Dynamic Lighting integrated with Fog of War (Warcraft 2 style)

This would make roll20 much better. 

+1

+1

Any devlopers around to comment on this?

Such a wonderful idea thats been talked about for the past 2 years...  Dont think its going to happen but oh well.  Would have been great

+1 Also, in response to Riley D's issue with the performance/size of a graphic that shows what parts of the map were previously explored: Couldn't this file be a 1 color channel image, i.e. a black and white PNG. Even at 7,000 pixels by 7,000 pixels.. the file would probably be only 1mb in size. Smaller maps would have small masks, obviously. Just place that against the user's total file size space.

As a test, I made a 7000 pixel by 7000 pixel png with an indexed color tabled. It only has two colors, black and white for 'not seen' / 'seen'. That is all you'd need to show where players have seen the map before, but can't see currently. <a href="http://i.imgur.com/v4mhpE4.png" rel="nofollow">http://i.imgur.com/v4mhpE4.png</a> The file size is only 111kb in size.This seems like a non-issue.

+1 @morikahn Storing fog of war as pixel image is most likely the wrong way to go here, since Roll20 (especially the light calculation) is based on vector graphics. A fog of war image would lose quality if you zoom in. It is also more complex than just storing a single binary image, since every single token could have individual fog of war if sight has not been shared and light sources can have a falloff between 1 and 0. Additionally this creates some user interface challenges, especially if the DM wants to edit the FoW manually (e.g. edit FoW for some tokens and not others, etc.). I understand that it is not a simple problem to solve, but there has not been a dev response in a long time. This is the suggestion with the second highest votes, so I'd love to see an update on the current dev thoughts on it.

+1

@DMokun, you could be right, I was just responding to Riley D's response about the bitmaps being too large, which I think isn't an issue. It does seem like they could easily combine the fog of war and line of sight options though. The line of sight would act as a boolean and subtract from the fog of war vector shape. Yes, it would be visible to all players, but so what. That's the point. The players want to see where their party has explored, not where each individual has explored. Its automated mapping, which would happen at a game table anyway. I think their issue is token visibility . Tokens are being obfuscated by placing a vector graphic over them and partially removing the vector image in choice places. They'd need to add a way to hide tokens that aren't in light of sight BUT are in revealed areas of the map.

+1

+1. Actually, +1000. I subscribed to roll20 mostly because I thought dynamic lighting would include this feature. I might unsubscribe and stick to fog of war until this gets implemented.

+1, damn.&nbsp; I literally subbed about 5 minutes ago for dynamic lighting and think that if I can't figure out&nbsp; away to do this pain-free I'll just unsub and continue to use fog of war and reveal parts of the map as I've been doing.&nbsp; It wasn't too difficult.&nbsp; But its a shame because dynamic lighting is very cool. I'm not sure why it's so difficult to have dynamic lighting operate in this way: 1) Map begins with fog of war covering everything except where players can immediately see. 2) As players move, dynamic lighting reveals the fog of war, the background layer, and shows the token layer temporarily within line of sight. 3) As players move out of recently visited areas, the fog of war remains revealed over the background layer, but the token layer is lightly greyed out due to there being no line of sight on that area, giving it a partially shaded effect.&nbsp; In essence, you know what permanent map features are there like bridges and waterfalls, those won't change even if you're gone, but tokens may or may not have moved since you've been gone, hence the partially shaded token layer.&nbsp; But should you return, that token layer will be revealed again and there might be something new. It's honestly surprising that a suggestion like this has been going on for a year+ with a lot of subscriber support and yet nothing.

I just had a conversation elsewhere in which this functionality was cited as a reason people are still clinging to MapTool. I remember using this feature back in my MapTool days, it was cool. Let's get something like this in Roll20.

Agreed Owen.&nbsp;

Yep this is something that need to happen, would be a great quality of life upgrade

+1

+1

+1

This is how I assumed dynamic lighting would work before I subbed.&nbsp; If per pixel reveal is too much, can we at least define FOW, LOS, and Dynamic light on a per layer basis? That would get me about 80% of the way there. I'd be fine with a per 'unit' automatic reveal as well. Basically if the center of a 'unit' is in los it would remove that square (or hex) on the map layer FOW. If real time is too much maybe limit it to 'update on drop' and then make sure we have hotkeys for token movement. (Maybe they already exist) Or pop a joypad appropriate for the grid on screen to allow them to move one unit at a time, update, move another unit, etc. It'd solve the pathing issue.

