UDL 1.0 Updates, Bugs, & Feedback

I care! Thanks for this information. Very helpful. Brian C. said: By the way for anyone who cares: the slider has 17 positions. If you number them 0 to 16, position 5 is equivalent to LDL's dim light.

I've been following this thread from the start, as well as the predecessor thread, that  thread's predecessor thread... UDL turtles all the way down....... And while I am apprehensive about the approaching cut-off date for LDL, I want to offer a somewhat different perspective than the ones typically expressed. Things have  been going better. Over the last month, we've seen quite a few adjustments and improvements not only in functionality, but in terms of communication and interest. There can never be enough communication, and there can never be enough interest (particularly in our own individual prioritized concerns), but there has been real improvement. There are three months to go. If the next three months proceed the way the past month has, then I expect UDL will be solid and functional when LDL is turned off. I'll be honest... I don't know what new opportunities this new engine will afford Roll20, but at this point, I would be perfectly satisfied with parity (at least on May 18th). It seems like we're on track for parity IF... big if... the recent positive trend continues. Now, an admission-- regardless, I'm not leaving Roll20 for anything else. I run WotC 5e campaigns. That's what I'm going to continue to run. The integration between 5e and Roll20 has worked very well. I admit this because I don't think it's particularly risky to let this platform know that I'm not leaving. First of all, they probably already know most people aren't going to leave. Secondly, I don't think they are interested in screwing us over. They legitimately seem interested in trying to make something better, and I just don't think they're going to push us into something fundamentally broken. If it's really FUBAR on May 18th, I believe they will extend. Personally, I'm glad they've finally set a hard date. Hard dates make goals real for teams. You can't keep kicking the can down the road. A little fire under the seat, as it were. Sure, they've communicated poorly, they've made some very weird choices, their QA team is either understaffed or undertrained, and they've had more than a few "lalala-i-can't-hear-you" moments when confronted with criticism... but here we are now, and progress has occurred. None of this should be read as a call to stifle or limit further critiques and bug-hunting. But I'm rooting for Roll20, and I suppose I'm saying all of this to put a little wind in their sails as they progress. tl;dr there's cause for optimism, and I'm thankful for what's gone right

Even using thinnest thickness for UDL lines, they remain visible as artefacts after exploring.  On LDL, lines had some kind of "zero thickness" effect so they were not visible.  

Two separate pages.  One has UDL and a player token on it. GM goes to a separate page settings, turns UDL on, then turns UDL off, ticks the AFOW and DL on the LDL tab, then Saves that other page. The moment the save happens, the player looking at the original UDL page which has not been changed, can suddenly see the whole map lit up.

I have been having a few problems that have been become increasingly worse over the past couple of weekly sessions I run getting the point where I had to turn off both explorer mode and dynamic lighting to continue last night. Explorer mode randomly reveals and hides parts of the map it seems like it happens when a token moves the areas affected are map wide though. In the picture above most of the map I had just revealed all the parts of the map where they had been re-did the permanent darkness on the outside of the playable area (I have update on drop on) moved a few player tokens around and what I got is above. I have also hade an issue where tokens disappear to either the player or me the DM until it is moved by who ever can actually see it.  

Angelo said: And of course no one replied to what's gonna happen if they don't fix what they consider a "must" before that date. It would be nice to get an official response on why the sunset was announced now instead of waiting at least until their musts are fixed. Of course no one replied. That's par for the course by now. I want people to keep this moment in their minds the next time Roll20 apologizes for mistakes made and promises to improve their process ... something they did a few weeks ago. Has their process changed? Nope. They're still pushing ahead without any regard for the oceans of customer feedback imploring them not to do exactly what they just did. The fact that Roll20 people can pop onto this thread and blithely respond to bug logs and completely ignore everyone's questions about the whys and wherefores of this sunsetting speaks volumes about what they think of their customers. Why was the sunset announced now? Because someone in Roll20's upper management decided it was time. More active contempt from a company for their customer base I have rarely seen in recent memory. Where's the incentive to make your voice heard? It's just shouting into a void. See the Page & Token Redesign fiasco for more information.  I have said this previously, and I'll say it one last time: Roll20, you are no longer the only or best game in town. There are competitors with equally strong or stronger products who actually value their customers. If you don't change how you do business, you'll go under. And it's no skin off my nose. I can find another TTRPG platform easily enough, even if it means the headache of learning how it operates.

