Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 468
|
Daplunk unless you are getting that on beta I don't see how it could be the priority. Web view without live updates could be done I suppose but I doubt folks will like web view without live updates any more than the current client. It is a massive undertaking though because they would have to duplicate all the u/I coding inherent in the client code base they are using. But maybe whatever database engine they are using has their own web interface?
|
#41 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Germany
Posts: 282
|
Quote:
Supporting Calendar Campaigner Tools: Realm Works, Campaign Cartographer 3+ and Add-ons, MapTools Games: home brew world, Lord of the Rings (CODA), Shadowrun, Earthdawn |
|
#42 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posts: 2,294
|
Quote:
Given they are also working on a web platform with Hero Lab I think it's safe to assume they have given the move to web support quite a bit of thought. An important part of this equation is revenue. If they fix the player version to a stage where the majority of us use it then the increase in potential user base would be quite significant. Realm Works - Community Links Realm Work and Hero Lab Videos Ream Works Facebook User Group CC3+ Facebook User Group D&D 5e Community Pack - Contributor General Hero Lab Support & Community Resources D&D 5e Community Pack - Install Instructions / D&D 5e Community Pack - Log Fault / D&D 5e Community Pack - Editor Knowledge Base Obsidian Obsidian TTRPG Tutorials Last edited by daplunk; July 25th, 2017 at 10:32 PM. |
|
#43 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Germany
Posts: 282
|
Quote:
And in our group we are all at least a bit sceptical of completely web-dependend services. So, the web view has no spot on our wishlists. Supporting Calendar Campaigner Tools: Realm Works, Campaign Cartographer 3+ and Add-ons, MapTools Games: home brew world, Lord of the Rings (CODA), Shadowrun, Earthdawn Last edited by Greebo; July 26th, 2017 at 12:36 AM. Reason: clarification |
|
#44 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posts: 2,294
|
Oh I agree completely. I just think that since we know they have plans to move in a web direction it would be logical for them to focus on that as the priority and then build the functionality on top of it.
I could be wrong, personally I would love more functionality. Read-only web-view would be awesome but I really have no want to use a browser to run my games. I'm just putting my logical hat on and trying to think how they would be planning things. Realm Works - Community Links Realm Work and Hero Lab Videos Ream Works Facebook User Group CC3+ Facebook User Group D&D 5e Community Pack - Contributor General Hero Lab Support & Community Resources D&D 5e Community Pack - Install Instructions / D&D 5e Community Pack - Log Fault / D&D 5e Community Pack - Editor Knowledge Base Obsidian Obsidian TTRPG Tutorials |
#45 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,690
|
I've done thick client to thin client migration several times. Depending on the code base it can range from writing an entirely new program to a fairly simple undertaking.
Since we know RW is written in C# and .NET migration should be a lot easier than LWD is making it. I'm guessing that something, one of the third party controls?, is desktop specific. Which would be a real problem. Although I guess one problem could be the local storage issue. Cloud based programs generally cannot access local storage so a web view would only be able to hit the cloud version of a realm and that might have issues for people who choose not to subscribe to the cloud service. However I'll be honest, most people won't use the web view. Desktops and even laptops are still far more powerful than portable devices. Why would you deal with the limitations imposed by a web app when you could use the thick client? If LWD is prioritizing the web viewer over character journals, individual reveal and custom calendars they are making a serious mistake in what their user base's wants and needs. LWD has spent quite a long time rolling out the CM. Which has meant that new "user facing" features have been few and far between for a while LWD would be well served to consider that their existing, and long suffering, user base cares relatively little for CM or web view but does want and need features like journals, individual reveal and calendars and has been waiting a very long time for some of them. Once CM is out is probably time to spent a while putting out at least some customer features. my Realm Works videos https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZU...4DwXXkvmBXQ9Yw |
#46 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Denmark
Posts: 740
|
Quote:
Personally, I have nothing to use a completely web-depended solution for. But then again, as Rob has strongly said at one time: LWD has not said that a web solution would mean that the PC-based program would disappear. So I am hoping (and believing so far) that the PC-based program will remain. If we do also get a web-based solution and thus cater to those folks that want that - all the better :-) Vargr Deputy Calendar Champion Legend has it, that the Tarrasque is a huge fighting beast, perpetually hungry. Sleet entered History when he managed to get on the back of a Tarrasque only to be ridden out of History shortly after. Using Realm Works, Worldographer (Hexographer 2), LibreOffice, Daz3D Studio, pen & paper for the realm World of Temeon and the system LEFD - both homebrewed. Last edited by Vargr; July 26th, 2017 at 03:56 AM. |
|
#47 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Germany, so please bear with my English
Posts: 378
|
Well, as I see it, the web view would come in very handy for the players as they could then leaf through information at the table. My players at least are not using laptops at the game table and wouldn't even if I bought them the player version. But they are happily browsing the SRD on their phones and would love the ability to check places and NPCs in a wiki-style web view.
For me as a GM, I wil stick to the standalone client, but for players a simple read-only web view would be a great start. Oh, and individual reveal would be fine too. Not a top priority for me, though. |
#48 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,690
|
Anyone that feels that their players would view their realm if available as a website is already able to do so.
Export revealed content to XML Convert to HTML using EightBitz's powershell script. Post to a website. my Realm Works videos https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZU...4DwXXkvmBXQ9Yw |
#49 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Germany, so please bear with my English
Posts: 378
|
You are correct, of course. But there is a huge difference between having to set up a website, export everything, upload it and repeat that process after avery change and having all that work automatically in the background.
|
#50 |
|
|