Yawning Portal map quality

[Jamesr10]

Hey all. So, I've purchased Yawning Portal for Fantasy grounds. Overall, I am very happy with it, though I have to say that the maps have a fairly low resolution. When zooming in to put a standard size token on the map, the poor file size of the map REALLLLLLY shows.

Any chance we could get much higher quality maps implemented into this $40 purchase?

Thanks in advance for your time!

[Tinball]

I concur. Very poor resolution. I do not think I could use these in my campaign.

[Zacchaeus]

Any ones in particular?

I am restricted in that I have to keep map size below 1Mb and 2048x2048 resolution (as far as is possible to do so). In some cases I was able to chop the maps up so that they could be higher quality but it couldn't be done in a lot of cases. Additionally many of the maps are from the original adventures and so aren't high resolution to begin with. If I made them bigger then the pixellation would be worse.

[Gwydion]

Hey all. So, I've purchased Yawning Portal for Fantasy grounds. Overall, I am very happy with it, though I have to say that the maps have a fairly low resolution. When zooming in to put a standard size token on the map, the poor file size of the map REALLLLLLY shows.

Any chance we could get much higher quality maps implemented into this $40 purchase?

Thanks in advance for your time!

I'll admit I've only cracked the cover so to speak but I saw in the Tomb of Horrors a note that the overall map is really not intended to be used as the battlemap. It appears they have broken the maps into chunks that should be easier to use and better resolution. Now if those smaller maps are still not high quality, I see the issue. I'll look at them later and see what I think. Very excited to dive in!

[Tinball]

I concur. Very poor resolution. I do not think I could use these in my campaign.

[Trenloe]

Can people please post specific? What map/s are you referring to? A blanket statement doesn't really help to investigate/address.

[Jamesr10]

Ok so, I've now realized that the DM maps are a bit low res but the player maps are in good shape. Sorry for not fully investigating before starting this thread.

And, it was the maps for the hidden shrine btw...

[JohnD]

DM maps typically seem to be of lower resolution than the ones meant for actual play.

[Zacchaeus]

Yes, DM Maps are only for the DM; they contain information such as room numbers and secret doors etc which is not for the players to see. For DM Maps I typically shrink them to about 800 high or 1000 wide so that they fit into most screens without them being cut off top or bottom.

[dudeslife]

Was I the only one expecting Mike Schley maps for Against the Giants? His redux of the maps for Dungeon magazine were spectacular. I would have been totally cool with Wizards just using those. Thankfully they are available for purchase on his website so I am hoping they match up enough were we can just slide the pins onto his maps. :)

I am really disappointed with the map artwork for Giants..

The Mike Schley Giants maps are here

https://prints.mikeschley.com/p68123451

[hawkwind]

those maps are really good

[CelticAvenger!888]

Anyone else having issues accessing the Pin Links on the preloaded maps for The Tales from the Yawning Portal Module? As GM, I am unable to click on the pins to bring up the links for some reason.

[Trenloe]

Anyone else having issues accessing the Pin Links on the preloaded maps for The Tales from the Yawning Portal Module? As GM, I am unable to click on the pins to bring up the links for some reason.
Are you running any extensions? For example, the Enhanced Image extension that adds layers?

[CelticAvenger!888]

Yes, would that mess the maps up?

[LordEntrails]

Yes, would that mess the maps up?
Possible. Always test bugs with no extensions enabled before reporting them. It saves a lot of hassle for Mr. Z and directs the issues to where the belong (i.e. if it's unique to an extension, then it should be reported in that thread since the extension develop will need to resolve it, not SW).

[TMO]

Is there an official place to report problems with Yawning Portal module? I believe the pins at the bottom of the Tomb of Horrors Map-Three-Players image are swapped.

[Myrdin Potter]

Bug reports thread at the top of this forum is the best place to report issues with the official WoTC items.