It'd be nice to be able to reveal a section of the map that the players can't see but now know about (not just where they have been). &nbsp;For example; getting information from a prisoner telling them the layout of the level. +1

Sudain said: It'd be nice to be able to reveal a section of the map that the players can't see but now know about (not just where they have been). &nbsp;For example; getting information from a prisoner telling them the layout of the level. +1 Yes it would, but the same effect could be done with a handout with a rough drawing of the map that would be what the players managed to peace together. This way you are not risking reviling too much by having them see the actual map before they get to that area.

+1 would love player light to automatically reveal FOW. As an extension of that, if a player has LOS of a light token, it too should reveal FOW; in other words, a light in LOS of player light should automatically become player light.

Philipp T. said: +1 My group enjoys the sudden encounters, &nbsp;puzzles and other small effects you can do with dynamic lighting (main reason I have decided to re sub.) but my players often lose track of where they were before ( i like complex dungeons) and this feature would help so much, i would even be willing to spend another 5 bucks for it :P This. +1

Airatome said: Philipp T. said: +1 My group enjoys the sudden encounters, &nbsp;puzzles and other small effects you can do with dynamic lighting (main reason I have decided to re sub.) but my players often lose track of where they were before ( i like complex dungeons) and this feature would help so much, i would even be willing to spend another 5 bucks for it :P This. +1 &nbsp; You know, it seems to be that with the online gaming table we all (as Players, not DM's) have become a bit lazy when it comes to mapping out dungeons as we go though them. I recently has a party go though a maze, and one player decided to map it out on some graph paper, and though they did do a lot of back tracking at no point did the party become lost do to that mapping. &nbsp;Mind you I really like this idea for when the party is travailing overland where they can and should be able to remember where they have been and where landmarks are and such. &nbsp;But in a dungeon, where getting turned around is a fairly easy thing to do. Put it on the players to map it out, it's not like it is all that hard to do, as they can see where they are, as apposed to having to rely solely on the DM's description. &nbsp;And if they don't and get lost, well that is part of the fun of a dungeon crawl.

I agree! &nbsp;When I started doing dynamic lighting my players kept back-tracking over rooms so they'd have familiar points of reference. &nbsp;They almost got angry that 'their character would know where they are'. &nbsp;I've since encouraged them to make/keep maps by hand so they don't get lost both in dungeon and overland, and they have not gotten lost yet. &nbsp;Lazy players tend to end up dead-players.&nbsp; :D

Joseph I. &nbsp; You know, it seems to be that with the online gaming table we all (as Players, not DM's) have become a bit lazy when it comes to mapping out dungeons as we go though them. I recently has a party go though a maze, and one player decided to map it out on some graph paper, and though they did do a lot of back tracking at no point did the party become lost do to that mapping. &nbsp;Mind you I really like this idea for when the party is travailing overland where they can and should be able to remember where they have been and where landmarks are and such. &nbsp;But in a dungeon, where getting turned around is a fairly easy thing to do. Put it on the players to map it out, it's not like it is all that hard to do, as they can see where they are, as apposed to having to rely solely on the DM's description. &nbsp;And if they don't and get lost, well that is part of the fun of a dungeon crawl. Which is great when I *intend* for this to happen. And I have. There are just some dungeons that I have designed that would truly flourish better with this kind of 'proper' fog of war system that is already being used on other VTTs. I definitelt do not want to cater to lazy players. All of my players are forum based writers and roleplayers who put a lot of effort into thier characters capabilities. One even HAS prof in cartographer tools lol. If that particular character is going to accurately draw out a map in most situations, why not automat that process with a widely used and requested system?

Joseph I. said: &nbsp; You know, it seems to be that with the online gaming table we all (as Players, not DM's) have become a bit lazy when it comes to mapping out dungeons as we go though them. I recently has a party go though a maze, and one player decided to map it out on some graph paper, and though they did do a lot of back tracking at no point did the party become lost do to that mapping. &nbsp;Mind you I really like this idea for when the party is travailing overland where they can and should be able to remember where they have been and where landmarks are and such. &nbsp;But in a dungeon, where getting turned around is a fairly easy thing to do. Put it on the players to map it out, it's not like it is all that hard to do, as they can see where they are, as apposed to having to rely solely on the DM's description. &nbsp;And if they don't and get lost, well that is part of the fun of a dungeon crawl. Sure, hopefully its a toggleable option for those that want a more realistic experience like that. However even if you want to do that you should to have different settings for the token layer and the map layer. Say for example you're in a room and you want to simulate your character field of vision by giving them 120-180 field of view. Cool idea, but it currently will make it look like a flashlight rather than just not showing monsters out of LOS but still having spatial awareness. You could potentially set the map layer to a 360 view while the token layer is 120. Plus if they add more layer and give per layer visibility you could add all sorts of vision tricks. You could have objects that show up on various layers and assign a layer to each player to show them secret info without the whole party meta gaming it. You could have things like double vision work correctly, etc. Plenty of good reasons to give us more layers and per layer options.