Craig M. said: First of all, they probably already know most people aren't going to leave. I follow various Foundry forums, and I can tell you that there are people on there daily saying "I have just left roll20 and this is amazing, but how do I do XYZ". So while it might not be MOST is is certainly ALOT . I keep an eye here because I like to know what options I have - like I have said before, I am a consumer and I will work with whats best for my money at the time.  That was Roll20, but now its Foundry (by a looong way at the moment and it looks like another major update is not far away). If fact it would be good for Roll20 to look how that update is being handled - with professionalism and clear information.

*taps out* As soon as my current campaigns are over, I'm moving onto Foundry. It's one thing to have bugs in your application. It's completely another to treat the customers the way they do....

I converted a test game to UDL during the summer and it broke the game. I mean, really broke it. I have not felt comfortable enough to give it another shot, but I felt confident y'all would work out the bugs.  If you haven't, please don't roll it out and leave us with no LDL. Because nobody here with a Plus or a Pro membership is looking forward to not having any dynamic lighting to use, and that is what rolling out before this is ready will mean. Why the rush? Just wait till it's ready and that way, everyone stays happy. LDL works just fine for now.  I honestly don't mind being used as a guinea pig for new things, so long as I'm not forced to use something that doesn't work while I don't have any other options. I have spent way too much money and time on this platform to have it all pulled out from under us and have to start over somewhere else. I like this platform, and I very much want to stay here. Don't force us into a lose lose situation. 

Matt said: Even using thinnest thickness for UDL lines, they remain visible as artefacts after exploring.  On LDL, lines had some kind of "zero thickness" effect so they were not visible.   Advanced Fog of War works by checking whether the player can see the center of a grid square. If the player can see the center of the grid square, then fog of war was cleared for the entire square. That is why there were no lines left over in AFoW.

Hi, I've been lurking in this thread for months now. As the months have ticked down, Roll20's shown a consistent and disturbing lack of care for their customers or their product. There is seemingly no professional Quality Assurance Testing, leaving the host of slapdash lighting features to be tested by paying customers. Decisions are made with seemingly no reason: Why on earth would Roll20 sunset Legacy Dynamic Lighting at this point? If the new feature isn't performing at the level of the old feature (an argument that's astoundingly easy to make, given the incessant bugs and lack of feature parity), what possible benefit is there to shutting down the old feature? Perhaps even more than the disregard Roll20 has been showing for it's customer's wants, the thing that's bothering me most is that I cannot fathom what benefit Roll20 will receive from shutting down Legacy Lighting. The same Pro subscription is needed for both Legacy and Updated Lighting, so it's not like pushing customers into the new feature will provide any monetary benefit. Being able to publish headlines about revamping and upgrading your features makes for descent press, but as soon as the inferior feature is properly published, that strategy is surely going to backfire. There've been similar stories from many products over the years- people don't like deceptive marketing. I'm simply flabbergasted. I can't conjure up a way this does anything but antagonize the customers.  That said, I'd like to pass along my sympathies to the ground-level employees who are in charge of damage control. I'm sure this whole fiasco is and has been the fault of someone up the chain, and the employees who have to interact with the negativity have displayed the patience of saints. I hope that Roll20 can pull out a smooth roll-out of an updated feature that works as well or better, though I've no particular faith this'll happen. Good luck, all around.

Brian C. said: Matt said: Even using thinnest thickness for UDL lines, they remain visible as artefacts after exploring.  On LDL, lines had some kind of "zero thickness" effect so they were not visible.   Advanced Fog of War works by checking whether the player can see the center of a grid square. If the player can see the center of the grid square, then fog of war was cleared for the entire square. That is why there were no lines left over in AFoW. I'm referring to the black lines (unrevealed areas) which were "under" the dynamic lighting lines, ie; the cross on the "tree"  The UDL is revealing "up to" the edge of the dynamic lighting line, rather than all the way to the centre of it, I guess.

