Can someone agree with me here?

[Yair]

When's the last time you've used it? The code team has been steadily working on cutting out the chaff in the code.

I've used it a few months ago. Was still abysmally slow.
So was MapTools, which I used just a few days ago.
I think my computer doesn't like Java. I suspect it's the low memory (256 MB).

Edit: I don't get it. Aren't databases supposed to work FAST? Aren't there open-source or at least open-use databases that you could easily build a program around? Why is it apparently impossible to build a fast user interface connected to a fast database to manage character generation? I just don't get it. I guess that's because I'm not a programmer.

 

[XCorvis]

I've used it a few months ago. Was still abysmally slow.
So was MapTools, which I used just a few days ago.
I think my computer doesn't like Java. I suspect it's the low memory (256 MB).

Edit: I don't get it. Aren't databases supposed to work FAST? Aren't there open-source or at least open-use databases that you could easily build a program around? Why is it apparently impossible to build a fast user interface connected to a fast database to manage character generation? I just don't get it. I guess that's because I'm not a programmer.

I'm gonna guess you're running Windows XP. Windows XP alone takes something like 300+ MB of RAM to run at full speed, so your current system is going to be a dog no matter what program you run. Add some RAM, then you can complain about speed. Trust me, you'll be a lot happier with your computer if you jump to at least 512 MB.

/threadjack

 

[Yair]

I'm gonna guess you're running Windows XP. Windows XP alone takes something like 300+ MB of RAM to run at full speed, so your current system is going to be a dog no matter what program you run. Add some RAM, then you can complain about speed. Trust me, you'll be a lot happier with your computer if you jump to at least 512 MB.

/threadjack

\begin{threadjack}
Actually, I run Windows 2000. But the computer is slow in general (so Java makes it EXTREMELY slow rather than just ANNOYINGLY slow), so I don't think this changes your conclusion.
\end{threadjack}

 

[thpr]

I don't get it. Aren't databases supposed to work FAST?

Databases are fast, primarily because they index their contents. (Note that such an index requires additional memory). Thus, while there could be improvements in speed, I'm not sure how much it would help on a 256MB memory system. Perhaps someday we will find out, but there are other challenges with PCGen we need to address first.

Aren't there open-source or at least open-use databases that you could easily build a program around?

There are open-source databases we could use; Apache Derby is one example among many.

Whether it's "easy" to build a program around a database is up for debate. The data structure is only one aspect among many in building a character generator program. Building a generator for the SRD is easy - that can be developed in a matter of months, as many people have demonstrated. Programming one that can handle the nuances of the additional materials published by the rest of the OGL and closed content is a project that takes years (something also demonstrated by those who have tried or are trying)

Why is it apparently impossible to build a fast user interface connected to a fast database to manage character generation? I just don't get it. I guess that's because I'm not a programmer.

It's not impossible. It's just not my day job, because it won't pay the bills. The economics of a character generator have been discussed before here on enWorld, so I won't re-hash that, but the point is that it won't happen in a typical commercial development environment. It will happen when it's a basement project, or filler for a consultant, or something along that line.

In particular to PCGen, we are an open source project, so we're running on volunteer time on evenings and weekends (or days for some of the team that works nights). There are limits to how much we can achieve in any given period of time. The other problem we face at PCGen is one of installed base. Not that I really want to make the comparison, but a similar problem regularly bites Microsoft, as they do their best to maintain backwards compatibility.

Recognize that a large portion of the value in a character generator is the data - witness the anger vented when WotC terminated the CMP license. You can also find posts by various individuals referring to their concern over their home-brew data and future compatibility with PCGen (as we have talked about the changes to take place in PCGen 6.0).

The point is, we are making great effort in PCGen to maintain backwards compatibility with the existing data, because we recognize that the data has significant value (due to invested time). Part of this is because we have regularly received complaints from users when we did not maintain compatibility. There are consequences to this decision to maintain compatibility, and to a degree, it does slow our evolution.

While we could start a new program from scratch - built around a database, perhaps - that is the endless struggle in an open-source project. There is a pull to enhance the base function (where many users will be) set against adding tweaks for homebrews and strange closed content (power users). PCGen spent a period of time heavily focused on adding support for additional rules, and I will admit it is a challenge to continue to support these exceptions while we move forward as fast as we can.

The problem with performance in PCGen - contrary to the claims of some people who are not part of the project and therefore are not in a position to know - is not Java. There were design decisions made early in PCGen that continue to impact performance as it was scaled to increased volumes and complexity of data. We are currently working on rewriting the core of the program to resolve those issues and be much faster, while maintaining backward compatibility.

We're honestly working on it... and trust me, when there really is a significant improvement to demonstrate, I won't be quiet about it.

TP.
--
Tom Parker
PCGen Architecture Silverback

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

With all this fleecing talk coming from the 4E discussion, and since this "fleecing" is at least somewhat true (to what degree depends on your perspective and income level), then why doesn't someone get together with a couple of other friends and create their own Digital Initiative.