Brian W. said: Joseph I. said: &nbsp; You know, it seems to be that with the online gaming table we all (as Players, not DM's) have become a bit lazy when it comes to mapping out dungeons as we go though them. I recently has a party go though a maze, and one player decided to map it out on some graph paper, and though they did do a lot of back tracking at no point did the party become lost do to that mapping. &nbsp;Mind you I really like this idea for when the party is travailing overland where they can and should be able to remember where they have been and where landmarks are and such. &nbsp;But in a dungeon, where getting turned around is a fairly easy thing to do. Put it on the players to map it out, it's not like it is all that hard to do, as they can see where they are, as apposed to having to rely solely on the DM's description. &nbsp;And if they don't and get lost, well that is part of the fun of a dungeon crawl. Sure, hopefully its a toggleable option for those that want a more realistic experience like that. However even if you want to do that you should to have different settings for the token layer and the map layer. Say for example you're in a room and you want to simulate your character field of vision by giving them 120-180 field of view. Cool idea, but it currently will make it look like a flashlight rather than just not showing monsters out of LOS but still having spatial awareness. You could potentially set the map layer to a 360 view while the token layer is 120. Plus if they add more layer and give per layer visibility you could add all sorts of vision tricks. You could have objects that show up on various layers and assign a layer to each player to show them secret info without the whole party meta gaming it. You could have things like double vision work correctly, etc. Plenty of good reasons to give us more layers and per layer options. Oooh, I like that, had and issue with a payer that was able to see a ghostly creature but no one else was to be able to see it. &nbsp;Other then whispering the player to say they see it or don't see it, I was not able to get this to work right in the game. the thought of being able to put things on a layer, and setting it to be visible to just one player would be sweet. &nbsp;I could have all sorts of fun with that.... (Evil DM laugh here)&nbsp;

My players have voted to dispense with DL after trying it for a few sessions. They are NOT interested in mapping by hand offline. I'll hang onto my sub for a little while, if Roll20 will work this out quickly, but two years? Not holding out hope.

Eric G. said: My players have voted to dispense with DL after trying it for a few sessions. They are NOT interested in mapping by hand offline. I'll hang onto my sub for a little while, if Roll20 will work this out quickly, but two years? Not holding out hope. My players are in the same boat. We only play every other week and they have trouble remembering where they've been before and they are getting tired of Dynamic Lighting without some sort of fog of war to help keep track of explored areas. The devs have been adding so many great features to roll20 to make it a better experience. However, those new features don't really have an impact with me anymore because of how badly I want this FoW feature added. Every time I see the devs roll out an update for a different feature, I lose even more hope of ever seeing this feature. At this point, I'm tired of dealing with the anxiety of hoping every new blog post from the devs is an announcement for this feature. In the end, I would rather see them inform us one of the following. They inform the community this is a dead end project and a waste of resources. They are still exploring options, and have not done any significant work yet. They have a promising way of accomplishing this project, and it is in the works. For new roll20 features that nobody requested or were requested by very few, I don't mind roll20 continuing to operate how they currently do. Keep the community in the dark until the feature is finished and ready to be distributed. However, I personally think they should be a little more transparent with keeping the community updated with highly requested features.

I agree. This suggestion is now two years old and, from my personal experience, one of the most commonly requested feature, even outside of the voting system. So yes, any word from the devs about this would be much appreciated.&nbsp;

plexsoup said: Not sure if anyone else has suggested this yet, but I stumbled across this workaround the other day. Make a character that everyone has edit permissions for (call it breadcrumb trail). Give it a token (torch, dot, or breadcrumb) which casts light and has sight. Drop copies of that token around your map as the breadcrumb trail. Since All Players have edit privileges, they can "see" through each breadcrumb's eyes. (Of course, the GM will have to move wandering monster tokens to the GM layer.) Are there any other specifics needed for this? I've tried most things I could think of, but I can't get the player tokens to have sight from more than one token, even if that token is under their control and/or represents a character that they have control over. EDIT: Ok, seems like I might have found out why I was having trouble. Looks like Ctrl-L only checks sight from the token , and not the character , so to check how vision actually looks when having multiple controllable tokens, you need to re-join as player. Maybe old hat to most ppl, but took me a while to figure out.

