5E Product Walkthrough Playlist
Page 3 of 15 First 1234513 ... Last
  1. #21
    LordEntrails's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    -7 UTC
    Posts
    17,150
    Blog Entries
    9
    I thought you might be interested in this post by one of the original devs; https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forum...ll=1#post75559

    Problems? See; How to Report Issues, Bugs & Problems
    On Licensing & Distributing Community Content
    Community Contributions: Gemstones, 5E Quick Ref Decal, Adventure Module Creation, Dungeon Trinkets, Balance Disturbed, Dungeon Room Descriptions
    Note, I am not a SmiteWorks employee or representative, I'm just a user like you.

  2. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by LordEntrails View Post
    I thought you might be interested in this post by one of the original devs; https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forum...ll=1#post75559
    That's similar to FGU ... variable input (start position, velocity, etc..) comes from the user and the result comes from the face of the die facing up after physics (collision, gravity, drag, etc..) does its thing, not a RNG algorithm.

  3. #23
    as far as I understood Weissrolf actually used the /die d8 command to do that (they had an extension automatically triggering that maybe, at least there where posts about that), so, the user based input is not contained here. I doubt Weissrolf did that many rolls all manually And it makes sense that the /die command gets studied since most dice commands are triggered by the character sheet (so, just pressing buttons, hence, also no user-based input with respect to start position etc.; when I understood everything correctly)

  4. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by smelton View Post
    If you want to really test this out, find another app that uses physics based dice or pick up a d8 and throw it in a dice tray and compare that.
    But with all due respect, we are not interested in testing different physics engines at this point, we are interested in random die results. FGU's die results are not random, it's been proven by established methods of randomness testing and for the physical engine can even easily be made visible.

    Of course we are happy to test and discuss new implementations of the engine that are meant to fix the results, but until these are offered I strongly advice to turn the broken thing off, either forcefully or optionally. Currently users have no means to do that.

    "So the physics engine was never meant produce random results?"

    Quote Originally Posted by smelton
    No actually.
    Quote Originally Posted by smelton
    ... variable input (start position, velocity, etc..) comes from the user and the result comes from the face of the die facing up after physics (collision, gravity, drag, etc..) does its thing, not a RNG algorithm.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dupre
    This entropy is lost when dice are thrown with a script, but for all practical purposes this should make no difference in how random the results are.
    I just proved that the results are not random but a deterministic ebb and flow and Smelton stated that the physics engine was never meant to produce random results. No one of my players is using their mouse for "variable input", we all use a double-click and automation (like automated save rolls).

    So "for all practical purposes" FGU's physical die engine is broken and thus cheating.
    Last edited by Weissrolf; November 29th, 2020 at 10:09.

  5. #25
    Going to try and say this nicely, but why does this matter in the grand scheme of things? Personally I care more about the Dev's focusing resources on adding new features and patching bugs/glitches that prevent users from having an enjoyable experience playing the game. I really don't see why they should disable the entire physical dice rolling system because it does not meet the exact parameters of a true PRNG. Fantasy Grounds is a VTT first and foremost not a PRNG, its works great as a VTT with the added bonus of allowing for tons of useful automation. The fact the dice rolling system is not a true PRNG does not affect the performance of the program as a VTT or affect 99.9% of user's enjoyment of the system.

    I just find it disrespectful that you think you speak for the vast majority of the program user base and suggest that the Dev's drop everything to disable a core system because its "not random enough."

  6. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Kelrugem View Post
    The problem I had with your first graphic was that I didn't see that it is a gif I just read the random.org at its bottom, and I thought you just put some example image of some wiki page as a reference Hence, I didn't realize that there are other images in that part, too
    Sorry, this is absolutely my fault then. I did anticipate that for some users the GIF might not be animated or they miss the animation and thus put the FGU 200 rolls image first in the sequence, but seemingly you instead just saw the last image.

    The original post was edited now to put a non animated image of FGU's results right beside the animation for more clarity and better comparison.

  7. #27
    Zacchaeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    20,738
    Can someone set out, in simple terms such that someone who hates Maths and does not understand a word of this thread, can get a handle on what is being proposed by the OP (other than simply saying the dice are broken). I'd like to try and understand why that conclusion has been reached and also why the current implementation has any effect on the games we play.
    If there is something that you would like to see in Fantasy Grounds that isn't currently part of the software or if there is something you think would improve a ruleset then add your idea here https://www.fantasygrounds.com/featu...rerequests.php

  8. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Zacchaeus View Post
    Can someone set out, in simple terms such that someone who hates Maths and does not understand a word of this thread, can get a handle on what is being proposed by the OP (other than simply saying the dice are broken). I'd like to try and understand why that conclusion has been reached and also why the current implementation has any effect on the games we play.
    OP is comparing the physics based physical dice rolling engine to the non-physical "die" command in FGU and concluding that based on the results of rolling a D8 I think 375,000 times using each system, that the physics based engine is not random "enough" to be considered a PRNG. As Smelton has pointed out I personally believe the methodology used for the testing is flawed since the physics based system attempts to replicate physically rolling a D8 versus the /die command that uses a random number generator that does not have the added variables that undoubtable must be considered when using a physics simulation.

    To add a bit more information. The OP is stating that when mapped out the result set of the 375,000 rolls in the physics based system contains patterns that are not present in the non-physics based system or other PRNG systems available for comparison.

    As I stated I do not see why the Developers should disable or redesign the physics based rolling system because it is not meeting the definition of a random number generator. Personally I feel this thread is misleading since smelton has clarified that the Devs do not expect the results of the physics based system to fall within the same threshold as the non-physics based system.
    Last edited by DevildrummerX; November 29th, 2020 at 10:54.

  9. #29
    Does this not come down to whether there is sufficient variation in the 3D roll when triggered by double clicking on the dice box, as opposed to actually dragging and 'throwing' the dice using the mouse? If the 3D dice results are acceptably 'random' when 'thrown' is that carried over to rolls triggered by a double click, which would, indeed (to my totally unqualified eyes), seem to include much less physical variables? Is that the nub of the argument?

  10. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by DevildrummerX View Post
    Going to try and say this nicely, but why does this matter in the grand scheme of things?
    It breaks everything connected to automation and dice rolling in general.

    that prevent users from having an enjoyable experience playing the game.
    If the game deterministically messes with your die rolls then playing the game can very much be less enjoyable. Game-systems like DnD5E and Pathfinder 2 mechanically put a *lot* of emphasize on the die result.

    I just find it disrespectful that you think you speak for the vast majority of the program user base
    No disrespect to the user base meant and I definitively do not (think to) speak for the vast majority. I put these things to discussion...

    and suggest that the Dev's drop everything to disable a core system
    .. and (strongly) suggest to replace a broken core mechanic with an already present better working one until the bugs are fixed.

    ... because its "not random enough."
    3D dice are not "not random enough", /die are "not random enough". 3D physical dice don't seem to be random at all. You decide how much it matters for you, but currently our group cannot decide for themselves, because there is no option to turn it off.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Starfinder Playlist

Log in

Log in