1.2 Status Update

[Blakey]

Seeing as you asked about what people are interested in for 1.3, here's my two copper pieces:

1. Vision and Light. Get this sorted so it makes sense. Perhaps a thread ought to be opened about it now so we can start discussing how it should work? Or is there one already?

2. Projector support. I can do this with server and client on the same machine but much prefer the idea of a Projector mode. I think a lot of your customers use MT this way. Perhaps a poll for how we use the program is in order (e.g. VTT over the net compared to Projector/TV in face to face) ?

3. Exporting/Importing maps from/to a campaign. So I can pass maps around to friends and develop a map on its own then import it into my main campaign file. etc, etc, etc.

Cheers
Blakey

[dorpond]

Seeing as you asked about what people are interested in for 1.3, here's my two copper pieces:

1. Vision and Light. Get this sorted so it makes sense. Perhaps a thread ought to be opened about it now so we can start discussing how it should work? Or is there one already?

I also want Light and Vision to be priority. We have the technology; let's use it to allow Darkvision, Low Light and what-not.

I know I spoke this topic to death - actually to the point where people got sick of it.

[mikey]

1. Assighning topology to images

2. Token info saved

3. Gif enabled

4. sound enabled

5. world peace

6. cure for cancer

7. Dolphins going to the Superbowl

8. okay maybe 7 is pipe dream, but at least let's get the others knocked out


Mikey

[Pfhreak]

1. Assighning topology to images

2. Token info saved

3. Gif enabled

These!

[dLANbandit]

my $0.01
(Due to large supply and static demand my input has reduced value

I like that list, but only because I think it is actually a list of trevor priorities than a RPtools priorities.

If I viewed it as RPtool priorities, I would instead choose this ranking.

1. Character sheet tool. / Document tool.
2. More interoperability of tools.
3. Chat and Scripting, overhaul
4. User views that enable battle map style play. (ie 1 v 1 with no DM or with a DM)
5. Token info exportable.
6. Multiple images and Gif enabled.

trevor, what do you think about formalizing an issue ranking, where form users could 'vote'? Or is what we have now better because we have such a small dev team, and small community?

[Hawke]

4. User views that enable battle map style play. (ie 1 v 1 with no DM or with a DM)

Simultaneous play would be pretty cool. You set all your tokens to move a certain place. You set them to target something (woo targeting!) and then reveal all your moves at once. This would open up some options, I think, as far as miniature gaming but also would allow cool other options.

I'm just eager for anything. I love seeing changes and I think trevor is really good at responding to requests and working through bugs. I'm eager to see where this goes... and keep looking for ways I could contribute.

[dLANbandit]

I'm just eager for anything. I love seeing changes and I think trevor is really good at responding to requests and working through bugs. I'm eager to see where this goes... and keep looking for ways I could contribute.

I completely agree. In the end I still recognize I'm in the roll of a beggar. I have hopes of being able to contribute more to the chat part of the tool. But in the end nothing I can do will ever compensate trevor enough for the value this tool has provided me.

[Hawke]

I'd be more than happy to start a donation campaign that's like "send RPTools Devs to *Con" if there's any gaming convention or something they'd like to go to.

Or maybe some beer or New Mexico wine or something? Some RP books? Maybe some miniature rules books?

[trevor]

I'd be more than happy to start a donation campaign that's like "send RPTools Devs to *Con"

We had actually thought of doing exactly that for the upcoming gencon, but we chose to target that for next year, so, I guess I'll hit you up for that in another 6-7 months

Actually the best value you guys can provide is to test, provide feedback and new feature requests, and spreading the word.

It's payday to me to see when people post about our tools in other forums !

[Pfhreak]

Hey, when we do get to stamps with LoS blocking, can I suggest we have some way to combine two images? Use one .png for the color and opacity, and another (B&W) as a topo mask. I've got several images I want to use for caves and dungeons, but their walls are very complex. However, in about thirty seconds I could use photoshop to create a simple mask.

Maybe an add topo stamp dialogue that would ask you to point to two images?

[Full Bleed]

Trevor has expressed interest is allowing us to import a topo/vbl mask. I too am a big fan of this.