Matt said: Brian C. said: Matt said: Even using thinnest thickness for UDL lines, they remain visible as artefacts after exploring.  On LDL, lines had some kind of "zero thickness" effect so they were not visible.   Advanced Fog of War works by checking whether the player can see the center of a grid square. If the player can see the center of the grid square, then fog of war was cleared for the entire square. That is why there were no lines left over in AFoW. I'm referring to the black lines (unrevealed areas) which were "under" the dynamic lighting lines, ie; the cross on the "tree"  The UDL is revealing "up to" the edge of the dynamic lighting line, rather than all the way to the centre of it, I guess. I believe my answer still applies. Because AFoW cleared fog of war for an entire grid square, even the area under the line was revealed. If you switch back to LDL and reset fog of war, you will see that as fog of war is cleared square by square, the squares cross the lines on the trees at different points. Some fog of war will be cleared on the other side of a tree line when the center of the cleared square is on the near side of the line, and some squares whose centers are on the other side of the line for the tree will remain unrevealed until the token circles around to the other side of the DL line. Once the token circles around the entire tree under LDL, then the entirety of fog of war will be cleared around the tree.

Hi Roll 20, Fantastic job with this VTT. I've been away from D&D for about 25 years but have now been back playing with friends for the past year and have recently entered back into DMing with the Icewind Dale campaign. 2 issues I have noticed so far; The loss of the grid on certain maps when activated. Oddly this seems to happen in DM view but when I switch to player's perspective it comes back. When I set up the distance for night vision or light emission the area revealed on the grid map does not reflect what I have set up in the character token's UDL tab. It is the same when using dimming also. e.g. 60ft becomes approx 40ft. Only small issues, great game and thank you. Dale

Brian C. said: Matt said: I'm referring to the black lines (unrevealed areas) which were "under" the dynamic lighting lines, ie; the cross on the "tree"  The UDL is revealing "up to" the edge of the dynamic lighting line, rather than all the way to the centre of it, I guess. I believe my answer still applies. Because AFoW cleared fog of war for an entire grid square, even the area under the line was revealed. If you switch back to LDL and reset fog of war, you will see that as fog of war is cleared square by square, the squares cross the lines on the trees at different points. Some fog of war will be cleared on the other side of a tree line when the center of the cleared square is on the near side of the line, and some squares whose centers are on the other side of the line for the tree will remain unrevealed until the token circles around to the other side of the DL line. Once the token circles around the entire tree under LDL, then the entirety of fog of war will be cleared around the tree. Ah, ok.  I get what you mean now.  In UDL Explorer mode, though, it still only reveals to the outer edge of a DL line, not to the centre of it like LDL did, even during the active exploration of that area.

Matt said: Brian C. said: Matt said: I'm referring to the black lines (unrevealed areas) which were "under" the dynamic lighting lines, ie; the cross on the "tree"&nbsp; The UDL is revealing "up to" the edge of the dynamic lighting line, rather than all the way to the centre of it, I guess. I believe my answer still applies. Because AFoW cleared fog of war for an entire grid square, even the area under the line was revealed. If you switch back to LDL and reset fog of war, you will see that as fog of war is cleared square by square, the squares cross the lines on the trees at different points. Some fog of war will be cleared on the other side of a tree line when the center of the cleared square is on the near side of the line, and some squares whose centers are on the other side of the line for the tree will remain unrevealed until the token circles around to the other side of the DL line. Once the token circles around the entire tree under LDL, then the entirety of fog of war will be cleared around the tree. Ah, ok.&nbsp; I get what you mean now.&nbsp; In UDL Explorer mode, though, it still only reveals to the outer edge of a DL line, not to the centre of it like LDL did, even during the active exploration of that area. Correct, that changed in UDL back in June of last year and is one of the issues I brought up. <a href="https://app.roll20.net/forum/permalink/9743017/" rel="nofollow">https://app.roll20.net/forum/permalink/9743017/</a>

