D&D 5E Mapping Software Input [What's in your wallet?]

[3catcircus]

Can you elaborate on why vector graphics are so much better suited for this task?

Vector graphics are mathematical models of shapes. They present the same image quality regardless of scaling. You can create a battlemap in CC3 on an A4 size canvas, scale it so that 25mm = 1.5m or 1 in = 5 ft or 8 in = 10 km and it will look exactly the same - no loss of image quality.

The other thing is that you can easily turn the image into a wireframe - not that important for fantasy maps, but great for turning that map into something that could be used for 3d printing (fold up cardstock, dwarven forge molds, etc.)

Also - a raster image will result in larger file sizes the larger you make tje image, even though it may look prettier than a vector based one..

 

[LordEntrails]

This.

One of the other posts mentioned CC3 taking forever to render. If that is happening, the user is using it for something it was not primarily designed for.

Yep, most common cause for this is people turning on effects when they are just creating. With CC3+ on large maps you want to work with the effects off, and then just turn on effects when you are getting ready to render the omage.

Can you elaborate on why vector graphics are so much better suited for this task?

I think [MENTION=16077]3catcircus[/MENTION] covered it pretty well. In my exact simple I have a map that is something like 1600 x 2200 feet. I want to render it into a 24x36" poster map, which means 1/8" (printed) per 10 feet (say 300 ppi). And I want to render parts of it in pieces about 2000 pixels square with 20 pixels per foot. So, nice poster maps where you you see the rooms, doors, hallways, and statues. And then battle maps where you see torches, steps, flagstones, refuse on the floor, etc.

User raster images (i.e. Photoshop etc), I couldn't do the full detail in the total map, I would have to map separate image files for each room map. Way to much work.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

User raster images (i.e. Photoshop etc), I couldn't do the full detail in the total map, I would have to map separate image files for each room map. Way to much work.

So it's just the separate image files? Is that really so much more work as to be prohibitive?

The reason I'm asking is that I've got a vector-image outline of my world map in AutoRealm, and I'm creating detailed section maps in GIMP. The fact that I'm detailing in sections doesn't really seem to be the major time sink here. Even if I could do all the detailing to my satisfaction in AutoRealm in one file, I'd still have to, y'know, place all those details, and that's what's taking the time. So I was wondering if there was something I was missing. (Other than, y'know, a good vector graphics program. What can I say? I'm not made of money.)

 

[transtemporal]

So it's just the separate image files? Is that really so much more work as to be prohibitive?

The reason I'm asking is that I've got a vector-image outline of my world map in AutoRealm, and I'm creating detailed section maps in GIMP. The fact that I'm detailing in sections doesn't really seem to be the major time sink here. Even if I could do all the detailing to my satisfaction in AutoRealm in one file, I'd still have to, y'know, place all those details, and that's what's taking the time. So I was wondering if there was something I was missing. (Other than, y'know, a good vector graphics program. What can I say? I'm not made of money.)

It partly depends on what your target display is. If it's a monitor/TV, any old pixel/bitmap/raster editor will be fine. If you want to print it at all, then either you need to create a massive bitmap at very high rez (which is certainly possible given modern machine image processing capabilities) or have a vector map that scales up no matter what size you create it.

Printing aside, I use vector for the flexibility. If I decide I don't like the shape of a coastline, I can tweak it in my vector program and all of the water and land redraws itself. With a bitmap program, I might have to adjust the water and land layers by hand. Not a biggie, but it is a small time saver.

 

[LordEntrails]

So it's just the separate image files? Is that really so much more work as to be prohibitive?

The reason I'm asking is that I've got a vector-image outline of my world map in AutoRealm, and I'm creating detailed section maps in GIMP. The fact that I'm detailing in sections doesn't really seem to be the major time sink here. ...

But what happens now in one of the detail sections if you change the positionof a forest, wall, city or cost? It doesn't update the location in the master file or any other place where that information is duplcated.

If you are doing a world, then regional maps, then a local map and within the resolution/accuracy of the higher zoom map doesn't matter because you might only be moving a tree/treline one pixel on the higher level map.

But, something like a mega-dungeon, Where I start with a general layout (rooms, halls, etc) but then when I go detail a room I decide it's flooded with water, or has a statue, or something else that would show up in the poster map, I don't have to worry about updating the larger map file with the details. It just happens. Same thing if I decide to add or remove a door, or move a wall, or add stairs etc.

To me a great deal of it is accuracy, just not effort (though they are closely related).

 

[Satyrn]

I prefer making dungeon maps in vectors, too. It's so much easier to tweak things like the position of a door or statue, because I can just "pick up" the item and move it to its new location.

And reusing items is much easier too. Drawing straight walls, adjusting their length, changing their color with a click.

Editing is just so much easier.