Finding a comprehensive tutorials for fractal terrain 3

[roguefool]

Hello everyone,

I have been sifting through the Internet for a week now. Looking for good tutorials on how to create a world with Fractal Terrain 3. Which lead me here today. I sure there's something in here that I have total over look so please forgive me. I have Waldronate guide which helped, but I was look for more. My goal is to make a world from global to continental, regional, city, and house. I'm in this for the long run. I'm starting with FF3 first. l and may want to branch out a little to shine it up. But let's start with basics. Right now I get a world that looks like pigeon poop or a smashed bug. I would like to step it up from smashed bug to let's say ink blot or something that looks like a world. And I would like to load the finished world back into CC3 (multiple files) for my second step. Where should I start? I will try it all.

Cheers and Thank you all-

[mbartelsm]

I'd recommend this one: http://www.worldofgotha.com/PF_TUTOR...rah_index.html

It uses FT3 and Wilbur, which is freeware. Wilbur can be downloaded from here: http://www.fracterra.com/wilbur.html

[waldronate]

I will assume that you've already read http://www.fracterra.com/CGTutorial/index.html and http://www.fracterra.com/ThereandBackAgain/index.html for inspiration.

These questions may sound impolite (and they are to some extent), but they are important questions:

Do you have a clear idea of what you want? If you're not sure what you want, any tool can get you that. If you want something very precise, FT probably can't get you what you want. If you have a good idea of what you want (number, size, and relation of continents; general placement of mountains; general placement of rivers) then FT can probably get you what you want. If FT can't, then Wilbur probably can.

What style of map(s) do you want to produce? The style that you're looking to produce has a huge impact on the sort of materials that you need to generate as input to the process. One area in FT that is sorely deficient is producing finished maps. It does well for basic contours, but lacks annotations such as text, symbols, and lines. It can change projections for you, which is a nice feature: it's hardly unique these days, though. Many people like to just generate an image and trace over that image in CC3.

How do you want to use you maps when you start to get a number of them done? Are you planning to link them together into a single atlas-like entity? Is each map purely standalone? FT does offer an "export multiple maps" feature that can do some basic linking (see the dangly bit on http://www.fracterra.com/mars/index.html for a very early example), but I don't recommend use of the multiple maps feature because it slices and dices without context (quite aside from a pernicious scaling bug). I recommend instead finding views that you like and then saving those views with View>>Add View. View>>View Window will then have a list of the saved views that saves with your FTW file. You can then batch export those views to get a more useful and controllable view. No automatic linking of maps, but that's easy enough to do in CC3.

Do you hope to annotate maps in CC3 and then put those annotations back into the FT map? Unfortunately, that's not possible at this time. The FT to CC path is pretty much one way. If I can convince a certain lazy programmer to get off of his bloated backside and write some features for FT, then things might get a little easier. I haven't had much luck in the last few years, but I try again from time to time.

You have probably noticed that the questions aren't really about technical things at all, but about planning your maps. Any large creative endeavor requires planning and practice. I recommend spending some time doing little maps that aren't part of your project in order to learn to use the tools. Personally, I find it a little disheartening to have a grand vision and get blobby bit of pigeon poo. I'd rather that the poo be generated as part of things that I'm not terribly attached to.

[roguefool]

Thank you both for the links.

Waldronate I didn’t find your answer impolite in the least. It shows you have answered this question a billon times before and still have it in you to answer it once again. I respect that a lot. Thank you.

I eventually want an Atlas of a fantasy world that’s been in the making for thirty years. What attracted me the Fractal Terrains was the fast generation of world and the linking together of maps. I want to map out a continent down to the floor plan of a house/dungeon/cave. I have FT3, CC3, CD3, DD3 in my tool box for a start. My logical view point to start with is the Continent. Like you suggested I’m creating small practice pieces. I’m learning the tools. At this point in the creation process I’m not sure which style I will go with. I have seen so many I like that it becomes over whelming to choose. At this point it’s all about learning the tools I have, the tools I need and some I don’t, then the technique of the process. I’m one of those technical artists that truly starts at step one and embraces the whole journey.

I would like to cut down the trial and error time and the searching through so much information. That’s why I came here to learn from the pros. I thank you for your insight and knowledge.



Here’s a couple of questions.



How to link views of separate maps?



Is it better to start with a flat world then add mountain and rivers in CC3 for a better control of your map?



What is Wilbur used for?



What is Gimp used for?



Is Photoshop overrated or not so much?



Thanks-

[waldronate]

My opinion of the CC3/CC3+ products is that their value lies in the available symbol packs (especially the annuals) more than in the actual software itself. Don't get me wrong, the software is very useful and really eases use of the symbol packs, but the moderately steep learning curve puts a lot of people off. Once you get over the hump of learning to use CC3 (run through the tutorials three to four times), it's pretty simple to use and a lot of time has been put into streamlining the toolsets. Until then, it can be a bear to work with, especially if you are adept at using other drawing software packages.