Additionally, I'd like to be able to make any object "vision blocking" by just clicking on its properties box. This way we could make some huge monsters or movable objects block vision too.

[trevor]

Additionally, I'd like to be able to make any object "vision blocking" by just clicking on its properties box.

Oh yeah ! I didn't even think of that, I could use the image itself as the mask.

A couple things to keep in mind:

I have to smooth the vbl mask because the more points to check means longer to compute the visible area

vbl revealing is tricky since you often want a couple pixels to show inside of the image to give context. For example, you wouldn't put the vbl right on the edge of a wall, you'd put it a couple pixels in so that you could see the wall. This by itself is more of an artform at the moment.

[trevor]

UPDATE:

I introduced a bug while making the token tree correctly account for visibility. Once I iron that out I'll make the build. Probably a day, two at max.

Thanks for the patience !

[Blakey]

vbl revealing is tricky since you often want a couple pixels to show inside of the image to give context. For example, you wouldn't put the vbl right on the edge of a wall, you'd put it a couple pixels in so that you could see the wall. This by itself is more of an artform at the moment.

This is soooooooo true!

I'm building maps at the moment for an upcoming campaign and am trying to sort out the best way to do this. I have ended up making all walls 16 pixels thick (where its 40 px to the inch/square). If its a structured square dungeon or building I snap the walls to grid. I then snap the LBL lines to grid along the same lines and thhat way when the players see the rooms they see an 8 px showing of the wall.

In cavern systems I draw free hand with a 16 px wall texture for the edges and a floor texture in fill mode. I then trace the outside of the wall with the LBL tool to generate a cave where the players can see the walls - so they know if their vision is blocked by a wall or simply because that's out of sight.

By the way, one trick which seems to work and might be an idea to solve this issue with light blocking stamps. I drop down a column and I add LBL to it. When the PCs arrive there the vision takes care of making sure they can't see through the column but as you way it means they often can't really see its a column as its hidden behind its own LBL. However once they have moved around it I uncover the whole column with FOW and then you can see the stamp for the column but it still does the whole LBL effect. Works really well.

So what I'd suggest for these vision blocking stamps is that you set them down as LBL blocking right on their edges, but actually make them visible to the FOW layer - so they can be seen without being seen through. That would do the trick I think.

On this subject it would be ace to be able to put the tool into 'Wall Mode' and draw out walls which would auto block line of sight but would be visible in the same way.

Cheers!
Blakey

[Full Bleed]

Just brain-storming a little bit... but it seems like there would need to be at least 2 VBO (Vision Blocking Object) types. A "cut-out" and "fill" VBO. And both would need to have variable "outline" options for aesthetics.

I'm pretty tired and just rambling... but here goes...

I have to smooth the vbl mask because the more points to check means longer to compute the visible area

For most objects you could probably just use two points of reference (the two widest points visible from the viewing point) to draw the mask. Then just "cut out" the black area over the object plus a specific "outline" amount.

For example, you have a big ogre and you want him to block vision. So, you set him to be a VBO, Cut-Out type, with a 5 pixel outline.

Maptools does the computation by picking the two widest points on the ogre and draws a line between the two points, then blocks the vision behind the ogre off that solid line. And for aesthetic purposes, you cut the ogre's image out of the mask plus 5 pixels (so there is a slight space around him.)

Now, you might use this same type for a door, except without any outline cut out. So the door blocks vision up to its width, cuts the mask out over the door itself, but has the blocked area begin right outside and against the backside of the door.

This, of course, assumes that it's a an object with a visible core. Whereas objects like trees or columns might be preferably made into a "fill" types...

In this case perhaps you use a "fill" type where the core is solid and the image isn't cut out of the mask. Instead, it's added to the mask, with the "outline" setting being the amount that the mask shrinks to show the "shell" of the object.

I can think of a couple holes in the above method, but it would still add a lot of functionality and speed to the application of topology (as we know it now.)

vbl revealing is tricky since you often want a couple pixels to show inside of the image to give context. For example, you wouldn't put the vbl right on the edge of a wall, you'd put it a couple pixels in so that you could see the wall. This by itself is more of an artform at the moment.

Very true. The above methodology kind of addresses this for objects... but walls are a class unto themselves.