PDA

View Full Version : CC/FM/Other Symbol based software question



jfrazierjr
12-18-2008, 09:50 AM
Since I don't really use CC and that is the biggest symbol based software I know of, I have thought about creating some mountain symbols based off of my tutorial (http://www.cartographersguild.com/showthread.php?p=41416#post41416) style. Anyway, what is the general size in pixels people tend to make these at to both nice look and fairly decent file size in png format? Would 300 x 300 at 100 ppi be good or should it go higher or lower?

My thought was to do a few mountain symbols in a variety of orientations, including single mountains, a few 1-2-1 (one mountain on top, two below, one at the bottom), as well as a few that go diagonal \ and /. I also was thinking at least 3 different color pallets, brown, white and perhaps a grey? Thoughts?

Midgardsormr
12-18-2008, 01:52 PM
I'd go twice that size, just in case a user wants to print at a higher resolution. A one-inch mountain is probably sufficient for most uses, but it never hurts to be prepared for bigger ones. And since it's much easier to scale down than up...

I'd say a good rule of thumb for sizing raster assets should be to assume that it will be printed at 300 dpi, then set your pixel size a little higher than what you anticipate people will actually want to use. It'll make your file sizes rather larger, but it will also make the collection more generally useful.

That's just my opinion, of course, and if file size is of primary importance, then the equation changes. I suspect, though, that at the size you're working at, you'll easily be able to keep the project under 1 MB, unless you make a lot of mountains.

jfrazierjr
12-18-2008, 02:20 PM
I'd go twice that size, just in case a user wants to print at a higher resolution. A one-inch mountain is probably sufficient for most uses, but it never hurts to be prepared for bigger ones. And since it's much easier to scale down than up...

I'd say a good rule of thumb for sizing raster assets should be to assume that it will be printed at 300 dpi, then set your pixel size a little higher than what you anticipate people will actually want to use. It'll make your file sizes rather larger, but it will also make the collection more generally useful.

That's just my opinion, of course, and if file size is of primary importance, then the equation changes. I suspect, though, that at the size you're working at, you'll easily be able to keep the project under 1 MB, unless you make a lot of mountains.

Well.. my goal is to try to make 5-10 single mountains, a 2-3 1-2-1 mountains, and several 10-15 or so hill combinations. Then multiply that by 3 colors.

Ascension
12-18-2008, 05:29 PM
I'm with Midgard on the size thing...after all a future challenge will be that one where GamePrinter prints something at some freakishly huge size (or something like that). Plus, bigger things allows me more wiggle room to adapt and change things to how I want ;)

Redrobes
12-19-2008, 02:07 PM
You can always resample down but not so easy up. Having said that if its pen and ink B&W stuff then going up is ok so it makes little difference. Basically, make sure that whatever lines you draw on the page are at the very least 5 - 10 pixels wide.

jfrazierjr
12-19-2008, 02:08 PM
Thanks for the comment guys... here is the thread: http://www.cartographersguild.com/showthread.php?t=3728

Gamerprinter
12-19-2008, 02:58 PM
I'm with Midgard on the size thing...after all a future challenge will be that one where GamePrinter prints something at some freakishly huge size (or something like that). Plus, bigger things allows me more wiggle room to adapt and change things to how I want ;)

Since I'm not an online gamer at all, and I never heard of VTT until RPMiller introduced me to the idea over a year ago. I had never perceived a map to be less than large format size. Sure one can create a letter sized reduced version to be included in a PDF adventure, but for actual miniatures use you require large format. I don't think of it as freakishly huge. I generally think of screen resolution maps as freakishly tiny.

When you buy a boxed edition of a WotC campaign setting, it usually comes with a map that is at least 17 x 22 if not larger - is that freakish? I've never got a boxed edition with a postage stamp sized map. :P

The PNG mountain objects I created for my November 07 challenge are about 4 inches tall at 200 ppi each - that way a user can downsize to whatever they want or use at full scale for maps larger than I would make. The download zip file is still available in that thread, linked via my website. I created almost 200 mountains, hills, and other land forms. (All hand drawn work in that though.)

http://forums.cartographersguild.com/showthread.php?t=1105

I'm better informed these days, but I still think large format is the preferred size for maps, since most gamers I know use miniatures and play tabletop games.

GP

PS: now I bring a laptop with Character Tool for my character sheets in our weekend D&D game, and all the players, including the 20 year olds look at me like a freak that I'd bring a computer into tabletop game?!

ravells
12-21-2008, 01:10 PM
I love large format maps too. There's nothing like the feeling of unrolling one on the gaming table, one which has tonnes of information and locations on it and on which you have to weigh the corners down with whatever comes to hand.