mapping programs

[loki44]

Over on another thread, regarding worst purchases, a number of people have mentioned hating Dundjinni. At least one bashed Campaign Cartographer. I own CC and really like it, though it is a bit time-consuming to learn to use all of its features, which I have by no means mastered. I was thinking about checking out Dundjinni for simplicity's sake, but now I'm hesitating. Those seem to be the two big mapping programs out there. Any others that people are using? I'm mostly interested in being able to create large scale world maps to which detail can be added as one zooms in on smaller spaces. I've had some luck using Fractal Terrains to create a world that makes sense and then exporting it into CC, but the world always looks great from a distance and less so as I zoom in.


Just realized I shoulda probably posted this thread in a different forum. Oh well...
Maybe one of the moderators will move it for me.

 

[KB9JMQ]

Well I own both CC and Dundjinni.
I like Dundjinni and it works fine for me. It was easy to learn to use.
I liked the look of CC but it was way to hard for me to grasp.
But in all fairness I make more dungeons than overland maps which is what I think CC is more suited for.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

I used CC a long time ago, but it was just too much work to crank stuff out. I got Dundjinni for Christmas, and while I haven't used it extensively, it is a heck of a lot easier to work with, and the output on the Phaser thermal wax printer is beautiful.

However, be aware that printing lots of full color maps from it can get expensive, especially if you mark up the maps during play and find yourself reprinting them every week. (I'm hoping someday the folks that make Tact-tiles will put out a transparent set that I could slip the maps under.)

There is also a fair amount of user-created stuff ranging from new textures and placeable objects to full-blown, ready-to-use maps available at the Dundjinni site (although the site doesn't lend itself well to making it easy to browse).

If you are looking for something to create professional looking maps for publication, then CC is a better choice. Dundjinni has a far better work/results ratio, IMHO.

 

[Odhanan]

I own both CC and Dundjinni myself, and use only the later when I'm not drawing the maps myself.

Dundjinni is an awesome software. The only "problem" I see is that it uses a damn lot of RAM, but with 256 MB it's just fine.

 

[Samothdm]

I have Fractal Mapper, which is I think the 3rd main program that people use. I haven't really used it yet. I'd much rather see someone else use it or have someone teach me than try to sit down and figure it out myself.

 

[Nathal]

For overland maps I like hexmapper. However, for zooming in to scale there is nothing better than CC2.

Personally, I just use hexmapper, and then draw up "flowchart" style maps for other areas.

 

[Nathal]

If you are looking for something to create professional looking maps for publication, then CC is a better choice. Dundjinni has a far better work/results ratio, IMHO.

Although, I still think handrawn maps done by a good artist are the most professional looking.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I myself am a publisher, quite familiar with all sorts of cartographic needs. I know SteelWind is no technical slouch, and his "day job" (as I understand it) is creating Neverwinter Nights maps/textures/objects/etc. (That's two of the four folks from the other thread who didn't like Dundjinni.)

So I wonder if the disparity in folks who use and actually like Dundjinni has anything to do with the user's technical proficiency and expectations.

For the record, my machine is a 2 gig processor with 512K RAM, and Dundjinni doesn't "run" on this machine so much as "crawl."

In every respect it's inferior to what I can do with Photoshop. I might as well-- and in fact, I do-- just take all that great Dundjinni user art (which comes in .PNG format) right into Photoshop for layout.

There's absolutely no reason for me to suffer through Dundjinni's shortcomings.

For someone with less technical proficiency (and less demanding needs) I can see how Dundjinni might suffice-- but I'm building HUGE, detailed maps with many, many textures and objects. My collection of user art is about 1.5 gig, at last count. There's no way I could manage that amount of art inside the Dundjinni interface.


Wulf

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

Although, I still think handrawn maps done by a good artist are the most professional looking.

Of course. But most of us don't have one of them chained up in the basement.

 

[Odhanan]

In every respect it's inferior to what I can do with Photoshop. I might as well-- and in fact, I do-- just take all that great Dundjinni user art (which comes in .PNG format) right into Photoshop for layout.

When you have a huge amount of materials, and are at ease with Photoshop, this is indeed a good solution if dundjinni "crawls". I think that dundjinni is adapted for small dungeon-scale maps, but not huge ones with lots of graphic details and layers. It runs fine for me, on my 256 MB-of-RAM computer, but I use photoshop to edit my own art and realize complex to specific cartography.

For someone with less technical proficiency (and less demanding needs) I can see how Dundjinni might suffice-- but I'm building HUGE, detailed maps with many, many textures and objects. My collection of user art is about 1.5 gig, at last count. There's no way I could manage that amount of art inside the Dundjinni interface.

"Less", I don't think so, but "different" needs and skills, certainly.