they are maps made for books and to be printed....they aren't nearly as interesting as you can make on foundry at all. U said yourself, "usable".....
Ugh. 200 pixels per square? My poor computer would die. I have no idea why people seem to need these immense maps. 50 pixels per square is more than enough.
Always a good call. "Oh you're paying, why that's all you had to say!"
Unfortunately, I have no interest in Phandelver and Below because a) I don't like the direction it took (it's jarring tone shift), b) I already imported LMoP from D&D Beyond into Foundry quite a while ago, and c) I already ran LMoP for my group. So, this (along with CoS, which I'm playing in) is the pretty much my last choice of adventures to release for Foundry.
It looks very pretty in foundry. And it's so easy to open a scene with everything there! I just wish they had permission to update the maps with better art. We'll play next week, I'll know more then.
Also keep in mind that 'better' is very subjective.
Without discussion! But it isn't as bad as you might think, Cragmaw castle is a 6400 pixel x 4600 pixel map, compressed with WebP and only 2.5MB big. If your PC has issues with that, it's really old!
It's more that my players and myself are scattered across a couple of continents. Which can make map loading and whatnot really challenging. I pretty much limit myself to under 1Mb for any single image. By the time you add in dynamic lighting, a bunch of tokens, and whatnot, that's about all we can handle before things start grinding to a halt.@Hussar This is a potato free zone!
Thanks for checking on this. That's what I thought but I didn't want to say anything without knowing more. One of the things about the official Foundry adventures is that they look amazing. My players who use other VTTs have told me they were switching as soon as something like the 3.0 update happened (we use PF2 and Abomination Vaults although I've run the Beginner's Box and a little of Season of Ghosts).
