Wint said: As a reminder to some folks, this process is going on three years of development and started with what was originally just supposed to be a performance update. But the changes they made messed with dynamic lighting and fog of war, so they reverted it, then changed it back again, then introduced Advanced Fog of War which was supposed to fix all of the issue but didn't really address any of them, and after hotfixing and muddling through that eventually started working on UDL, which is how we've come to "UDL 1.0". This isn't roll20 randomly, or purposefully either, decided to change how dynamic lighting works in game — it's instead been a series of bandaids and patches to fix issues stemming from previous hotfixes. So saying "why don't they just replicate how LDL handles x " is always going to be a non-starter. The only reason we even have LDL as it exists currently is because the backlash to the initial performance changes was such that it forced their hand. Excellent points, sadly. There is no discernible development process, just hack/patch jobs in response to previous hack/patch jobs. Which partly explains why the code base is so unstable. I strongly suspect that the reason we never see any kind of long-term development plan is because it literally doesn't exist. Decisions seem to be made reactively, with no clear idea of the big picture, in response to what are likely arbitrary deadlines set by executive and marketing, driven by quarterly numbers rather than by customer feedback. That's why we get blithely idiotic proclamations that UDL is "now" at 1.0 when a sorrier mess of half-baked features, bugs, and performance has rarely been seen in recent memory. That 1.0 tag isn't for us; it's for profit margins and corporate interests. But we're all supposed to play along and accept that Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia. The AFoW debacle really soured things for me. Not only did Roll20 break the feature for literally months, they spent an equal amount of time telling customers that AFow was never intended to work the way it did prior to the "update." Eventually, they had to backtrack and acknowledge that the so-called update had left us with a worse product than before, but that acknowledgment didn't inspire confidence. Either they knowingly lied about the product, or they were so clueless that they didn't actually know what their own product did until they broke it. Neither one is a good look. At a conservative estimate, 90% of the value of this site comes not from Roll20 itself, but from a devoted community of customers and unpaid scripters whose tireless work makes the Pro subscription (barely) worth the money. It reveals an appalling laziness and complacency on the part of Roll20's executive. I guess it's become comfortable for them to sit on feature requests for literally years, while unpaid scripters labor to retain customers. Speaking personally, I'll say that were it not for the contributions of people like The Aaron, keithcurtis, Kurt J., and so on, I would have left Roll20 months ago.