Royne B. said: EDIT: Ok, seems like I might have found out why I was having trouble. Looks like Ctrl-L only checks sight from the token , and not the character , so to check how vision actually looks when having multiple controllable tokens, you need to re-join as player. Maybe old hat to most ppl, but took me a while to figure out. Royne, correct, that limitation is on Control-L method. A way to see and get a better idea what Players would see (if you have the Torch or breadcrumb tokens/characters set to All Players), as GM go to the Settings tab and click Re-join As Player. Wiki docs, <a href="https://wiki.roll20.net/My_Settings#Exiting_and_GM" rel="nofollow">https://wiki.roll20.net/My_Settings#Exiting_and_GM</a>... Bonus Points --- add yourself as a PLAYER who can control 1 or more Character Tokens too. &nbsp;Example, KingArthur Character is controlled by Jane the player. Also add Royne as a Player in KingArthur's Controlled-By. This way when GM Royne chooses "Re-join As Player" now Royne will get the vision that Jane would have for KingArthur. This way you won't see only-the-torches, you'll see also the specific Character's sight.

Apologies if this is elsewhere in the thread, but couldn't the Dynamic Lighting Layer apply itself like a Layer Mask to the Token Layer? The idea being that: instead of 'seeing blackness' on some maps, you could make it 'make tokens invisible'.

+1

Dragonphire said: Player approaches building. Player is moving around the building. The area to the left is still discernible but the area to the bottom right is still un-revealed. Player completes circle around building. +1 This, so much this, I was actually really suprised the two systems didn't interact this was as it was originally designed.

Riley D. said: the main thing that might keep it from happening is figuring out a way to do it that doesn't require massive amounts of data. For example, if you have a 100x100 grid map, that is 7000x7000 pixels. Keeping track of exactly which "pixels" have been exposed or not would be a massive amount of data. Really the only way I can think of that this would be feasible from a technical standpoint is to have some sort of "polygon-based" system, where we could "merge" polygons together as you explored the map...but I'll have to give it some more thought. Aren't you already doing all of this with the current fog of war layer? As the GM, I can reveal arbitrary polygonal areas at any time. So I could manually do "On token drop: paint the current line of sight into the fog of war layer". Would it be infeasible to do this automatically?

They know how to do it likely, it's just too costly given their platform/stack.

Robert A, Actually that looks like an amazing premise for an API script (I'd name it 'Footprints'?). &nbsp;It'd require players to actually explore a room, but it'd be a nice meet-in-the-middle comprimise. &nbsp;@Aaron?

Man I'd love something like this, it makes it feel less like the players are in a SEA OF DARKNESS or lost in SPACE.

+1. Still only a player rather than GM (though thinking of changing that soon), but this has been an annoyance to me as a player too. This would be so helpful!

I want to reiterate my support for this suggestion.

So i wonder if this is ever going to be done or is it just going to float around for another 2+ years with zero progress :P Roll20 better get working because Fantasy Grounds is gaining speed. &nbsp;If they ever figure out there over charging they might win ;P

+1 more. I'm about to run Skeletons of Scarwall for my group, and I'd love to add to the creepy factor by using dynamic lighting, but if it's still just going to be, "You're nothing but a circle in a sea of black," it's not worth having it on. Does anyone have a decent workaround beyond, "Put a dim lamp in every single room so everywhere the PCs are always in low light"? Scarwall's an awfully BIG place...

+1

Another big Roll20 update that was not this. *sad face*

+1 Giant Thumbs up!

Myself and my players would so love this feature.&nbsp; It is their biggest complaint about Dynamic lighting. +1 all the way

Seems like a lot of people are asking for this... But there's already a pretty easy fix available to pro subscribers. Here's a script you can use to drop LightCrumbs. <a href="https://gist.github.com/plexsoup/64852540504101b52" rel="nofollow">https://gist.github.com/plexsoup/64852540504101b52</a>... (I'm not comfortable doing 1-click installs yet. Just drop it into the scripts window in the game settings.) (It's not really my script. It's The Aaron's Mark script with a few small modifications.) Here's a video of the script in action. <a href="https://youtu.be/iIZxO9NPN4g" rel="nofollow">https://youtu.be/iIZxO9NPN4g</a> Make a macro with the following contents:&nbsp;!LightCrumb @{selected|token_id} Set it for as a token action and click the button when you want to drop a crumb. Make another macro !LightCrumb-clear to remove them.