In CC3, there is a hotspot entity that you can add to maps. This hotspot can perform a number of actions when clicked, including opening another map. Using images files and some HTML (or using SVG if that's more your thing) allows the same sort of linking to be done in a non-CC3 context.


One thing that I have noticed about people is that they tend to want to make one huge map with everything on it. This idea of a single map cluttered with everything imaginable is at odds with the basic idea of a map: an abstraction of a place showing elements important to the client for whom the map was done. As an example, I probably don't want to show all of the woodcutter's hovels in Transylvania if my map done for the king about trade by rivers in the kingdom. The information might be interesting and it might be tangentially relevant, but it's not really supporting the purpose of the map. Similarly, a whole-world map probably isn't going to show every stream and village: only important features. Regional maps will show more local detail and so on. People seem to gravitate to FT because they get the big-map idea in their head; FT works far better for world and regional maps in a style closer to a modern atlas. For styles more closely linked to medieval and age of exploration maps, tracing over an FT map in CC3 using a suitable style is far more likely to get good results. The FT mountains and rivers are good for keeping track of the placement of larger features and for getting data consistently into a proper projection for presentation. Until such time as I get around to adding vector annotations and symbols to FT, that's probably all FT will be good for as far as the CC3 ecosystem goes (and that was its original intended use, so I did something mostly right).


Wilbur is, at its heart, a piece of grayscale image processing software with some very peculiar notions about the display of its image as well as some rather idiosyncratic processing. Wilbur is also the direct ancestor of Fractal Terrains. Wilbur offers some image processing filters that give results that are broadly similar to certain physical processes such as erosion. It also has some display options (including 3D) that help with the illusion of terrain. See also http://www.cartographersguild.com/al...p?albumid=4578 and http://www.cartographersguild.com/sh...t=33087&page=2 and http://www.cartographersguild.com/sh...ad.php?t=29412 and http://www.cartographersguild.com/sh...ad.php?t=28371 and http://www.cartographersguild.com/showthread.php?t=2771 and - well, you get the idea. A search for "Fun With Wilbur" here will turn up many, many threads.


The GIMP and Photoshop both fall into the category of painting/image processing programs. There are many, many other painting programs, but those are the two best-known ones after MS Paint (which comes with Windows). They offer broadly similar features these days. I have a preference for Photoshop because I have many hours invested in learning its use. Some folks prefer the GIMP because they have invested lots of time in its use (and because it didn't cost them cash up front to procure). Each group will point to one or another feature peculiar to their package of choice and loudly proclaim how that feature clearly validates their own choice and how you would clearly be an idiot to not listen to their superior intellect and choose that package.

What are they good for? Lots of things. If you have artistic talent, you can draw the entire map from scratch. Some folks like to draw on paper and use their paint tool to clean up the scan and add labels. I like to produce different layers in Wilbur and assemble them in Photoshop get a final result, including labeling. One thing that I like about Photoshop is that I can still use pretty much the same tools and keystrokes that I used way back when I started with it many years ago. The GIMP has undergone a good bit of flux and I didn't really recognize the UI the last time that I tried to use it; it is probably stable for a bit. I had the same complaint about MS Office, though, and I was able to get working with it in not too much time.

As I've said before, try out several tools on small projects and pick the one that you like the best. If you're doing mapping, try several tutorials here at the guild relating to the tools. You'll be spending a lot of time with your tool of choice, so the initial acquisition cost (ranging from trivial to substantial) is likely to be a fairly small investment in the grand scheme of things. Some folks find that the initial cash outlay for tools like software or a tablet makes them more likely to practice with them. Some folks get bored and give up, making any cash investment a bit of a waste. Like so many things in life, it ultimately comes down to motivation more than choice of tools.

OK, I'm starting to rant again. I hope I answered at least some of your questions in a satisfactory manner.

[Gamerprinter]

I prefer to use a vector drawing application (such as Illustrator, Inkscape or Xara Designer Pro - I use the latter) rather than an image editor (such as Photoshop or GIMP), because I prefer to draw rather than paint. However, either way I prefer a standard graphics application, rather than a mapping program like Fractal Terrain or Campaign Cartographer. Rather than importing symbols as icons, I create all my own icons in the same application I create my maps. While some might be intimidated by a blank page, I prefer to start from scratch with a full toolset of options to create with, and is why I prefer standard graphics applications to create with.

[johnvanvliet]

starting with one small area might not be the best -- but for you it might ?

i would start with a low res WORLD map say a 4096x2048 px map in simple cylindrical
for example :
a random file i had laying around ( 2048x1024 px)

( mostly random software generated )

then zoom in on an area and use the "zoom in's" to make a larger map say at 16384x8192
then repeat and add detail to a say 65536x32768 map

and from that do a city and state level maps for the local area

or you can do it in reverse
BUT

knowing what the final "should" look like will help