New to Digital Cartography? Software General Information

[dormouse]

I've read the thread with interest several times now (and a few in the past). I notice very few references to what the maps will be used for (certainly decides what I will use) or the actual workflow used (and many of us go from one prog to another to another and back again etc in doing a single map).

If I were writing a book that needed a lot of maps (I'm not), I'd want my maps to be 'beautiful' and with a clear and consistent style. They would be worth spending a lot of time over.

If I were planning a RPG campaign and wanted a world or regional map, I'd mostly want accuracy of scale and detail (and zoomability would be good). If I were going to let players see it or have a copy, then attractiveness and style would become more important.

Dungeon plans for/by the GM also mostly need accuracy of scale and detail.

If I were designing a battlemap, then atmosphere and usability would be more important. And ease and speed of creating the map would be very important.

And if the battlemap were for use in a VTT, then I would want all or most of the components of the map to be separable because I may well need to apply or change them from within the VTT.

And if designing components for any of the above, the amount of time I'd be prepared to spend depends on how much I would use it (and what is already out there that would do).

Most of my mapmaking is for battlemaps for VTTs. As far as I can see, the cost benefit of the various types of software (and I use virtually all of them for one thing or another) in terms of time spent Vs atmosphere/attractiveness is strongly in favour of the software designed for this use (Dundjinni, Dungeonforge, MapX, DungeonCrafter in the past, CC3?). If someone just wants to do battlemaps, and is not already experienced in use of the other software (or has another use for it) then this is probably the best way for them to go especially since the learning curve for most of them is small (not sure about CC3 for this). Despite these progs not being the most used or recommended on this site, and not producing the most individually styled or 'beautiful' maps (though this is partly dependent on the images used - and the final and/or intermediate stages can be tweaked in other progs). And this probably also stands for battlemaps that will be printed for use (a main reason for the initial popularity of Dundjinni). Because so many battlemaps may be needed, the time taken to do the map is a major issue.

And vector approaches (CC3, Inkscape, Xara etc) have real advantages for the world/regional design maps for the GM. Rasters only compete here by having lots of maps at different scales.

[Redrobes]

And vector approaches (CC3, Inkscape, Xara etc) have real advantages for the world/regional design maps for the GM. Rasters only compete here by having lots of maps at different scales.

Ahh, well I would have to disagree here of course...

[dormouse]

Ahh, well I would have to disagree here of course...

You're saying ViewingDale is Raster?
Or maybe that it takes much more powerful processing than vector or images at different scales would need? (I can't really imagine a raster map with all the very fine level detail still being quick at zooming in and out to continents; I can imagine raster stamps for fine detail on a vector background that will do areas & continents giving that impression.)

I'll admit to not having tried ViewingDale, though I have looked at it.. I'll download the trial and have a closer look. I was always put off by the fact that it did not seem as self-contained as most progs, with an emphasis on networking etc., and it was never obvious how it worked or precisely what it did and I do like to know that.

[PeaceHeather]

Paint.NET. 'Cause I'm cheap.
I've worked with some other stuff now and then, but not enough to say that I'm even close to proficient in them - a little Paintshop Pro, a teeeeny bit of GIMP, that kind of thing. I wouldn't really even call myself "proficient" in Paint.NET except that I can usually get the results I'm looking for in it.

[icosahedron]

PeaceHeather: Isn't that what 'proficient' means?

Dormouse: Viewingdale sounds ideal for your needs. I'm a convert. Basically it's a tile mapper with analogue tiles. I haven't even used the networking VTT aspect yet; as a DF substitute it's completely self-contained.

It does pretty much what Dungeonforge does - or what it would have done if the promised new version had materialised, except that there is no fixed cell size and (near) infinite zoom. You can vary the size/scale of any imported image and perform a continuous zoom from a solar system down to a keyboard.

Unlike DF, where a bed is always (say) two cells by one, you can use the same bed image in VD for a giant or a dwarf simply by scaling it on the map. The grid is a guide, not a cage.

