MapTool 1.2b9 progress and State of the Tool musings

[trevor]

OK, you've convinced me. I'll move it to the background layer.

[mosat]

The case _could_ be made the the bottom layer is most appropriate because for anything the should be player accessible the GM can erase and redraw on the player layer ?

I would agree with this. I would think that the GM's are the one's doing most of the drawing. placing existing drawings into the background layer would allow for the smoothest transition since it would transition the large map drawings (which take the most time) to be brought in on the layer most appropriate for them. Drawings made by players can still be seen by players and if they need to be redrawn by the player nothing is preventing that, although the GM will need to erase the previous drawing.

If a player needs to do some serious drawing there is still a work around, the GM can allow him to log in as another GM giving him full access. That would work wouldn't it?

EDIT: your post beat mine, didn't mean to beat a dead horse. Thanks for reconsidering.

[trevor]

Hmm, of course, the case could be made that it should actually be the object layer, since any background stamps will be on top of the drawables. It seems the object layer is the safest bet.

[Emryys]

Exciting Stuff!

Build!, Build!, Build!, Build!, Build!..... "The crowd begins to Chant..."

[Azhrei]

Hmm. Silly question, but why not just ask the user what layer to put things on?

Worst case, they could open the file a few times and try out the various places until they find one that works for their map.

And it wouldn't even happen that often anyway... Unless this same "upgrade" feature is going to apply to v1.1 maps that are imported into the final v1.2 MapTool?

[Phergus]

Hmm, of course, the case could be made that it should actually be the object layer, since any background stamps will be on top of the drawables. It seems the object layer is the safest bet.

That is true for the current campaign map I'm running. The drawables do need to be above the background stamps but below the object stamps.

The only layer that would cause problems is the token drawables layer so as long as old maps have their drawings pushed below the object stamps it will be fine.

[Phergus]

Trevor - I take it you didn't think much of this idea?

Here is a wierd thought. What if a stamp had its own drawable mini-layer?

Say you have a room. In that room you have placed 4 stamps for tables. The players decide to sacrifice a handy elf and paint a pentagram on the table with elf blood. But then they decide to reposition the table! If the drawing was attached to the table it would be no problemo.

Isn't that more or less how the token states process works right now?

[trevor]

LBL optimization update: http://forums.rptools.net/viewtopic.php ... 750f#14931

WOOOOO !

[trevor]

Trevor - I take it you didn't think much of this idea?

Here is a wierd thought. What if a stamp had its own drawable mini-layer?

Say you have a room. In that room you have placed 4 stamps for tables. The players decide to sacrifice a handy elf and paint a pentagram on the table with elf blood. But then they decide to reposition the table! If the drawing was attached to the table it would be no problemo.

Isn't that more or less how the token states process works right now?

Sorry, I seem to have missed both posts

My concern would be the additional complexity in the UI this might incur. The tricky part would be determining which token you want to draw on, and how you indicate that in the context of the formal drawable layers.

[Phergus]

My first thought is that if a token was selected when the user went into draw mode that there would be a toggle next to the relevant token layer selector in the paint palette that would indicate draw on whole layer or just the selected token.

Of course if areas of a drawing layer could be selected, cut out and pasted elsewhere then being able to draw "on" a token wouldn't be so useful.

[trevor]

Of course if areas of a drawing layer could be selected, cut out and pasted elsewhere

I've actually been giving this some thought with the drawable work I've been doing. Some of the drawables could do that, others couldnt'. I'l have to restructure the ones that can't first.

I'll take a closer look at how to do this during 1.3 development

[WeaveWarden]

We're on the cusp of some very evolutionary and revolutionary steps: We've introducing a more formal token properties system that will eventually be compatible with character sheets (Think CharacterTool and 3eprofiler integration), it already has basic InitiativeTool integration;

That would be a pretty neat integration. Hmmm...gives me a few ideas for more possible features and implementations of the concept, too.

I'll post the thoughts in more detail soon.

[trevor]

Cool, looking forward to them !