Raster (bought) [e.g. Photoshop, PaintShopPro, Painter]
Raster (free) [e.g. GIMP]
Vector (bought) [e.g. Illustrator, Corel Draw, Xara]
Vector (free) [e.g. Inkscape]
Vector (Symbol driven) [e.g. CC, Dunjinni]
Online Generator [e.g. City Map Generator, Fractal World Generator]
Fractal Generator [e.g. Fractal Terrains]
3d modelling [e.g. Bryce, Vue Infinite, Blender]
Scanned hand drawn maps
Drawing Tablet and pen [e.g. Wacom]
Yes thats right. The path shown was an icon which is in itself made up from about 10 bits of path each of which was a drawn/scanned image. You can 'draw' paths out using a lot of bits of path but its not a vectorized line or area tool with fill like MT has got. That particular path comes with the box set. You can make up more like it yourself. I'll post another vid to explain.
I'll try to get a Vid2(b) version with a different codec. MediaCoder was playing silly buggers last night. I lost track of what codecs I used in the end. It ought to be XviD - VLC should play it ok and still does from the link for me.
It's the classic "Give 'em an inch" thing, the contributors have been coming up with the most creative ways to enhance the macro system. It's pretty crazy
I genuinely have no views about ViewingDale as a mapmaker, and when I look at it I'll try and work out what its strengths and weaknesses are. Because it does a lot of other things, I'd be suprised if it were better in all ways at making maps than CC3 (with addons) for example since CC3 (so far as I know) only makes maps and is pretty expensive as a total suite. From my brief view so far, ViewingDale seems quite a unique product..
But, personally, I don't usually find other people's conclusions very helpful in a review.
What I do like, and what I will do, is say what I did and what the outcomes were, and I'll make observations about the process of making the maps and using the program.
If any deficiencies in my methods or use of the prog are pointed out, I'll go back and do it again.
I might at some point produce a number of lists giving my opinion on the progs I have tested for various users and/or type of use - eg Progs in order of ease of use for casual users; Progs in order of versatility of mapping types etc etc; will depend on what sorts of lists (in my opinion) have a genuine hierarchy in the progs and might be helpful to others.
But I'm afraid the whole thing will be a slow, tortoise like (or should that be tortuous like?) process but hopefully fairly thorough (I'll be aiming at very) and transparent.
I'm using mostly Gimp and Inkscape because they are open source software and I can install them without problem on every computer I meet.
I'm also used to them, so I'm becoming quite efficient with their tools.
I have pretty much all the relevant pure graphics progs, so no problems in testing those.
DJ & FM have demos mostly limited by no save/print and limited art. Able to use your own art. So I don't see any problem with reviewing those (I'll just use screenshots to show the maps; should be good enough). CC3 has a moneyback period: so as long as I finish within it, I should be able to do that; means I need to be careful about when I start on it though; also means that I'll read as much as possible beforehand, so I'm ready to go pretty quickly when I get it (slightly concerned about the learning curve people describe and having enough time to do it justice).
You may want to take a look around FUM.com. They specialize in the VTT aspects, but have a bunch of stuff in that realm including comparison tables and whatnot. I think they have a comprehensive list of all the VTTs that are out there as well.
From this page:
I found this page:
They used to have a different table, but this one has some of the mainstream ones. It would be nice if folks could and more apps to that table and really make it more comprehensive.