You don't need to set your map extents in advance, either, you can add more whenever you want.

The only problem I have with VD is amassing an image library. Although it's capable of using the DF images, I wanted to take advantage of the extra detail VD can handle and wanted to step up from the old tile images. The software has a good stock of fantasy images included, and more are readily available on the net, but SF images are sadly lacking throughout cyberspace.

One thing worries me though - If you try out Viewingdale, I fear for the continued existance of Dungeonforge...

If you give it a go, check out the blog in my signature, Redrobes gave me some personal tutorials there when I hit problems and misunderstandings. There's some useful help info there.

[Redrobes]

You're saying ViewingDale is Raster?...

Oops - too busy to notice this one. Sorry.

It is raster - at least I would say it is. For certain, it does not take in any vector formats like SVG or has any line or shape drawing abilities. Everything is done using raster bitmaps. It has its own image format but can import BMP, JPG and PNG files and has a batch converter for PNG files to import those libraries of files that you get like the CUSAC.

Imagine painting this bitmap onto some stretchy rubber sheet. You can put the sheet down, rotate it and stretch it. You can put rubber sheets down onto other rubber sheets and so move the base one and all the others on top move as well. Its a hierarchy of them.

Your graphics card can deal with these textured rubber sheets real fast. Your right in that it takes a lot of processing. What it does not need tho is a lot of CPU processing. ViewingDale can run on old machines - ask icohedron ! - BUT it definitely does need a reasonable graphics card, the sort you would use for games. Tho nowadays thats not so much of an issue as when I first released it. Anything with 32Mb or more on board graphics card RAM like the old nVidia AGP ones through to the ultra modern PCIe2 types. Theres a free test utility you can download from my site to test the graphics system speed and tell you what you have running and where this may or may not be a problem for the app.

So the CPU gathers together all the icons and works out how to place them down then sends that to the graphics card for rendering. Since most apps use 90%+ of the time rendering then you get a big speed increase when using the graphics card to do it. So ViewingDale is a graphics card hardware assisted bitmap compositing engine. It is a lot like DungeonForge as we have mentioned before but the layout is held in discreet icons instead of one big map file and that the images for it are held on HDD instead of in the file like DF was claimed to do. Which as we have said previously has some advantages and some disadvantages.

The VTT side of things in a nutshell is just that the prog will also transfer and update those images and icons when logged in as a server or as a client to one. Somebody moves their character is just the same as moving any icon in the hierarchy. Those changes are transmitted and all clients refresh the screen and show the move. Since the app is fast, it can update that refresh in real time in exactly the same process as if you had zoomed or panned or edited it yourself.

So since the app has no base bitmap and everything is on stretchy rubber then there are no virtually no borders and no limits to the extents or zoom factor. The res of all icons shown is still limited to that of the images making up the icons tho so you might need a world, some regions, a town and a floor plan maps all done to zoom between outer space and crack in the floor. The apps job is to take care of the scaling of the images and blending between them to pick the right one at the right time and deliver the seamless experience.

[dormouse]

Dormouse: Viewingdale sounds ideal for your needs. I'm a convert. Basically it's a tile mapper with analogue tiles. I haven't even used the networking VTT aspect yet; as a DF substitute it's completely self-contained.

If you give it a go, check out the blog in my signature, Redrobes gave me some personal tutorials there when I hit problems and misunderstandings. There's some useful help info there.

Thanks for the recommendation - and it is nice to see that you are so keen on it.

But, as I promised Redrobes, I have already tried it. I found it incredibly slow and I can understand why you found personal tutorials helpful. It may be that there was a conflict with something else on my machine, or it may be that it doesn't like lots of other stuff running concurrently, or it may be that it wants a more powerful graphics card to do the zooming - but my machine is reasonably powerful (dual core, plently of RAM) though, as I'm not a gamer, not a very powerful graphics card (does have 512mb RAM though). When I try a new prog and don't get on with it, I nearly always leave it there and might, or might not, revisit it again - but I uninstalled ViewingDale within the hour.

