FGU Sharing LOS Definitions for Maps - Crowd Project

[Guoccamole]

Doug: Thank you for the video. Just noticed it (after my previous post). Watching it now.

[Guoccamole]

Make sure you have the latest update first. Once you have that, you will host a game (Private game is best) and then you will launch a 2nd instance of FGU. Click Join Game and you should see your localhost entry to connect to. Just click it and then Start.

I updated FGU (though I think it was up-to-date already). Is there a way to see version number?

No joy. I tried

1) Server Type: Local
Server List: Private

2) Server Type: Cloud
Server List: Private

without any game showing in ‘Lobby Campaigns’ list for player instance. I am using “GM” as the ‘GM Name’, in case that matters.
I also tried searching hosted games by “GM”, IPv4 address, and “localhost” without success.

FYI, I am still getting “[ERROR] License check failed” on startup, in case that matters.

Any other tips? TY

[Guoccamole]

Doug:

TY very much for your video which was very educational. Unfortunately, I can not get player FGU instance running to experiment on my side (yet).

FYI:

For terrain functionality, I can see how area of terrain is supposed to work. However, I think the line of terrain approach is more common and (at least) equally useful and perhaps less troublesome. For instance, the area of terrain hijacks visibility of perfectly visible areas (as in video) and collides with adjacent terrain (as in video). Line of terrain could function for 5’ (default approach for visibility) by tokens from one or both directions with or without overlaps (no problem).

One direction line terrain would be for cliffs and such (one viewing side has advantage of seeing terrain). On the other hand, dual direction line terrain would grant terrain visibility to either side, e.g., for rooftops and hills. And with line terrain, the terrain would NOT hijack visible terrain

One-way terrain would reveal tokens within LOS on far side of terrain approach (e.g., arakocra at cliffside) yet hide their terrain. Looking up, tokens could see arakocra but not its terrain; looking down, arakocra would see everything (tokens and terrain) of those below the cliff.

With two-way line terrain, both tokens and terrain would be immediately visible from either direction.

And the line terrain could use the line tool. Area terrain could use the square (polygon anyone?) tool.

I don’t particularly like the current area terrain approach because it’s fiddly (specifying an area unnecessarily (?) which could be covered by 5’ default + direction(s) automatically), hides too much map (such as non-terrain which should be perfectly visible on same level), creates collisions (adjacent terrains), and also tends toward hiding key informative terrain, such as cliff face and key visual cues such as cliff edges. Often the map edges (cliff edge, stairway railing) tell the visual story of why the hiding, so they’re important. By covering key visual terrain cues, I think the area terrain approach reduces visual understanding. I think the line terrain would be easier and less fiddly to setup (no area required), doesn’t hide as much unnecessarily, no troublesome conflicts, is more ‘natural’ (cues visible), and more suitable to common cases.

At least, that’s how I’ve been imagining the terrain tool worked, and I think it’d be simpler than the area terrain approach in the video (and more appropriate to using line tool).

I don’t know if it’s too late to ‘simplify’ the terrain tool, or add a line terrain to the area terrain approach, but I hope my perspective is useful for consideration.

[Guoccamole]

If area terrain had a way to reveal a layer of a map, then area terrain could be used to solve the colocation problem I address separately (above), and specifying trigger area would have key value (for tight LOS directionality control). There would need to be a way of specifying which (small) layer to reveal. The area terrain LOS could specify an area (e.g., adjacent, approaching the hidden terrain feature) where tokens would trigger visibility of a (small) layer which would (transparency enabled) superimpose itself on their map to reveal a new terrain feature (e.g., bridge above, or tunnel below, or cave above/below neighboring area).

So if area terrain had that feature, it would solve my colocation problem with some maps having ‘too much’ information on the same spots. I would gladly use area terrain to solve that problem.

PS: This version of area terrain could also be useful to create a windowed or barred doorway (a wall with visibility from certain area).

[ddavison]

Generally, if I can see you, then it means that you can also see me. The system also does not know that you want to see 5' beyond the line but no further. That is what the polygons do. They provide the amount of depth you want to provide. There are definitely scenarios that produce some awkward results, but that is ultimately why we added the ability to turn them on or off.

Things like bridges are difficult to do with a single 2D map. There is no way to walk under the bridge. We also don't have the graphics for what it looks like under the bridge. If you were building your own map, you could have a bridge crossing overhead on a separate layer, but the tokens still all move on a single layer. The tokens don't currently know that they are on the bridge layer or the ground layer or how those two layers would interact. It gets really complicated really quickly -- so it is something that will probably remain abstract for the time being.

[Guoccamole]

Doug, I wasn’t going anywhere as complicated as you suggest. Just trying to keep it simple.

Many maps have 3D elements on 2D maps. As I mentioned “Dragon Hatchery” has both a bridge (overhead tunnel, actually) and an underground cave on a 2D map. I’m not looking for graphics bling. I’m just trying to get existing maps to work and take advantage of tools in FGU. That’s how my terrain approach was intended. In other words, the layers are for reveal, not for overhead/underground bling. Just plain terrain feature reveal.

I guess one problem I have is that I do not see the advantage of specifying area for an LOS edge. Rooftop has area. Cliff edge has no area. I can specify a rooftop with a set of lines. Specifying a cliff edge, or castle edge, or bridge edge, or stairs railing by area is fiddly and leads to problems.

Hence my suggestion for line terrain approach. Fewer complications, not more. (And not trying to do any tricky graphics.)

Apologies if my proposal was misleading. Perhaps consider the line terrain proposal in the simpler context of ‘good enough’ and less complex than area terrain. (The area terrain could still have its uses, as I point out in addendum.)

[Halfront]

My apologizes for lack of map updates. I have had my last bit of eye surgery and am almost back to seeing like a normal person

[Guoccamole]

I have just updated D&D 5E “Hoard of the Dragon Queen” post (https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forum...l=1#post450748) with the complete, final (for now) “Hoard of the Dragon Queen” Player maps.

Please let me know if you find any shortcomings, oversights, comments, suggestions, or questions.

TY

[Acererak]

Hi,

I'm now working on Sunless Citadel's Grove map and have no idea how to handle stairs and subterran in this part of the map
Any advice ?

Multi levels.JPG

[ddavison]

Hi,

I'm now working on Sunless Citadel's Grove map and have no idea how to handle stairs and subterran in this part of the map
Any advice ?

Multi levels.JPG

I don't recall if those stairs lead to an underground passage beneath the octagon shaped room or if they go into the octagon shaped room. If they go into the octagon shaped room, then you just remove the solid walls there and have it go right into stairs with terrain covering the stairs. This would let people see onto the stairs from the octagon room and people on the stairs would see the landing above the stairs and the octagon rooms.

If it goes underneath, then solid walls like you have is fine and then to move from one side to the other, the GM would have to Shift+drag the PCs from one end of the tunnel to the next. They would not be "visible" on the map during that time and it would not reveal the octagon room as they moved from one stair to the other stair, underneath the octagon room.