Craig M. said: I've been following this thread from the start, as well as the predecessor thread, that &nbsp;thread's predecessor thread... UDL turtles all the way down....... And while I am apprehensive about the approaching cut-off date for LDL, I want to offer a somewhat different perspective than the ones typically expressed. Things have &nbsp;been going better. Over the last month, we've seen quite a few adjustments and improvements not only in functionality, but in terms of communication and interest. There can never be enough communication, and there can never be enough interest (particularly in our own individual prioritized concerns), but there has been real improvement. There are three months to go. If the next three months proceed the way the past month has, then I expect UDL will be solid and functional when LDL is turned off. I'll be honest... I don't know what new opportunities this new engine will afford Roll20, but at this point, I would be perfectly satisfied with parity (at least on May 18th). It seems like we're on track for parity IF... big if... the recent positive trend continues. Now, an admission-- regardless, I'm not leaving Roll20 for anything else. I run WotC 5e campaigns. That's what I'm going to continue to run. The integration between 5e and Roll20 has worked very well. I admit this because I don't think it's particularly risky to let this platform know that I'm not leaving. First of all, they probably already know most people aren't going to leave. Secondly, I don't think they are interested in screwing us over. They legitimately seem interested in trying to make something better, and I just don't think they're going to push us into something fundamentally broken. If it's really FUBAR on May 18th, I believe they will extend. Personally, I'm glad they've finally set a hard date. Hard dates make goals real for teams. You can't keep kicking the can down the road. A little fire under the seat, as it were. Sure, they've communicated poorly, they've made some very weird choices, their QA team is either understaffed or undertrained, and they've had more than a few "lalala-i-can't-hear-you" moments when confronted with criticism... but here we are now, and progress has occurred. None of this should be read as a call to stifle or limit further critiques and bug-hunting. But I'm rooting for Roll20, and I suppose I'm saying all of this to put a little wind in their sails as they progress. tl;dr there's cause for optimism, and I'm thankful for what's gone right I second that Craig. Go team Roll20 :) Come May 18th we'll all have a good lilghting tool.

Craig M. said: But I'm rooting for Roll20,&nbsp; Of course I´m rooting for Roll20 too, as I do not want to leave, given the time and money invested.&nbsp; It is just so frustrating to see how slowly things improve and how past mistakes are repeated again and again despite roll20 being called out for them.&nbsp; Currently, we are staying, but I would never suggest anyone to start playing on roll20 were I asked today.&nbsp; And if LDL is gone and UDL is not working properly, that will be the final straw.&nbsp;

Vince M. said: Craig M. said: But I'm rooting for Roll20,&nbsp; Of course I´m rooting for Roll20 too, as I do not want to leave, given the time and money invested.&nbsp; It is just so frustrating to see how slowly things improve and how past mistakes are repeated again and again despite roll20 being called out for them.&nbsp; Currently, we are staying, but I would never suggest anyone to start playing on roll20 were I asked today.&nbsp; And if LDL is gone and UDL is not working properly, that will be the final straw.&nbsp; Exactly. Nobody wants Roll20 to fail. But there is zero reason to be optimistic, when we consider recent history. I certainly don't want to go to the trouble of moving to a new platform, after all the time, energy, and dollars I've invested here, but I will do so if Roll20 sunsets LDL without first making sure that all UDL's bugs are fixed and that UDL actually represents a true upgrade on LDL. This really isn't hard. A non-dysfunctional company would never have put itself in this position, repeatedly, and eroded so much goodwill from paying customers.

Should be so simple to read customer feedback and pull the date till the musts are fixed.&nbsp; I have not moved over due to all of the comments about issues that keep showing on FB or red edit.&nbsp; So I got to say with all the new systems of vt out when my subscription comes up I'll reconsider if this mucks it up.&nbsp; I've also noticed on the forums based on the tags of pro that have left on those that are writing that they have been losing subscribers of old.&nbsp; The influx of covid may make up but they should view that as strong signaling for the market and that a product that isn't hitting on on cylinders is likely to fall away.&nbsp; Make no mistake I want them to succeed but a lack of listening and responding on forums is poor service as this is a pro tool not a tool for the free users.&nbsp; This is what keeps them in jobs not the network effect of having those that are just using the bare minimum and this is those that are most willing to pay for good service complaining.&nbsp; Since there new lighting has had such bad rep it would be nice that they moved with strong listening skills which is to say not move forward with decom until the new tool is better for the core paying customers especially those that have been around for a while.