It does pretty much what Dungeonforge does - or what it would have done if the promised new version had materialised, except that there is no fixed cell size and (near) infinite zoom. You can vary the size/scale of any imported image and perform a continuous zoom from a solar system down to a keyboard.

Unlike DF, where a bed is always (say) two cells by one, you can use the same bed image in VD for a giant or a dwarf simply by scaling it on the map. The grid is a guide, not a cage.

You don't need to set your map extents in advance, either, you can add more whenever you want.

Well, I'm not sure I understand the bit about the DF grid being a cage. You can rescale any object on the map at any time. There's no equivalent zoom (though the VD one was too slow for me to be usable), but you can decide what pixel size the grid runs to when you set the map up (anything from 20x20 to 512x512 - which means it can go much more detailed than nearly all the images available on the net) and obviously it is up to you what scale the grid represents. You do have to set the map size in advance though (but it can be much bigger than most practicable uses).

I didn't really see VD being a tile mapper but more of an image placer (I might be wrong on this though). If that's the case, then the grid has a different function in the two progs. In DF the grid/cell size is primarily set to manage the initial scaling of objects, BUT it's main use is to enable tiling. You can use the grid for maps/battlemaps etc, but you don't have to, and could always overlay a grid of a different size.

I wanted to take advantage of the extra detail VD can handle and wanted to step up from the old tile images.

I don't see how VD can handle extra detail; DF can handle any size/detail image out there, as tiles or objects, at a decent speed (and the maximum cell size could always be upped, if it proved a restriction in the future).

What VD does have though, is the zoom feature. I can see that would be very useful if it works for you. It also seems to work as a campaign/terrain mapper, whereas DF is primarily a battlemap prog (MapX being the one with the campaign/terrain features). DF is also limited in terms of building shapes etc; it is possible to work around this - and can be done fast with some prior preparation - but it doesn't do it 'out of the box'.

DF is free though; VD is $27 (approx). You make your choice and pay, or don't pay, your money.

I'm not intending to be negative about VD generally - it just didn't work well on my system though it clearly does on lots of others, including yours.

One thing worries me though - If you try out Viewingdale, I fear for the continued existance of Dungeonforge...

No need to worry about that
Do remember that I'm just a user; didn't program, couldn't program: I use lots of graphics progs (including Photoshop, GIMP, the Corel progs, Inkscape etc etc) which I use for a lot of things including maps. I agreed to keep DF/MapX available and will do that whatever progs I use, or whether I do any mapping at all; I'll also help people out if they have any problems. I also keep DungeonCrafter 1 & 2 (& image sets) available, though not DC3 as I don't have permission for that; long time since I used DC to actually do a map I wanted to use. I also occasionally visit and contribute to the DC3 forum - rather more than the Crew have done Where possible, I try out all the other progs that seem worth trying as they become available and certainly read feature lists, reviews etc.

Have tried DJ, but found it too slow and 'clunky' for me, and very limited in terms of map size and cell size (though I mostly do small maps now for use in BRPG). Lots of nice features, and DJ2 might have been interesting - if it had ever seen (will see?) the light of day. Certainly better than DF for its feature set, and worse for speed, map and cell size and price.

Haven't actually tried CC3 as there doesn't seem to be a trial and I'm not keen on getting to try it by paying money over first and getting it back if I don't like it. How many of the various packs would I really want? Would I want to buy everything just to see (with the 15% discount) and then get the money back and rebuy those packages I want? Too many decisions for me to get that far. Also put off a bit by complaints abouts its complexity - and I do see that its very long history might have become a bit of an obstacle in development terms - but I've never really had any problems with complex progs or CAD progs so I'd be quite confident of managing it fast enough (ie within the 14 day cashback limit). Some quite attractive symbols and maps though. And the zoom looks good.

