Mapping software for a total idiot

[Master of the Game]

Thanks for the help all. A friend of mine has CC3 and showed me how to use it a bit better. For me it seems a lot easier than CC2, but then again, I'm a complete idiot when it comes to these things.

 

[3catcircus]

I happen to think that's inexcusable software design. You may have a different opinion - but if I may be so bold - only one of those two opinions would be correct.

Spoken like someone who obviously has no clue about the basis of the program. the CC products are CAD-based, not bitmap paint programs. As such, what you consider to be inexcusable software design is really outstanding software design. Unless/until you work with CAD software on a daily basis, you have no idea about what you are talking about. Just because it isn't intuitive to you doesn't make it bad design. For those of us who are familiar with CAD software, the interface is easy to use.

More importantly, that steep learning curve also means that it is much more powerful than a paint program or a tile-based mapper...

 

[jaerdaph]

Thanks for the help all. A friend of mine has CC3 and showed me how to use it a bit better. For me it seems a lot easier than CC2, but then again, I'm a complete idiot when it comes to these things.

Don't be so hard on yourself. My background is in the arts and nonprofit administration, and CAD and all that implies was a foreign world to me back in the day when CC2 was first released. Long story short: if I can do it, anyone can.

I have to say the greatest addition to the CC program over the years have been the drawing tools. In the old days, just to draw a land mass you had to go through so many steps and deal with strange things like mutlipolies and entity order and copying and moving between layers and changing fill styles abd colors and yadda yadda yadda. Now you just click on a button and draw a land mass with a tool that handles all that for you behind the scenes.

 

[jaerdaph]

More importantly, that steep learning curve also means that it is much more powerful than a paint program or a tile-based mapper...

Profantasy has done a great job to reduce that steep learning curve over the years, mostly by "hiding" a lot of that CAD engine power. Features in CC3 like the drawing tools I mentioned earlier and the option for the "simple" toolbar user interface as opposed to the full interface help a lot with the intimidation factor.

But the powerful CAD engine is under the hood when you need it and are ready for more.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

I have Campaign Cartographer 2, but I just can't seem to figure it out. I mean, I can make a map (more or less), but it seems a lot slower and harder than it needs to be. This is almost definitely my fault, but it doesn't help me much to know I'm an idiot. I need a solution.

The truth seems to be that it doesn't really matter WHAT software you use for making maps. The results you get out of them correspond to the time you put into them, and knowing HOW to obtain the results you want (i.e. familiarity with the software and resources for it).

Campaign Cartographer, whether CC2, CCpro, or CC3, is both better and poorer for being directly based upon CAD software. As has been mentioned it makes the software more powerful, but it also means that most users are going to be utterly unfamiliar with its ways and will have to LEARN to make it work for them. CC then, IMO, is the software of choice for those who desire to make their cartography almost as much of a hobby in and of itself.

It is a mantra of CC users that you MUST do the tutorials that CC comes with. It is the single best thing you can do to get yourself most familiar with how to make things work for you on a basic level before you then devote learning time and effort into really getting what you want. Even before cc3 the results for the best users could be quite staggering. Now that CC3 makes so much heavier use of non-vector elements like PNG symbols, bitmap fills, and lighting effects you can get much better looking results much quicker and easier - but you STILL have to expect to put more work into it to get better results out of it.

I can't really speak to how other mapping software works. I've only ever used CC. I had it for about a year before I finally put time into making it work. Since then my abilities with it get both better and worse over time. I tend to use it in streaks, at times spending all my spare time working on new map projects and improving my skills, and then going for four months without using it at all and having to relearn a few things when I start up again.

I bought CC3 as soon as it came out but I have yet to spend any time with it to actually DO something with it. I actually still use CC2 instead because I'm procrastinating having to learn new ins and outs of CC3.

My old way has always been to hand-draw maps, scan them in, and photoshop them into something readable (not that my photoshop skill are all that great either ). I can do that if I have to, but I was hoping there are some easier to use mapping programs out there that allow the creativity impaired among us to make decent looking maps.

If you can spend the time to hand-draw maps, scan them, and then also photoshop them, then you have time to do the CC2 tutorials and then use it to produce CC2 copies of your maps that you can then continue to improve over time as you learn more about CC, AND about what it is you want and need from the maps you produce. Depending on what your hand-drawing skills actually ARE, if they are in fact anything like mine then at the very least your CC2 maps will be produced faster, look cleaner, will be vastly more consistent, and best of all have the advantage of being able to endlessly tinker with them to improve them.

I tend to strip the oldest, crudest, least impressive CC efforts off my website, so what I have there is mostly the few things I think I really did well at from a LOT of poor to mediocre efforts, but if I can learn to produce stuff like what I have at http://home.earthlink.net/~duanevp/cc2/cc2.htm then so can you.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Thanks for the help all. A friend of mine has CC3 and showed me how to use it a bit better. For me it seems a lot easier than CC2, but then again, I'm a complete idiot when it comes to these things.

CC3 is a whole lot easier, and even your early, fumble fingered, maps will look better. It does not take long to master, not at all at all. (Yes, I like this program, can you tell? ) Compared to CC2 this is a walk in the park. I am one of the folks who used to grouse about CC2's learning cliff - CC3 is both easier and does better looking maps

As a side note - I have never done the tutorial for CC3, and am fairly happy with my maps.

The Auld Grump, pretty, pretty maps....

 

[Ebonyr]

I would try a autorealm
http://www.gryc.ws/autorealm.htm

or a free hexmapper
http://home.paonline.com/zaikoski/ak/TOOLS.HTM#hexmapper

 

[SavageRobby]

I have Dundjinni and really like it. It is memory and CPU intensive, though - even on a machine with 2G memory. As long as you're looking for tactical maps, its a great tool.

I had real issues with CC2. I went through the CC2 tutorials on two different occasions, and still had scads of problems using the darn thing. I finally gave up. I'm tempted to try the new one, though - not only are the graphics a big step forward, they seem to have gotten the message and created an easier interface, and more importantly, easier ways to do simple things (like created landmasses).

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

I had real issues with CC2. I went through the CC2 tutorials on two different occasions, and still had scads of problems using the darn thing. I finally gave up. I'm tempted to try the new one, though - not only are the graphics a big step forward, they seem to have gotten the message and created an easier interface, and more importantly, easier ways to do simple things (like created landmasses).

And to reiterate - CC2/CC3 is based on CAD software. It is not like Photoshop, Paintshop, Etc. It works differently on quite a fundamental level in ways that most people are not used to. This makes it both more powerful, but requires more effort to learn because you have to alter some common assumptions about how and why things work the way they do. Making CC3 more user-friendly was non-trivial.