It's quite simple, my players (generally all five) see a black screen when UDL is switched on, regardless of token vision. Alternatively the entire map is revealed. It has ruined the experience and immersion so many times we (the three DMs I play with on Roll20) have reverted back to Fog of War with polygon reveal, which is stable, easy to use. Another UDL complaint: If players are rapidly changing maps as the case in my game, I cannot adjust their token vision until they have dragged their own token onto the board, meaning I can't do it in advance of play, meaning we spend 5, 6 minutes of game time waiting for me to adjust their vision whilst they stare at a black screen (and then, 9/10 times it still does not work)

Issues with Explorer Mode last night. It would just suddenly stop working. We had to refresh the browser half a dozen times during the game to get it working. It was a net loss, doing more harm than good. Simple fog of war would have been better. Anyone having this issue?

AJ H. said: Another UDL complaint: If players are rapidly changing maps as the case in my game, I cannot adjust their token vision until they have dragged their own token onto the board, meaning I can't do it in advance of play, meaning we spend 5, 6 minutes of game time waiting for me to adjust their vision whilst they stare at a black screen (and then, 9/10 times it still does not work) That sounds like you need to update the vision settings on each token and then set that version of the token as the default token on the sheet/journal.&nbsp; Your current default tokens must not have any of the vision settings adjusted.&nbsp; Doing that, should fix that particular issue. <a href="https://wiki.roll20.net/Linking_Tokens_to_Journals" rel="nofollow">https://wiki.roll20.net/Linking_Tokens_to_Journals</a>

I tried UDL again on Tuesday after a previously failed attempt a few weeks ago. Started with the transparent tokens issue but I worked past that. On loading players into it, it looked good for about 5 seconds (although one player token was green for some reason) then the whole map went black for my players, one of them then moved his token and the whole map suddenly got revealed. How can a VTT screw up dynamic lighting quite this badly? It's not like the technology is new.

If UDL ain't working as good as or better than LDL when you turn off LDL, then you can kiss my money goodbye. Still bugs unfixed from it's inception still happening with UDL right now, an absolute shambles all around. I think I'll look into foundry in the mean time.

Yes, we have 3 month to get to learn it. It is a shame for the hours spent on sheet design and scripting.

Absolutely unreal. Once again, loud community response at an absolutely bonkers marketing-driven technical decision, which Roll20 staff ignore completely, provide zero response to, plowing ahead as if everything is fine. If LDL is gone May 18, I am gone May 19

FYI to others on this thread, I'll be filing a support request to have my Plus subscription refunded when LDL is sunsetted.

Ryan C. said: FYI to others on this thread, I'll be filing a support request to have my Plus subscription refunded when LDL is sunsetted. Mind letting me know what to fill out for that, I feel I'll probably be doing the same because I highly doubt Roll20 will have UDL working on May 18th (Katie already admitted UDL doesn't have feature parity to LDL in this thread which is funny). Also to Brian C. your QA efforts are excellent. If Roll20 isn't paying you they should be, otherwise your time would be better spent on a VTT platform that's not vehemently determined to shoot itself in the face.

Michael said: ....Also to Brian C. your QA efforts are excellent.... Brian is doing good work documenting issues for sure.&nbsp; But the whole problem here is that finding these problems doesn't require any sort of great QA efforts. These aren't things that only happen with some packet loss in a legacy game w/ both types of lighting enabled after you copy/paste something between maps and then revert it with ctrl-z while using firefox or some sort of weird situation like that.&nbsp; People aren't trying every possible combination of settings exhaustively to ensure that there aren't any problems. This is just stuff that's popping up repeatedly in our games as we're playing and that we're having to work around it and apologize for live while trying to run a game.&nbsp; It's stuff that can be easily repeated by just starting a new game and throwing a token or two into it.&nbsp; It's loads better than it was even a few months ago.&nbsp; If that continues, I expect it'll eventually be fine.&nbsp; But it's just not there yet. It's clear that Roll20 wants to sunset LDL.&nbsp; Maybe it's cause it's a pain to maintain both systems and that doing so keeps causing problems and makes any new changes require 3 times as much effort to make sure it works with both systems.&nbsp; Maybe the old system causes more server load and is expensive.&nbsp; Maybe they have unannounced future plans that won't work with LDL and need to be rid of it.&nbsp; These are all reasons.&nbsp; If Roll20 said "We really need to get off of LDL ASAP because of x so we're unfortunately going to have to force you to UDL.&nbsp; We know UDL it's not quite ready yet, but we think it's pretty usable at this point - bear with us."&nbsp; It wouldn't be great, but we'd understand. But Roll20 seems somewhat genuinely confused about why people don't want to switch.&nbsp; The communication is all "Hey - this is great and ready to go - start using it now!".&nbsp; Which makes people worried&nbsp;that Roll20 might genuinely think people are just avoiding UDL due to inertia and that Roll20 might not realize just how problematic UDL has been for people who have been trying to use it .