Of the commercial RPG mapping progs, the one I'd be mostly likely to hand cash over for is FM8. Really a functioning superset of MapX rather than DF, though I don't remember it doing tiling (I need to have another look). Zoom very good, easy to use (at least I found it easy); might still use DF for some/many of the battlemaps if I were using it. Don't like the look of the symbols as they appear published or in the trial though - but then no real need to use them.

And for a fair few maps, I will use Photoshop et al for all or part of the process as many people here do. But I don't find these progs as fast as these purpose designed RPG mappers for producing 'realistic', atmosphere enhancing battlemaps.

Will probably have another look at MapTools soon. BRPG's own mapping ability has improved over time, and I assume MapTools will have done too, though I don't expect VTTs to compete with mapping progs for basic mapping.

If you give it a go, check out the blog in my signature, Redrobes gave me some personal tutorials there when I hit problems and misunderstandings. There's some useful help info there.

I'll have a look at that - though not to the extent of reinstalling - any extra info on it on a working system will be good to have.

[dormouse]

BUT it definitely does need a reasonable graphics card, the sort you would use for games. Tho nowadays thats not so much of an issue as when I first released it. Anything with 32Mb or more on board graphics card RAM like the old nVidia AGP ones through to the ultra modern PCIe2 types. Theres a free test utility you can download from my site to test the graphics system speed and tell you what you have running and where this may or may not be a problem for the app.

Hmmm, I replied to Icosahedron before seeing this

I just tried the test utility and it says my system is too slow
That explains the problems I had, though I would have expected my graphics card to be good enough though it was chosen for resolution not gaming.
Radeon 3650 with 768MB RAM, now that I have checked. But I do run lots of progs and 2 monitors (one 24" and one 22").

It is raster - at least I would say it is. For certain, it does not take in any vector formats like SVG or has any line or shape drawing abilities. Everything is done using raster bitmaps.
...

So since the app has no base bitmap and everything is on stretchy rubber then there are no virtually no borders and no limits to the extents or zoom factor. The res of all icons shown is still limited to that of the images making up the icons tho so you might need a world, some regions, a town and a floor plan maps all done to zoom between outer space and crack in the floor. The apps job is to take care of the scaling of the images and blending between them to pick the right one at the right time and deliver the seamless experience.

Yes, this is what I thought. The zoom feature is very good (at least on systems that can handle it), but will be limited by the detail available on the image whereas vectors just have descriptions that zoom at all scales precisely - but there's a limit to the complexity of an image that this can be done with.

It sounds like a very good way of doing what it does, though I don't see it as being like DF - or indeed any of the other progs out there. I'm not convinced that FM8 or CC3 are good for fast, good battlemaps - though I'll investigate more - I think that DF and DJ can do this - and I suspect that VD does too. And VD adds the option to zoom regionally etc which would be good in lots of situations, especially if using it like a VTT.

[RPMiller]

dormouse, if you have Java installed you could also give MapTool a try. The link is in my sig. The newest development version was just released and has had a bunch of new features and tweaks added. It is very similar to VD as far as capabilities, but I suspect has lower system requirements.

[dormouse]

I load MapTool periodically. Very good prog, wonderful community, though I'm surprised that you say it is similar to VD for capabilities. Last time I tried MT it had nothing like the zoom in VD, nor the detail facility described by Icosahedron. Very clever idea using the graphics card for the processing in VD and I'm surprised that more of these progs don't do that (or maybe they do?), since that is what a lot of users will have sitting available not doing very much when mapping.

For VTT capabilities I use BRPG and am happy to stick to that for my own campaigns, though also happy to use MT. Not that I have ever been able to keep up with the constant state of change/improvement in MT (or in BRPG if it comes to that).

I do need to look at the mapping capabilities in MT and also to catch up with the current state of play in BRPG. One of the things I like about FM8 is the large number of available layers; very easy to have one/more for the items that would be added/moved in VTT play; can do that in progs that have fewer layers, but mostly that is by saving the base and then doing a map on top with the extra items.

I see you also use FT & presumably CC3. I assume you do the battlemaps mostly in CC3 and then use them in MT?