D&D 5E Noob Question: Profantasy Software (Campaign Cartographer)

[Denalz]

[*]When you export to CC, the color scheme needs to be the Default color scheme. (I haven't tried every last one, but I have tried several and none but Default have worked.) Others seem to produce blank screens in CC. (And if you use the Info>List function in CC, indeed you will see what appears to be a bunch of polygons with no vertices.)

Hey there! Thank you so much for taking the time to give me such a detailed response. It always helps to hear other's thoughts and tips. As far as the quote from above goes I happen to know what your problem is... all the color schemes do work *BUT* when you export them to CC at first they will look blank because what you are actually looking at is a massively zoomed in corner of your map. You need to go to the upper right hand side of the screen and hit the "zoom to fit" button (it looks like a magnifying glass with a full rectangle drawn around it). Then you will be able to see the entire map. It took me a while and plenty of frustration to figure that one out.

 

[Denalz]

I think they have a dedicated forum, too. Not saying "take it elsewhere", lol, just saying you may try there as well, and may get faster responses. I haven't used CC software in a long time so am of little help now.


Sent from my iPhone using EN World mobile app

Thank you anyway. And yeah, I'm aware of the forum and already have my question posted there and a few other places. As I suspected however, enworld is the only place I've gotten any responses from yet. Love it here.

 

[Harzel]

Hey there! Thank you so much for taking the time to give me such a detailed response. It always helps to hear other's thoughts and tips. As far as the quote from above goes I happen to know what your problem is... all the color schemes do work *BUT* when you export them to CC at first they will look blank because what you are actually looking at is a massively zoomed in corner of your map. You need to go to the upper right hand side of the screen and hit the "zoom to fit" button (it looks like a magnifying glass with a full rectangle drawn around it). Then you will be able to see the entire map. It took me a while and plenty of frustration to figure that one out.

You are correct that when first opened in CC, a world exported from FT will show a highly zoomed corner of the map. However, for me, some of these maps still seem to be totally blank (even after using "zoom to fit"). Further experimentation has shown, though, that the problem I mentioned seems to limited to export definitions that produce detailed altitude information. For example, even with a color scheme other than Default, the export definitions "Altitude Low Detail", "Fast Export", and "Overview" look like they work fine, whereas "Altitude High Detail", "Basic 1000 Contours", and "Full Export" manifest the problem.

And I tried just now to upload an example file for you, but EnWorld rejected it because it was too large. So I went back and tried exporting just a small part of the world. That did produce a smaller file, but much to my surprise it could be imported into CC just fine! So the problem really seems to be sensitive to a number of conditions. However, by generating a simpler world, I have managed to create file small enough to be uploaded that still exhibits the problem.

View attachment flatmodalthigh31.fcw

If you find a way to open this in CC so that the world is visible, please let me know.

Finally, I was incorrect about Raise/Lower Prescale Offset not being on the toolbar. They are right there, readily available. Sorry about that. I will edit my previous post.

 

[Soul Stigma]

Thank you anyway. And yeah, I'm aware of the forum and already have my question posted there and a few other places. As I suspected however, enworld is the only place I've gotten any responses from yet. Love it here.

Go figure!

 

[LordEntrails]

I'll only comment on a couple of things. Just my perspective and not sure they will help, but think it's only right to present more than one perspective.

• ProFantasy documentation sucks. Actually 'sucks' is much too mild a word for it. It will be unfortunate if I ever meet any of their project managers, as I might be inclined to violence. Well, ok, maybe that is hyperbole, but they would certainly get an earful. Not that it would really accomplish anything, I expect.

I don't have a problem with it. I find the tutorial method they use to actual be very informative, if you do the tutorials. Someone looking for a reference guide or dictionary type documentation certainly would not like it.

• ProFantasy UIs suck. <insert similar rant here>

Again, I have no problem here, but then again I come from a CAD background so the UI is exactly what I expect and hope for. This, along with the Action-Object methodology, is discussed in the user manuals and it is repeatedly emphasized the need to adjust the user methodology to fit the software.

• I also purchased ProFantasy's Tome of Ultimate Mapping. From what I have seen so far (which is admittedly not a thorough reading) about 90% of it is literal cut and paste, word for word, from the Help files that come with the products. Again, I have found a few extra worthwhile hints, but I am still incensed at having paid $20 for it.

Interesting. Not my impression but it will be worth comparing the sources to see if this holds up.

Anyway, that's just my experience so far. I'll try to post as I find stuff out. If you find anything helpful, I would be eager to hear about it. Good luck.

FYI, I opened the FCW file you uploaded. And though there are some 900 entities on it and I could select over 100 of them, I still can not see any of them. Not sure why, though I do not have FT, I don't expect it to be required to see the entities and use CC commands.

 

[Harzel]

I have tried FT's "Simple Create Mode", since it's description would make one think that it is designed to support exactly the usage model that I want. However, the results are puzzling - the generated land and sea have no fractal character whatsoever. I think one must be supposed to take another step of some kind that, of course, is not described in the documentation. I am going to post this question on the ProFantasy boards and will report back if I get a useful answer.

I finally posted a question on the ProFantasy boards. Considering some of the harshness of my first post, I thought that I should report back that I got a response very promptly from the developer and the answer was detailed, understandable, and more than minimal. I haven't fully digested it yet, but, in fairness, I thought that I should report on the good service.

Also, it prompted me to look into some areas of the documentation that I had not looked at before (as it wasn't obvious they were relevant to what I was trying to do). It really does look like there is sophisticated cool functionality hanging out in FT, if only there were somewhere an explanation of its core concepts / data model that would help one to know exactly what the operations are doing.

 

[Harzel]

I'll only comment on a couple of things. Just my perspective and not sure they will help, but think it's only right to present more than one perspective.

Thank you for replying to provide a balancing perspective.

I don't have a problem with it. I find the tutorial method they use to actual be very informative, if you do the tutorials. Someone looking for a reference guide or dictionary type documentation certainly would not like it.

Probably no surprise that I do, in fact, greatly prefer reference-style documentation.

Again, I have no problem here, but then again I come from a CAD background so the UI is exactly what I expect and hope for. This, along with the Action-Object methodology, is discussed in the user manuals and it is repeatedly emphasized the need to adjust the user methodology to fit the software.

Yes, I noted their admonitions in the documentation, and I have used such software before, though on a very limited basis. I will merely observe that the fact that it is possible to adjust to a methodology does not necessarily make the methodology a good idea. OTOH, to be fair, just because it is different, does not make it bad.

Interesting. Not my impression but it will be worth comparing the sources to see if this holds up.

I checked some additional sections. There are, unfortunately, quite a few examples.

Anyway, thanks again for your reply. I certainly intend to keep trying, since some of the maps people produce with CC look very nice.

 

[LordEntrails]

...
Anyway, thanks again for your reply. I certainly intend to keep trying, since some of the maps people produce with CC look very nice.

I will add to this that I'm normally not a tutorial guy. But I have found with CC that doing the tutorials in the manual has indeed greatly shortened my learning curve.

I say the response from Joe on their forums and was hopeful that it would be helpful for you.