Roll20, Don't take out LDL. It works as intended. If the switch to UDL is one that you're going to force me to make, I'm cancelling my subscription. UDL literally breaks my game and slows it down to the point of it being unplayable. I might just have to find a different platform for my games :/

Jay R. said: I have a lot of time and energy and money invested in Roll20. Moving to another platform would be a big pain for my players and me. But if Roll20 keeps doing business as usual, there will come a time when the headache of moving platforms no longer outweighs the headache of staying with Roll20, and I will be gone. And, to echo Vince, I won't be alone. This where I'm at. This is my Job, so it's important that I assess my options for the future. Sunsetting LDL pretty much ensures that, if it's not up to scratch, I move my business elsewhere. I don't really have a choice, at that point. If my players don't enjoy their games, I can't expect them to pay for the privilige. If they can't pay, I can't eat. So with the announcement that this is 1.0, and that all the issues that have been outlined for months are going to be here to stay for the foreseeable future, I have to start assessing my options for moving to a different platform. Other VTTs do not have any of these problems, and the devs are far more responsive than the evasive platitudes trotted out by roll20 staff. I feel incredibly sorry for people like Katie Mae, who seem like they're pretty plugged in to what's being said in the forums, but seem to be relatively powerless to help. For those in a similar situation, Fantasy Grounds or Foundry VTT are probably going to be my new home if things don't change. Fast.

Same as the other guys. If this is over May 18, I'm going to think right now to switch VTT, even with all the hours poured in Roll20. It's juste a shame : UDL IS NOT READY YET. Games with it are broken and laggy as f**k.

Hello, I tried switching to UDL but all of my maps had a dark block in the top left corner, the entire area/quadrant of the map was black as though it didn't exist. I had no option but to switch back to LDL as the maps were completely broken like that. I don't know if this is a known issue or not, but we would not be able to continue playing under these conditions, LDL is the only thing that has allowed us to carry on. Hopefully this will be fixed before May comes around. Thank you, Phil

Phillip P. said: Hello, I tried switching to UDL but all of my maps had a dark block in the top left corner, the entire area/quadrant of the map was black as though it didn't exist. I had no option but to switch back to LDL as the maps were completely broken like that. I don't know if this is a known issue or not, but we would not be able to continue playing under these conditions, LDL is the only thing that has allowed us to carry on. Hopefully this will be fixed before May comes around. Thank you, Phil There was an older bug that put a block of Permanent Darkness in the corner of converted maps. This sounds like that. Select Permanent Darkness from the toolbar on the left of the page and then clear Permanent Darkness.

I'm already investigating Foundry, as many others are. Essentially, the reasons are the same. But my take on this approach to sunset LDL and bring in UDL, which is clearly non-functional for many users, including myself (tried to switch over last week with numerous ridiculous problems that can and will ruin a night of gameplay). Let's be honest here, you do not want to provide the best experience for your customers, you just want to make profit come hell or high water, and god forbid that a number of nerds and geeks would tell you otherwise. This is especially evident when you ignore your customer base and sell them a faulty product. This is tantamount to a group of developers completely ignoring their QA department that declares that the product "DOES. NOT. WORK." and releasing it as if it was functional. Companies are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past. And I have to comment on the unnecessary "real world" or "video game" effect of lighting. You are missing out on what a tabletop game actually should be like, that is, you want to feel like you are at a table with your friends. You either have sight to something, or you don't, there is no need to add a gradient , it wouldn't exist at a table and it wouldn't exist here. You see it or you don't, IMHO.