[Zacchaeus]

Is there an official place to report problems with Yawning Portal module? I believe the pins at the bottom of the Tomb of Horrors Map-Three-Players image are swapped.

Yes, here (https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?34656-5e-Bug-Reports-(Continued)). And you are correct those two pins are incorrectly placed. I'll note that on my list (so you don't need to report it anywhere else)

[Trenloe]

Yes, would that mess the maps up?
If you're using the Enhanced Images extension (layers) it won't "mess" the maps up but you need to be aware of how the extension layers interact. I'd recommend reading the first couple of posts of the extension's thread. For example: "Shortcuts (pushpin) that link to campaign entries can be put on any layer - but they are only active (can be selected) on that layer, even though they are viewable on the higher layers. Note: If you open an image from a module that has pushpins these will be visible across all layers but only selectable on the base layer."

https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?20231-Enhanced-Images-%28layers%29-for-FG-3-0-CoreRPG-%28and-rulesets-based-on-CoreRPG%29

[TMO]

Yes, here (https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?34656-5e-Bug-Reports-(Continued)). And you are correct those two pins are incorrectly placed. I'll note that on my list (so you don't need to report it anywhere else)

Thanks for confirming the thread to use (and to Myrdin as well). I saw that thread but there are so many pages I thought it had gotten long in the tooth and perhaps was being retired for something else. I thought there used to be a bug thread for each module.

[Zacchaeus]

Thanks for confirming the thread to use (and to Myrdin as well). I saw that thread but there are so many pages I thought it had gotten long in the tooth and perhaps was being retired for something else. I thought there used to be a bug thread for each module.

Good grief no. There would have to be dozens of threads. I will be retiring that thread at a suitable point; but right now that's still the best place to report problems.

[TMO]

Good grief no. There would have to be dozens of threads. I will be retiring that thread at a suitable point; but right now that's still the best place to report problems.

My company produces software products and we have a support forum not unlike how the FG forum works. I handle about 90% of the support posts so I think I understand your situation. I guess this must be personal preference because I couldn't imagine trying to keep everything in one long thread.

I think it is universally expected that people who report issues attempt to look first to see if the issue has already been reported. I assume then that we should just try to search your dedicated thread for relevant keywords? As a customer who visits other sites for support, I like dedicated "product" (or "module" in this case) threads since it already filters out unrelated posts. Perhaps I'm in the minority here.

[Zacchaeus]

There's just too many modules to have a dedicated thread for each one. I keep a close eye on the 5e bugs thread and note bugs on a spreadsheet which developers have access to. I don't have a problem with multiple reports of the same bug but usually I only ever get one. I don't know if people search for a report before reporting (I suspect most don't). I also keep this thread (https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?34962-5e-Module-Updates) updated with major updates to modules including those which have been fixed but not yet issued.

[Wonderbringer]

So, what's the legality of sharing a recreated, FG-friendly map of ToH? I made this map a year ago when I converted ToH to 5e myself. Amateur artistry but it hides the secrets well.

[Andraax]

If you made the map, and didn't use anyone else's artwork in it, it's up to you whether to share. Just the map, however, you can't share the entire module.

[TMO]

So, what's the legality of sharing a recreated, FG-friendly map of ToH? I made this map a year ago when I converted ToH to 5e myself. Amateur artistry but it hides the secrets well.

I'd love to see your map in any resolution just for pure geekdom. When I began converting the old ToH module to 5E I searched online for various copies of the map and was surprised to find a number of official and homegrown renditions.

[Himajin]

Since the subject came up, I have to say I was very disappointed in the quality of maps in the Storm King's Thunder module. Many of the battlemaps are blurry, low resolution images full of compression artifacts, and they don't come close to the quality of battlemaps in earlier modules.

A few examples:
Worm-Cavern-Players
Flint-Battlemap
Beorunna's-Battlemap
Grandfather-Tree-Players

These are made worse by the fact many are outdoor settings where you often zoom in closer than usual to see the action.

