Dinamic Light

[Arleudo]

Is it possible to define the distance of the dynamic light in the tokens?
Ex.
The token has 20ft of vision and a circle of light around the token showing the map
Another token has 10ft, this has a smaller circle around the token

[LordEntrails]

No, this is something the devs are looking to implement, but last we knew this was not planned until sometime after full release (and their is no estiamted date yet published for full release).

[Arleudo]

ok Thanks

[Neovirtus]

(and their is no estiamted date yet published for full release).

Just FYI, they announced in the last Kickstarter update that they plan to exit Early Access the first week of November.

[A Social Yeti]

This is the feature that seems most powerful and GM useful to have implemented, and yet feels most gimmick and least well planned out for how ti just didn't bother to include the core function of lighting and character vision distance limitations, in the line of sight functions.

With 5e so predominately on display for selling FG, and race visions and lighting rules all existing already. I can't get to the design planning POV that was RPGer high lvl XP, and wanted this feature, and planned it out well from the get go.
To get to this level of dynamic line of sight that does understand walls, doors, and each player uniquely seeing what they can see but not what others can that they could not(optional but by default not shared party LoS).
But somehow still have infinite LoS in dark or lit conditions regardless of racial sight differences.

Then it looks way less like a feature intended to get that next lvl GM automation tool, and far more a gimmick or after thought to the overall designs.


With how it works in mind i find myself wanting to only ever make/use any room or hallway only be at most 60ft in one run, so that the average is that players won't see what they would not have been able to see if the dLoS game rules were mechanically fully functional for typically limted by lighting LoS ranges, in the more mechanically complicated RPG systems. Which is kinda of what's splashed out all over the main FG site page. SO pretty well all the advertising of this feature, who would not have assumed up front that of course it takes int account well established visual range limitations for various races and lighting conditions....

Basically it is such a seemingly correct design automation feature for an online GM tool, that it was not on the initial must have list for how to improve on FGC, is an odd situation to find out about to me. But it sure does help explain why the feature seems to come up critically short in it's implementation to me.
I sure do hope they figure this one out, as there are many maps and encounters in my GM IRL crate, i'd have to significantly rework or abandon, as some of them explicitly leverage the mechanics lighting and vision distance limitations in their layouts. Whihc the current implementation of dLoS ruins.

[LordEntrails]

Dynamic Light of sight has been discussed numerous times before. Please use the search function to find these discussions and read them if you would like to know more about community and developer comments. Lets please not try to re-hash things unless their is a new impetus to do so.

For instance, some of the threads on this topic include (in no particular order);
- https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forum...-Light-Sources
- https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forum...ight-and-torch
- https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forum...ision-Checking
- https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forum...d-sight-limits
- https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forum...Sight-question
- https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forum...ic-LoS-for-FGU

You can also review comments on the Kickstarter as well if you can find them, the FG Fridays, as this topic often comes up.

In short, all the advanced features possible with LOS have been in the mind of the developers since the start. The stated intent was always to release basic LOS with FGU's initial production release and then after than start adding in more advanced and ruleset specific capabilities. (Remember, every ruleset has its own rules regarding vision, sight distances, bright light, dim light, light sources, vision types, etc). I suspect the advanced capabilities have been kept in mind from the start and have driven the architecture of the current LOS feature. I see no reason to think the developers have left any of this as an afterthought.

[YAKO SOMEDAKY]

I may be talking a lot of bullshit, but come on:
Line of Sight serves to define the field of view, that is, the use of an occluder. This occlusion can come in various forms and applications.
When the Light and Vision Source is implemented (which I believe to be something editable, as we know these values ​​change from system to system).
So with this, in addition to an immersion that technology currently proves to us, we will finally have Dynamic Lighting.
I know it is an advanced feature and I place my hopes and hopes on this and many future improvements that are and may come after the official release of Fantasy Grounds Unity.

[A Social Yeti]

I would point out to you that there is a rather significant difference between the two situations:

A: A company makes clear and easy to find objective statements about a product's capabilities and features.
vs.
B: A company provides little in the way of that directly and if you feel like it you can dig into internet forums to see if anyone asked questions along those lines and got any useful answers.

You seem to have treated that as one in the same which it most certainly is not.


As well when i do look into what a company has said offically, like at the kick starter...

and we see this as a feature:

"Dynamic Line of Sight with enhanced toggle blockers"

and we have a head full of RPG table top knowledge of this stuff being core to the game systems for decades now:

You can see in dim light within 60 feet of you as if it were bright light, and in Darkness as if it were dim light.


and cyberpunk, DnD, starfinder, shadowrun, and basically most of the big tent pole names splashed out across the first FG page...

So exactly how was it you read that feature description and did understand that obviously it would not at all include any of the race vision traits or the lighting rules for how well illumination offers characters vision in the initial implementation?

And take it one more step out to POV as a designer yourself.
If you were not 100% sure you could make it work to do that level of dynamic lighting + LoS combined properly. Would you personally feel, that with no personal certainty on that functionality you would say to all the longer term RPGs that GM all those rules, that you simply will have.

"Dynamic Line of Sight with enhanced toggle blockers"



I mean i do easily believe that, IF they had this as a from the start plan, then i'd be real sure they can get it there, but just wanted to show off stuff so fast they were willing to put it out in the wild while it really does just break the daylights out of the supposedly supported game systems.
A little * on that then to say, it supports the game rules provided you perosnally ignore all the racial vision traits and the influence of lighting on how far anyone can see if you enable dynamic LoS.


And again just to remind you, i have a lot of XP in the early access market, the market into which FG willingly choose to go. If they do not want to say details up front, then i do not assume after the fact that was the plan all along. Anyone can say "i meant to do that." If you do not have the right kind of objective data in hand, then that is just an arbitrary statement that you choose to give faith to. While i have foudn faith to be a highly exploited resources for the market so i'm more of a skeptic.

With a lot of Xp in the EA market, i got an actual healthy respect for the decision to basiaclly wall off from the public and do crowd funding without the public insight/open development method that does overly invite yahoos to imagine they were made the Project Design Director or that any kind of explicit time line promises were ever made.


But that chocie is to say, we don't want to persoanlly have to deal with needing to ignore silly yahoos that clearly didn't bother to understand what they got involved in.
I do not find their chocie do to that, somehow removes them of being in the "early access" market, they made the choice to be there and so they are there and subject to being judge by all the same criteria everyone else there is judged by.

And again a reminder, i did pay for this i do own it and i do not regret that. but that act did not shut off my brain from critical thinking and make me only spew fanboi love from there on out.

The path to improvement is paved with critique.
And anyone that actually wants to improve seeks it out.

[LordEntrails]

I would point out to you that ...
The path to improvement is paved with critique.
And anyone that actually wants to improve seeks it out.

Who are you addressing this to?
If me, I'm not interested in discussing it further with you. I chose to spend my time on things I find of more value.
I'm sure that SmiteWorks appreciates you expressing your opinion.

[HiHo]

I think Smitework understands our frustration on this. I only hope they respond before losing a significant share of the market.
Let's be truthful. We love FG for the depth it offers in its possibilities but it needs to sort this out quick.