Brian C. said: Phillip P. said: Hello, I tried switching to UDL but all of my maps had a dark block in the top left corner, the entire area/quadrant of the map was black as though it didn't exist. I had no option but to switch back to LDL as the maps were completely broken like that. I don't know if this is a known issue or not, but we would not be able to continue playing under these conditions, LDL is the only thing that has allowed us to carry on. Hopefully this will be fixed before May comes around. Thank you, Phil There was an older bug that put a block of Permanent Darkness in the corner of converted maps. This sounds like that. Select Permanent Darkness from the toolbar on the left of the page and then clear Permanent Darkness. Thanks Brian, you're a legend. I will have a look at that. I have a lot of maps created for my campaign, so I'm a bit nervous about converting them all when it appears the system is still not up to par. Really want UDL to work though!

Phillip P. said: Thanks Brian, you're a legend. I will have a look at that. I have a lot of maps created for my campaign, so I'm a bit nervous about converting them all when it appears the system is still not up to par. Really want UDL to work though! You're welcome. If you want to try UDL out, make a copy of your game and convert that for testing. Once you are confident, copy an LDL backup of your game and convert your main game with your players. If everything tanks, you still have the backup.

Sewer Crew Gaming said: Jay R. said: I have a lot of time and energy and money invested in Roll20. Moving to another platform would be a big pain for my players and me. But if Roll20 keeps doing business as usual, there will come a time when the headache of moving platforms no longer outweighs the headache of staying with Roll20, and I will be gone. And, to echo Vince, I won't be alone. This where I'm at. This is my Job, so it's important that I assess my options for the future. Sunsetting LDL pretty much ensures that, if it's not up to scratch, I move my business elsewhere. I don't really have a choice, at that point. If my players don't enjoy their games, I can't expect them to pay for the privilige. If they can't pay, I can't eat. So with the announcement that this is 1.0, and that all the issues that have been outlined for months are going to be here to stay for the foreseeable future, I have to start assessing my options for moving to a different platform. Other VTTs do not have any of these problems, and the devs are far more responsive than the evasive platitudes trotted out by roll20 staff. I feel incredibly sorry for people like Katie Mae, who seem like they're pretty plugged in to what's being said in the forums, but seem to be relatively powerless to help. For those in a similar situation, Fantasy Grounds or Foundry VTT are probably going to be my new home if things don't change. Fast. Same here. I feel for the people on the ground. From previous patterns of (non-)response from Roll20 staff on threads like these, I can only conclude that they are probably prohibited from giving substantive, transparent feedback to customers, and explicitly told to respond to our frustration with a fixed set of vague, generic platitudes. It can't be that they don't see the problems.&nbsp;

I echo what all the above posters are saying. I am very frustrated that you plan to remove the functional lighting system in favor of a seriously buggy downgrade. I love roll20 and have always recommended it to my DM friends. Please delay removing legacy lighting until UDL has actually reached feature parity.&nbsp;

When I saw the 1.0 email I came over to see how stable everything was, and saw what I expected to see. It's unfortunate, but not at all surprising. For those who are worried about making the plunge to other tabletops like foundryvtt, don't be! best decision I've made, and the open development community there is amazing. After having been a paid subscriber for 5+ years on roll20, the frustration was just too much to handle.

Two weeks ago in my game I had this bug: PAGE REVEAL : This is an old problem that we believed to be fixed, but we have seen reports of it resurfacing. While playing all the map began to reveal slowly and even if I covered it again it just revealed. I had to change from UDL to LDL in the middle of my game and all the payers were able to see the map. I hope that in May every bug (or almost all of them) is fixed because right now the UDL do not look stable enough to be relied on.

I'm another who is leaving/left my paid sub. Partly due to the many bugs with UDL that I have been putting up with for months, but mostly because of the way Roll20 has responded, or ignored the customer base. Though it's incredibly annoying when the map reveals after spending hours and hours setting up a map, and the various other immersion killing bugs, that's not why I stopped paying. It's the way Roll20 handles these decisions and customer feedback. I see the valid complaints of marketplace creators who will look like they'll have to spend weeks to fix content or face unhappy customers blaming them for decisions Roll20 made. I wouldn't want to be a market place creator here.&nbsp; There are a lot of VTTs coming out. Not just foundry as mentioned here already, but there seems to be one coming out almost every month like owlbear rodeo or mapp.tool or others. The competition is real, and Roll20's best response to the new comers should be how they treat customers &amp; creators, as it will be increasingly hard for Roll20 to keep up feature wise as the newer alternatives are based on more modern web tech, and in some cases have a thriving mod community to be constantly creating what users want, compared to how suggestions here are trickled in. I would have ignored these extra features offered by others, and the less buggy experience if I had faith that Roll20 team were listening and responding to their customers instead of pushing the self imposed deadlines. Or even explained the reasoning why LDL has to be sunsetted instead of left in a legacy mode, (I did read the vague answer in the first post). Or if there was less expectation that you users should do all the trouble shooting or their issue doesn't count. Customer engagement is king, and the UDL saga and sunseting makes it look like Roll20 is indifferent to their customer base.