First, I don't buy this "fleecing" talk as being true in the least, though I do understand peoples concerns (albeit vastly overstated). But leave that for the 4E forum.

As Mr. Spock once said insightfully, "As a matter of history, it has always been easier to destroy than to create." WotC already tried this once - right out of the gate with 3E when they had a software project to do something JUST LIKE THIS. They licensed the Arcanum game engine to create a "virtual" game table of sorts. The project tanked. Even the character creation software portion of it would be abandoned and rewritten from ground up to eventually become E-Tools. This is NOT a small project that can just be cobbled together with a few friends. At least not if you now want to compete with WotC who has as much as 2 years jump on you in building it and THEY have a budget. Not to say that you can't accomplish something, but that I doubt the ability to do great things with a casual effort.

But my idea is this: since digitization of gaming (i.e laptops at the tabletop) is probably inevitable as well as a good thing if done properly...[MapTool]...why not start making standalone applications much in the same way as we already create indie pdf's for sale and download.

Tell you what. Make something like one of these my D&D game table and we'll talk.

 

[kenmarable]

People have talked about this for years, and it isn't easy.

If you are going for another Digital Initiative, I wouldn't even consider it unless I had deep pockets and an experienced programming shop. I'm sure WotC is spending millions on it since that's really what it takes to build the entire DI that they are talking about. I think they've made some bad decisions early on that might ultimately doom major portions of it, but without at least a million dollars in my bank account to hire a team to pull it off, I'm just armchair coding. (Now, if there is anyone out there with a million to spend on this, I would gladly talk to them about how to do the DI right.)

As for specific tools, that has exactly happened with PCGen, DM Genie, RPXplorer, and who knows how many others I can't think of off the top of my head. The hard-core coders have spent their free time building tools with all kinds of functionality. I think that the software apps out there aren't uber-popular because most people either don't want to use a computer for their RPG or see the tools as more trouble than their worth (either because of needing to input WotC IP manually, bloated interfaces designed for maximum flexibility rather than maximum usability, lack of experience actually using the tool, etc.). When 4e comes out, people will continue to do the same thing.

You also mention specific content software. Now that is something interesting. It's something I've toyed around with, and with WotC pushing for more computer use in 4e I'll probably actually push to get some finished product out there. I've heard discussions about this for years, however, and no one has done it yet. I remember Clark Peterson's comments ages ago about how terrible PDF is as an electronic format. They are just book wanna-be's rather than true electronic products. The metaphor he used was making a movie of a novel by filming someone reading it. It's just a wanna-be and not an actual conversion to a new medium.

However, unlike the software tools mentioned above, this requires a convergence of both content and programming. Typically the people who want to put out content, write it and publish to PDF (or print). Those who want to program build the tools rather than specific stand alone products. It's two entirely different mindsets. I thought Code Monkey was getting close with their interactive adventures, but they never really made it anywhere with it, largely because it appeared to be that they were still in the "build general software" mentality which carries a lot more development and baggage along than necessary.

0one's maps are the only other contender I see for embracing a true electronic medium with individual content rather than tools. But they are a long way from what could be done.

But we'll see if anything actually hits that convergence and is even useful. People like general tools that they can modify as they like. So the sort of products I'm thinking about might flop. But it's something I've been thinking about and refining in the back of my head for 4 years now, and I'm finally getting off my duff and actually building something since I'm surprised no one else has in all that time.

 

[DonTadow]

First, I don't buy this "fleecing" talk as being true in the least, though I do understand peoples concerns (albeit vastly overstated). But leave that for the 4E forum.

As Mr. Spock once said insightfully, "As a matter of history, it has always been easier to destroy than to create." WotC already tried this once - right out of the gate with 3E when they had a software project to do something JUST LIKE THIS. They licensed the Arcanum game engine to create a "virtual" game table of sorts. The project tanked. Even the character creation software portion of it would be abandoned and rewritten from ground up to eventually become E-Tools. This is NOT a small project that can just be cobbled together with a few friends. At least not if you now want to compete with WotC who has as much as 2 years jump on you in building it and THEY have a budget. Not to say that you can't accomplish something, but that I doubt the ability to do great things with a casual effort.
Tell you what. Make something like one of these my D&D game table and we'll talk.

We're already there. A projector setup now only costs you 500 bucks if you have a laptop. Building a Home media PC will only cost you 500 bucks as well, and that includes a dvd player, sound system and HD capability.

Windows Vista supports multiple mouse support and there are a half dozen networking tabletops.

I say all this because we currently run my game like this. Heck, for Iron DM tournament next year I"m bringing a portable projector I bought to run my maps. I've had people come to my table and haveto move, only to call frustrated with how arcaic the old dry erase boad is.

 

[borc killer]

I'm sure WotC is spending millions on it since that's really what it takes to build the entire DI that they are talking about.

