new maptool version?

[CixrTyx]

I was just wondering if the awesome people at rptools are still make new versions of maptool? Are they moving to maptool v2 or keep on going with 1.3buildX?

[Bone White]

Relevant thread here

[JML]

Bone White pointed you to Lee's project which is interesting but is not what the core team is working on. So here's threads you can read if you want a peep at the core team's work (in what I think is a relevant order):

• RPTools "next" Git Repository
• Macro Compatability in next version
• Terminology for MT 2.0 (discussion)

[CixrTyx]

This is an old post but now that B91 is out, and it occurs to me development is still happening, what is next for this tool?

[Full Bleed]

This is an old post but now that B91 is out, and it occurs to me development is still happening, what is next for this tool?

Recently, we're hearing whispers of Craig working on 1.4.

Username occasionally puts some nugget up regarding 2.0 in this thread: http://forums.rptools.net/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=23297

Mote appears to be in limbo.

[wolph42]

This is an old post but now that B91 is out, and it occurs to me development is still happening, what is next for this tool?

Recently, we're hearing whispers of Craig working on 1.4.

Username occasionally puts some nugget up regarding 2.0 in this thread: http://forums.rptools.net/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=23297

Mote appears to be in limbo.

mote is quite active, they're about to release to the public. The only thing they majorly suck in is communication.

[Craig]

I was just wondering if the awesome people at rptools are still make new versions of maptool? Are they moving to maptool v2 or keep on going with 1.3buildX?

So the plan is for at least the first few builds of 1.4 to be completely compatible with 1.3 so everyone can move from the later builds of 1.3 to 1.4 and continue running their campaigns
without having to worry about new features that will make every thing incompatible.

To support this I have added a new macro command /experiments (although I am open to suggestions for a better name) that can start newer features that are still very rough around
the edges. At the moment it just takes arguments to the macro as there is only one thing it can currently start, this may change depending on how many things get stuck behind it.

Tonight (my time) I will clean up the one change I am working on and I will create a preview build tomorrow morning (again my time, so that would be evening US EST tomorrow) along with the
documentation that will be required for people to play around with the change and hopefully provide some feedback.

[aliasmask]

Do you have any plans to bundle java with the release in the future so people don't get confused?

For example with my group, at least 2 players in the group were using the 32bit version on their 64bit system and weren't able to see the map image. I think it was pretty large so I just think the 1024 max mem wasn't enough. Of course when I asked them to try 2048 then MT wouldn't load, naturally. I would also like the default mem settings set to 1024 max and 3 for stack so if they don't figure out to use the launcher they would still avoid most problems with using a framework. I think the current defaults are 512 max and 2(? or lower) stack.

I understand there may be machines out there with 2 gigs of mem where 1024 may be too much, but they would be in the minority and it would be better to troubleshoot those rare few than the majority on non-computer literate folk out there trying to use MT.

[Craig]

Do you have any plans to bundle java with the release in the future so people don't get confused?

For example with my group, at least 2 players in the group were using the 32bit version on their 64bit system and weren't able to see the map image. I think it was pretty large so I just think the 1024 max mem wasn't enough. Of course when I asked them to try 2048 then MT wouldn't load, naturally. I would also like the default mem settings set to 1024 max and 3 for stack so if they don't figure out to use the launcher they would still avoid most problems with using a framework. I think the current defaults are 512 max and 2(? or lower) stack.

I understand there may be machines out there with 2 gigs of mem where 1024 may be too much, but they would be in the minority and it would be better to troubleshoot those rare few than the majority on non-computer literate folk out there trying to use MT.

Short answer yes eventually... (there will still be builds available without JRE too I expect).
Longer answer its not so easy as just including a JRE.
It means that you will have to do the build on each of the platforms you want to create an installer/bundled JRE for which makes things more annoying. Also most of the third party tools to do this are
also platform dependant so for Mac you have to use one program, for Windows another for Linux yet another and they can have dependancies of their own, and I just got through with making it easier
to run the build process I don't want to make it more difficult than it previously was.

Saying that Java now has its own application bundler I want to move to that, but that comes with its own issues, but to make a long story short it will depend on us moving to Java 8 as the recommended
Java version but that requires getting people to run 1.4 under Java 8 to get feed back so we can start getting rid of any issues we have with that.

As for memory management issues, thats a whole other story.

[aliasmask]

Okay, that's pretty much what I thought. Yeah, I know it's no easy process but in the long run worth doing. If you release 1.4 tomorrow I'll see about getting our group to run a game on it tomorrow night and see how things go. Will a 1.4 save be backwards compatible with 1.3? If not, we'll make sure to not save over the old campaign.

Thanks for all your hard work.

[Craig]

Okay, that's pretty much what I thought. Yeah, I know it's no easy process but in the long run worth doing. If you release 1.4 tomorrow I'll see about getting our group to run a game on it tomorrow night and see how things go. Will a 1.4 save be backwards compatible with 1.3? If not, we'll make sure to not save over the old campaign.

Thanks for all your hard work.

Its just a preview build I am doing, if you want to start testing with Java 8 you might as well do it on the latest 1.3 build for now. If your game is tomorrow night I doubt you will be using the new feature
in 1.4. I have made no changes to the campaign format so everything should be fine (always back up first though ).

[aliasmask]

Its just a preview build I am doing, if you want to start testing with Java 8 you might as well do it on the latest 1.3 build for now. If your game is tomorrow night I doubt you will be using the new feature
in 1.4. I have made no changes to the campaign format so everything should be fine (always back up first though ).

We've tried java 8 and there is one bug related to the stylesheet that's not apparent with java 7, although username said it errors there too. This affects the latest PF/3.5 FW character sheet and my Spell Library macro. Actually, it's not just <link stylesheet> but more than 7 entries under <style>. I have it under bug reports. But the frame still loads in java 7, but not java 8. Or I should say, the 2nd time it loads ie reloads.

Also, there is a weird bug with UPnP and b91 for my computer. I've asked around, but apparently it's just me. Sometimes it finds the server and other times it doesn't. If I play around by changing ports and reloading the server and campaign then it'll eventually start a server correctly with UPnP. I'm not running a game yet otherwise I would probably be forced to use port forwarding. I also put this under bug reports with a video and some debug info.