18 months on : FG vs. Roll20 vs Foundry

[similarly]

... and, over the span of years that they've been out, not a single person has told me about a memory or display problem.

I had a lot of problems in my last game. Most of my players were in Australia (I'm in Japan). Several of them told me their computer was old, their internet connection not so fast, etc. We regularly had problems. It took time for maps to load. Players often saw only a black rectangle. They had computer freezes waiting for maps to load. They had lag. Not all of my players had this. Those with newer computers and faster internet were fine. Maybe you're just lucky. For me, I was half-tempted to go old-school theater of the mind just to keep the game going.

[Zacchaeus]

As I said maps are now in the range of 4kx4k and are better quality. Those weigh in at about 2Mb -4Mb or so depending on a number of factors. 100Mb maps might well be fine on some machines with lightning internet speeds but I don’t see that becoming the standard.

[Jiminimonka]

That image size guideline seems extremely and probably needlessly restrictive - at least where it applies to maps. Other images, sure, because the resolution isn't needed. But maps, it's the game board, the beating heart of a VTT.

60x40 grids with 100px per grid seems roomy. Yes, 6000x4000px. I am guestimating that might take 72mb of memory - but let's be cautious and say it takes 100mb. So 1gb of video memory = 10 such images open. It's just math.

The 4gb RAM with 2gb of graphic memory minimal system requirement should be able to handle 10 such images, and still have plenty of memory for other things.

There is a point where you are trying to keep the system requirements low so more people can participate, but man, you're doing those customers with mid-range and better systems a real disservice.



That's where standards come in aka customer satisfaction -vs- another product. It should be 'We're sorry, we'd like to develop your product as a module for Fantasy Grounds, but the core images aren't up to our mapping quality standards. Do you have better images for maps?' Legibility of a map seems like a pretty low bar, but it is being missed.

FWIW, I've frequently taken the time to redraw the maps for FG material that I am using and then provide them as modules or individual files for other to use. The images in those modules are far, far larger than your current standards and, over the span of years that they've been out, not a single person has told me about a memory or display problem.

Anyhow, I am disappointed that going to Unity hasn't brought about much change in terms of image quality. It should be closer to an order of magnitude of improvement, not doubling what had previously been a very very conservative maximum for image sizes.

Here is another way to look at it. I get a FG module, look at the maps and sigh, rebuild them by hand, and send my 4000x3000 map out and have zero problems ever. Zero problems. From my limited perspective, it doesn't feel like you guys are pulling the wagon and the comments about technical limitations seem incorrect and flawed. Your products work with larger maps. Period. You just don't provide them.

Top

FGU has only just become the sole product supported for new modules. So, as Zacchaeus said, the new products are having higer resolution maps. Older products need to be updated individually, which is a lot of work (have you seen the size of the catalog?) for the devs (community and SW). As you said, you can make your own high res map for whatever adventure you are playing with no problems and eventually you won't have to.

[celestian]

As I said maps are now in the range of 4kx4k and are better quality. Those weigh in at about 2Mb -4Mb or so depending on a number of factors. 100Mb maps might well be fine on some machines with lightning internet speeds but I don’t see that becoming the standard.

I can't imagine having speeds to download 100meg maps being considered "lighting"

I get the need to have a "standard" size, I just hope that moving forward things change from being based on the lowest common denominator. I mean, I guess they have more data than I do but I cannot imagine the bulk of the user base is on low end systems on low end connectivity. It would make more sense if that is the case to have those users on old systems and limited connectivity build smaller images since they are not the most common user base for FGU.

[LordEntrails]

That's where standards come in aka customer satisfaction -vs- another product. It should be 'We're sorry, we'd like to develop your product as a module for Fantasy Grounds, but the core images aren't up to our mapping quality standards. Do you have better images for maps?' Legibility of a map seems like a pretty low bar, but it is being missed.

"Sorry Wizards, we are no longer going to convert and sell your modules. Yes they are our #1 selling product etc, but they don't meet our new map quality standards."

*end silliness! Sort of*

[Topdecker]

I can't imagine having speeds to download 100meg maps being considered "lighting"

Before we get going too hard on 100mb maps, we are talking about 6000x4000px maps (so maybe 8mb in file size) that expand out to maybe as much as 100mb of memory when in use (probably much less than that, but I just wanted a very conservative worst case example).

As for slow internet connections and slow loading maps, I did a lot of that as a GM. My upload speed was 60kbs on good days and my download speed was 300kbs. I tried to keep the map size down to around 1.2mb max and preloaded everything. But sometimes a player would need to reload the PHB or something and we'd just have to chat for a while. Yeah, I know the pain.

Top

[Topdecker]

"Sorry Wizards, we are no longer going to convert and sell your modules. Yes they are our #1 selling product etc, but they don't meet our new map quality standards."

*end silliness! Sort of*

I can go to DnD Beyond and get every SINGLE map in higher quality than is provided here. You don't want to go here because someone might ask you how this other company is getting so much better source materials while charging a similar price.

EDIT: I will back off this 'every SINGLE map' just a bit. At one point, the Sword Coast product was shipping with the full 32mb map (which, afaik, was causing zero problems). That was the full, best quality map and it was glorious.

EDIT AGAIN: I will back WAY off now because Storm King's Thunder has some really challenging mapping material. It appears that the really difficult pieces almost certainly were super-sourced.

Top

[similarly]

I have high-speed internet in Japan, so I'm regularly over 250mbps download and 175mbps upload. Average speed in Aus is around 50 mbps. I have a few 5000 x 5000 maps about 5mb for the jpg, but that's just a fraction of what's needed. Once you add tokens, los, dynamic lighting, water effects, etc., that's a LOT.

[Zacchaeus]

The source material will be the same. And as I have said you are getting better quality images now than previously. There have only been two WotC modules released so far only for Unity and the size and quality of the images in both of those are on par with what you are asking for.

What isn’t going to happen is revising anything that is still available and used in Classic.

My comments on quality of source material were more directed to some early modules (like 10 or more years ago) which was what I assumed you were also talking about.

[Temmpest]

Great review Hywell! I was curious about Foundry, but I will definitely be sticking with FGU now! Thanks!