[Myrdin Potter]

I remember some of these being brought up when the module first went on sale. Some of the maps were reworded a little (make sure you revert changes if it is open in a campaign or open a new campaign to check). Some are just the result of the files they were given.

[Himajin]

I remember some of these being brought up when the module first went on sale. Some of the maps were reworded a little (make sure you revert changes if it is open in a campaign or open a new campaign to check). Some are just the result of the files they were given.

I did check the maps in a new campaign to see if any improvements had been made since I started my campaign, but the quality issues are still there for these images and more, unfortunately. It would be a shame if the files they were given were this quality. I don't expect super high resolution battlemaps in a VT like Fantasy Grounds, but I was disappointed with these ones after how great the maps were in modules like Princes of the Apocalypse.

[damned]

I have the SKT hardback in front of me. The maps supplied to SW are basically the PDF of the book. Eg Flint Rock is less than 1/4 of an A4 page. The others are about 35% of an A4 page.

[Zacchaeus]

The maps you are talking about are all drawn to a scale of 50' per square and each square is only 90px on a side. That makes it about 9px per 5' and so to scale that up to 50px per 5' we'd need to increase the maps size by a factor of about 6. After cropping the Grandfather Tree map (for example) would be about 2000x2000 which is just on the limit of the recommended resolution (2048x2048). So if it were to be exported at a higher resolution to accommodate 50px per 5' it would need to be something in the region of 12000x12000. Photoshop is limited to an export size of about 8000x8000 and even at that the map size would be about 10Mb (at a decent quality) and at the lowest it would still be over 2Mb. Well above the 1Mb recommended limits.

Of course I could have chopped the map up into tiny little bits (probably would have needed about 10 small maps instead of the one) but that would be a nightmare.

So, what you have in SKT and in any other module where the maps might not be all that brilliant is a compromise between the constraints of what FG can handle in terms of image size and resolution and usability. All of the maps are extremely serviceable for what is required

[Himajin]

Comparing the hard copy, the digital image I ended up buying from the artists's site, and the Fantasy Grounds version, the latter is very much lacking in detail and has blocky compression artifacts. I don't expect super-high resolution like the artist's version, but it would be nice to have something that isn't degraded to the point where you can't make out a lot of the features properly. The Dripping-Caves-Player map from the same module doesn't have these problems, and is the same quality as earlier 5e adventures.

I could post a small piece of a battlemap as an example, but I'm not sure if that would be allowed here.

[Himajin]

So, what you have in SKT and in any other module where the maps might not be all that brilliant is a compromise between the constraints of what FG can handle in terms of image size and resolution and usability. All of the maps are extremely serviceable for what is required

Thank you for this explanation. I can at least understand the reason for the difference in quality now. It's a shame it has to be this way, as I haven't had any problems working with the higher resolution/quality maps I introduced instead of the default ones, but I guess the same might not apply to all FG users.

[Himajin]

For reference, I halved the resolution of the artist's images, ending up with maps that are about 1000x1000 pixels for these outdoor maps after cropping out the unnecessary bits. Saved at 70% quality in Photoshop, they come to about 300kb. Each square is obviously still low resolution this way, at about 5x5 pixels each, but the map itself still looks much better than the default ones, and has no visible compression artifacts.

[Zacchaeus]

What size of an FG grid did you draw on that?

[Himajin]

What size of an FG grid did you draw on that?

For example, with the grandfather tree, I cropped the artist's image to the 21 x 22 visible squares, and reduced the resolution to 1050 x 1100 pixels. I used a 5x5 pixel grid to match the 50 feet per square scale of the map.

I also just tried it with 1890 x 1980 resolution, and a 9x9 pixel grid. This seemed to work okay in FG as well (it was 680 KB), but the even the smaller resolution was a big improvement over the battlemap in the official module for me.
It'd hard to tell what resolution the official FG map uses, but to me it appears to be an upscaled low resolution image. Perhaps that's all that WOTC provided for these this time.