Bill Slavicsek said “Hasbro has given us many millions of dollars to work on DnDInsider” and that “Our bosses at Hasbro are very excited about it.” (Those are paraphrases but it is very close to the wording he used.)

You can take that to mean whatever you want but to me it means that WoTC is moving with great vigor towards the digital world. If you are going to compete with them you should be ready to fork over a ton of money for design and development.

Their mapping tool looks incredible (for dungeons), their PC tracking tools looks great as well. The whole DI package looks to be well integrated and easy to use. Also every dungeon that is published by WoTC will be in the mapping software and people will be able to make their own dungeons (and presumably) be able to share those for free with others. Competing with that will be very very hard.

 

[evildmguy]

So instead of jim-joe-bob writing his wonderful new indie game/adventure/splatbook, he gets with his programmer buddy and they turn it into a standalone app which the dm can use at the kitchen table or virtual table.

I guess what I'm really trying to say is that I think WOTC is fading rapidly (10 years from now...gone completely). The advent of the internet and rapid-application-development has done no favors for WOTC.

Speaking as a programmer, I don't see this happening. I don't see WotC going anywhere. Further, the whole idea of RAD a) was NEVER true and b) never helped anyone. ANY program worth its code took months to create with good people following a plan.

This whole DI thing could be great, but it needs to be done right. And "done right" means vastly superior quality and a cheap price. Once you've hooked all the gamers of the world on your cheap but good sh**, then you've won.

I will agree that they are going to have to impress with the DI. However, my guess is that they will have enough "support" in terms of "early adaptors" such that they will be able to keep going with it and polish it as they go. However, they have a very large customer base and can afford to attract 10% at a time. (In contrast, my company needs to have what we release 95+% done, because we are just starting out and need to impress people now, so they tell others and keep using it.) So, I agree it has to look nice, but they will be around six months, a year from now, and able to get people to look again when they have updated it.

But doesn't it make more sense, as an indie developer, to sell a computer application then to a pdf? Maybe I'm dreaming..its late.

A computer application is no where near as easy to create as a PDF. Anyone can find tools to create a decent looking PDF for free. This allows people to create a word document and make a PDF. And they can do it on their own time and fairly easily.

In contrast, a computer program should take months to design, months to create and a month to test and debug. In that same six months, a designer or writer could probably create four to seven supplement sized books. Which makes more sense?

edg

 

[Yair]

Databases are fast, primarily because they index their contents. (Note that such an index requires additional memory). Thus, while there could be improvements in speed, I'm not sure how much it would help on a 256MB memory system. Perhaps someday we will find out, but there are other challenges with PCGen we need to address first.



There are open-source databases we could use; Apache Derby is one example among many.

Whether it's "easy" to build a program around a database is up for debate. The data structure is only one aspect among many in building a character generator program. Building a generator for the SRD is easy - that can be developed in a matter of months, as many people have demonstrated. Programming one that can handle the nuances of the additional materials published by the rest of the OGL and closed content is a project that takes years (something also demonstrated by those who have tried or are trying)



It's not impossible. It's just not my day job, because it won't pay the bills. The economics of a character generator have been discussed before here on enWorld, so I won't re-hash that, but the point is that it won't happen in a typical commercial development environment. It will happen when it's a basement project, or filler for a consultant, or something along that line.

In particular to PCGen, we are an open source project, so we're running on volunteer time on evenings and weekends (or days for some of the team that works nights). There are limits to how much we can achieve in any given period of time. The other problem we face at PCGen is one of installed base. Not that I really want to make the comparison, but a similar problem regularly bites Microsoft, as they do their best to maintain backwards compatibility.

Recognize that a large portion of the value in a character generator is the data - witness the anger vented when WotC terminated the CMP license. You can also find posts by various individuals referring to their concern over their home-brew data and future compatibility with PCGen (as we have talked about the changes to take place in PCGen 6.0).

The point is, we are making great effort in PCGen to maintain backwards compatibility with the existing data, because we recognize that the data has significant value (due to invested time). Part of this is because we have regularly received complaints from users when we did not maintain compatibility. There are consequences to this decision to maintain compatibility, and to a degree, it does slow our evolution.

While we could start a new program from scratch - built around a database, perhaps - that is the endless struggle in an open-source project. There is a pull to enhance the base function (where many users will be) set against adding tweaks for homebrews and strange closed content (power users). PCGen spent a period of time heavily focused on adding support for additional rules, and I will admit it is a challenge to continue to support these exceptions while we move forward as fast as we can.

The problem with performance in PCGen - contrary to the claims of some people who are not part of the project and therefore are not in a position to know - is not Java. There were design decisions made early in PCGen that continue to impact performance as it was scaled to increased volumes and complexity of data. We are currently working on rewriting the core of the program to resolve those issues and be much faster, while maintaining backward compatibility.

We're honestly working on it... and trust me, when there really is a significant improvement to demonstrate, I won't be quiet about it.

TP.
--
Tom Parker
PCGen Architecture Silverback

I just realized I didn't thank you for this informative post So a belated THANKS