Jay R. said: Exactly. Nobody wants Roll20 to fail. But there is zero reason to be optimistic, when we consider recent history. I certainly don't want to go to the trouble of moving to a new platform, after all the time, energy, and dollars I've invested here, but I will do so if Roll20 sunsets LDL without first making sure that all UDL's bugs are fixed and that UDL actually represents a true upgrade on LDL. At the moment, I'd just hope for parity with LDL before LDL is removed.

Here is an issue I am having. I made a video as it explains it better than I can. Long story short: As a gm, tinted darkvision stacks on my end, possibly making my map impossible to see property. I'm sorry if there is a setting that fixes this that I am issing, but if not I really hope this gets fixed before the currently functional dynamic lighting is removed. Video:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4r9DujGork&amp;feature=youtu.be" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4r9DujGork&amp;feature=youtu.be</a>

Luckily our DM doesn't use it. But after reading the details on the ending LDL, committing to releasing a feature and knowing some things are not going to be working at launch, is just asinine. Nothing like half assing it right out of the gate. DnDBeyond's VTT can't get here soon enough as I already have everything there.

I've been very hesitant to try UDL again since I had major issues with it last summer, but I would like to chime in that this latest update to the dim lighting is a huge improvement , even compared to LDL. That was one of my main issues with it before, but now I think UDL has the potential for better atmospheric lighting than LDL had. Still, I am finding several bugs (including a few I haven't seen listed in the top post or the recent blog post) that prevent me from reliably using UDL in my games. I'll be sticking to LDL until these are fixed. CTRL+L frequently stops working for the GM, especially after settings changes or resetting Explorer Mode. Players so far retain vision when this happens. Nightvision does not brighten dim light, resulting in weird circles of dim light where there should be bright light for players with Nightvision. These areas are even more obscured if using an effect like Sharpen. When Update on Drop is active along with Explorer Mode, unexplored areas become explored but not visible as a player moves their token before dropping. Light multiplier effects aren't noticeable for GM using CTRL+L, except that sometimes the area where the light should extend to becomes explored but not visible. So far seems to work for players. Multiple Nightvision effects like Sharpen overlap for the GM when CTRL+L is working. Explorer Mode greys out dim light that's very dark, making it appear brighter. Lag is ridiculous for players, even without Explorer Mode. I have little to no lag issues as GM, but if I join as player or log in on an alternate account it takes about 5 seconds just to move a token 2 squares.

I'm still using LDL, and the main reason is because of the rough pixelated edges in UDL. I'm someone who really enjoys a clean aesthetic in my games, and LDL is just so much more appealing from a visual standpoint due to all the smooth lines and edges. I don't tend to get fancy with my lighting features, so it's not all that important to me if UDL adds a bunch more options if at its most basic level it's just uglier to look at. If this could be fixed then I'd be a lot keener to make the switch. I have to admit, it makes me a little nervous to hear that LDL is going away when UDL still feels like a downgrade. I've really enjoyed playing on Roll20, but if the platform ends up moving to a worse dynamic lighting system then I expect I'll start looking at other alternatives. I'm not really bothered by slow updates or a lack of new features, but active downgrades to the experience are a bit much.

Ye!

Ryan C. said: FYI to others on this thread, I'll be filing a support request to have my Plus subscription refunded when LDL is sunsetted. My thoughts EXACTLY.&nbsp; The Roll20 team seems determined to disregard the wants and needs of its customers. Its like they want to drive us all away to other VTTs. Well, on May 19th, 2021, they will get their wish.