FGU LOS Tool produces not working occulus data

[Waldbaer]

Hi guys,

I have difficulties to understand why the LOS tool produces almost the same output with LOS data but not with the right dots etc. This said it leads to the fact that the data would be corrupt and does not show up correctly (s. screenshot; left side is the original and rigth side produced from the LOS program). The campaign was created in FGC and then I loaded the module in FGU - created the LOS data and then used the LOS tool which produced the corrupted data attached. Please help - it looks like just the dots are wrong but this nevertheless produces completely different results.

Thanks for your help in advance!

[Zacchaeus]

Are you saying that the final map when you test it has the incorrect occluders? I've looked at a couple of my moduledb files and compared them to the occluder files produced by the tool and I can't see any kind of commonality between the two (although it's difficult just looking at a mass of numbers on two files). Nevertheless the maps have the correct occluders on them.

[Waldbaer]

Yes, that is what I meant. I'll share screenshots as soon as I am back at my computer today (I could share the module, too, but would better send only via pm in case you want to look at it yourself). Maybe it has something to do with the map itself and zoom etc.? Because due to whatever reason the map starts very small when I first open the module with FGU. However, I come back to this asap. Thank you for the assistance so far.

[Waldbaer]

Are you saying that the final map when you test it has the incorrect occluders? I've looked at a couple of my moduledb files and compared them to the occluder files produced by the tool and I can't see any kind of commonality between the two (although it's difficult just looking at a mass of numbers on two files). Nevertheless the maps have the correct occluders on them.

Please see the following two screenshots: "LOS defined" shows how I defined the LOS in a brandnew FGU campaign. "LOS after extracting" shows how it looks like if I use the module where the tool copied the XML for the LOS data.

I have an assumption what happened here: I exactly followed your description in the dev guide which sais that I should point the tool to the moduledb folder. But I do not have this folder because I opened the assets of the module and then created a new entry within images also exactly like described on the dev page. I believe it will be better if I work directly within the open module without creating a separate entry image within the campaign and thereby create the moduledb folder. This will be better I believe. For now the tool used the db.xml which seems not to work as precisely.


Attachment 42501Attachment 42500

[Zacchaeus]

Clearly that isn't correct. I'm not sure what the problem is - I haven't experienced any problems using the extractor tool. I'm assuming that you are creating the files from the moduledb folder in the Unity campaign that you created the LoS data in, and injecting the data into the Classic campaign/images file and then exporting the module again from Classic and testing in a new campaign in Unity?

[Waldbaer]

Clearly that isn't correct. I'm not sure what the problem is - I haven't experienced any problems using the extractor tool. I'm assuming that you are creating the files from the moduledb folder in the Unity campaign that you created the LoS data in, and injecting the data into the Classic campaign/images file and then exporting the module again from Classic and testing in a new campaign in Unity?

No, actually I created a module in FGC. Then I opened the module in FGU in a new unused campaign without any extensions or other modules (only original 5E ruleset). Then I browsed to the asset folder and imported the image into the campaign by dragging it into the maps folder. Next step was unlocking it and doing all the LOS work. Then save and close FGU. Last step is using the tool to extract LOS data from "db.xml". Because above procedure does not create a moduledb folder. I have put the LOS xml into the unzipped module.

That is why I believe I should work directly in the module after opening it in FGU instead of importing a picture into the campaign. I will try this out today and report back.

[Waldbaer]

I will try this out today and report back.

It did not work - same result. So my question would be: how could I add LOS data to my module? I attached the extracted LOS data to this post.

Thanks!

Attachment 42512

[Kelrugem]

Make sure that you did not move any of the image tiles, do not rotate them, nor scale them that won't be extracted, such that offsets are possible. So, just create the map entry with an asset, then only add the LoS; some people moved the tile then etc., and got such different LoS things

[Waldbaer]

that'll be it I guess...only thing I did a lot was zooming in and out with mouse wheel. Do you mean this with scaling? I did not rotate or anything like it. But I zoomed like hell
I doubt it can be easily done without it when working with such a 14MB map...it feels to me as if you are right. Would it help if I just change the "offset value" in the code to "0" again or something like that?

I tried it again with importing into the original FGC campaign like you wrote above with again a strange result (s. another attachment). This really looks as if scaling would be the problem (you can see the small map in the background and it really is not small... ).

Attachment 42513

[Kelrugem]

that'll be it I guess...only thing I did a lot was zooming in and out with mouse wheel. Do you mean this with scaling? I did not rotate or anything like it. But I zoomed like hell
I doubt it can be easily done without it when working with such a 14MB map...it feels to me as if you are right. Would it help if I just change the "offset value" in the code to "0" again or something like that?

I tried it again with importing into the original FGC campaign like you wrote above with again a strange result (s. another attachment). This really looks as if scaling would be the problem (you can see the small map in the background and it really is not small... ).

Attachment 42513

Just zooming is okay that is not actually changing the image data (that is then just about the "camera"), but changing the size of the layer with mousewheel and Ctrl (? forgot the hotkey; alternatively changing the size in the sidebar) is problematic Difficult to say whether it is that, without overseeing your process of making that