Still looks good though...
Wow compressing the files to such a small size is a big pain
indexing colors, cropping out huge portions of the original, and giving up a great deal of detail and I'm not sure if the end product is worth all the effort
nor do i think i completely understand the pixel to feet ratio
### Latest WIP ###
Last edited by mathuwm; 05-10-2008 at 09:32 PM.
Still looks good though...
Google Groups for FGII Games:
European FG2 RPG - Fridays & Sundays (8pm UK time)
Using Ultimate FGII and can accept unlicensed player connections on some of the games
This is a post from the challenge description. http://www.cartographersguild.com/sh...87&postcount=8
and my entry,
basically just add ### Latest WIP ### to the end of your post.
If you're not going to print, just ignore dpi. All it can do is confuse things.
Generally speaking, printing will require more resolution than a VTT, so if you're designing for both simultaneously, make your dpi setting a multiple of your pixel / unit scale, output your print version, then resample and output your screen version.
To illustrate, using the given numbers:
1 inch = 5 feet.
40 pixels = 5 feet.
Therefore, 40 pixels = 1 inch gives 40dpi, which is not enough for printing.
If you design at 160 dpi, though, then you know that once you're done, you can resample everything to 25% original resolution and get your 40px = 5 feet for the VTT.
A 24 X 32 inch battlemat will be 3840 X 5120 pixels and cover an imaginary area of 120 X 160 feet. (1 in = 5 ft = 160px)
Resampling for the screen at the desired scale will give a 960 X 1280 image covering an area of 120 X 160 feet. (40 px = 5 ft. Inches are irrelevant)
I hope that helps and I haven't obfuscated the matter further!
Midgard, this helps a lot. I think I live in a world where everything is reversed as my VTT is far far higher res than print. All the icons are more like vector than raster and are store w.r.t the map real size not a battle mat scale. I don't think about dpi at any stage until I get to print it at which point I usually just stab in 600dpi and scale 1:60 and let it render some huge file.
Say you were in Inkscape then. I don't know the app that well but I assumed that you enter all the vector stuff in at real world scaling and then when you come to print it you rasterize it for the printer at a chosen scale and dpi. I would imagine that you don't think about the dpi whilst mapping it.
Its all very curious and I sure as hell wouldn't want to scale down all my images before making the original map so that they were 160dpi. That feels very counter productive to me - sorta locks you into one scale because of the printer demands.
Well, by all means work at the highest resolution you expect to need. As you know, it's always better to scale down than up.
I haven't used Inkscape, but I am somewhat proficient with CorelDRAW. That app used a paper-shaped workspace and measured everything in relation to the print size. As long as you're still using standard font measurements, the "actual" size of your design is going to come into play one way or another.
Theoretically, though, you could work at whatever scale you want, and the app shouldn't ask you for resolution of any kind until it's time to print.
In CC, you actually do work in real-world units. Scaling is done at export or print.
Viewingdale is kind of its own animal, of course. The general guidelines that apply to raster applications don't necessarily work quite as well there. To be honest, I have a bit of a hard time wrapping my head around it as it relates to resolution.
We probably ought to move this conversation out of this challenge entry thread, though! Sorry for the threadjack, mathuwm.