In any case, I don't want this to seem like an attack on those who put all the hard work into making these FG modules. It just stood out as something that could perhaps be improved upon.

[Zacchaeus]

First off I don't see this as an attack on anyone so feel free to comment. My aim is to produce modules which are as high a quality as I can manage and any knowledge that I can garner from people who understand graphics better than I do is very welcome.

I played about with those maps a lot before settling on the ones that found there way into the module and the end result is not good, I agree. The Grandfather tree map in the module is about 2100x2100. The grid I drew on it is not the standard FG grid but is actually 10' per grid square. The reason being that if a 5' grid was drawn I didn't think it looked all that great. So again a compromise. Here's a picture of three possible variations. The one in the middle is the map from SKT; the one on the left is about 1100x1100 with a 5' grid and the one on the right is 1680x1680 with a bigger 9px grid. All are zoomed in to approximately the same area. And none of them look brilliant :)

[Himajin]

Thanks for taking the time to do that.
It's more the graphic fidelity that I was concerned about, as it seemed like a lot of the detail was lost even when you zoom in moderately. Just looking at the examples you posted, it does seem like the source file you are working with is of lesser quality than the one I got from the artist, and that combined with a heavy compression setting is probably why these outdoor maps looked so blurry to me.

Here are the two versions I put together from the artist's version, with the one from SKT in the middle.
I agree that the maps don't really seem to be designed to support a 10x10 grid per square, and a 5x5 compromise would have probably worked better. If I were to do it again I'd probably use the 1980x1890 resolution one on the right with a 5x5 grid per square.18371

[damned]

The artists versions of the maps are not supplied. The images that are used are the ones that form the hardcover book output.

[Jamesr10]

Hey Zacchaeus! First of all, thanks for communicating so quickly with all of us on this stuff...

I did have one question for ya. I've been having a hard time with the hidden shrine maps because north is not up for the maps. Is there any way to rotate them so that my party and I can communicate properly? We just cannot get used to north being left.

[Zacchaeus]

No, you can't rotate them within FG. I only just noticed following what you said that the North is pointing to the left; I just assumed North would be at the top. Thus the two lower chamber maps designated as east and west should actually be north and south; which would confuse the situation even further. Additionally if you rotated the maps so that North is up all of the text would be sideways which would be rather inconvenient.

The only thing I can suggest is that since I don't think anything hinges on a specific direction I'd say just ignore the compass rose and say north is up.

[Jamesr10]

Unfortunately, many of the block text descriptions refer to NSEW when describing rooms :/

[Zacchaeus]

Ahh, so they do. There goes that suggestion then.

[damned]

This is the same in some maps in other products too like the Death House in Curse of Strahd

[rob2e]

Read the previous 44 posts. Did I miss where there is a map than can actually be used to put tokens on and play the module? In Tomoachan, except for the "Temple-DM" map which has DM markings on it anyway, all the others seems unusable (too low quality). Did I miss where this has been addressed?

Most modules don't even seem to have player versions. DM only. This isn't typical I think, who can answer for this? I'm quite sure it's intentional, I'm just looking for justification. I think most of the reason we all use FG is to take advantage of all the functionality while using MAPS!!

Anyone? Calm me down, please.

[Himajin]

Read the previous 44 posts. Did I miss where there is a map than can actually be used to put tokens on and play the module? In Tomoachan, except for the "Temple-DM" map which has DM markings on it anyway, all the others seems unusable (too low quality). Did I miss where this has been addressed?

Most modules don't even seem to have player versions. DM only. This isn't typical I think, who can answer for this? I'm quite sure it's intentional, I'm just looking for justification. I think most of the reason we all use FG is to take advantage of all the functionality while using MAPS!!

Anyone? Calm me down, please.

The player maps are in a different group. Look for a group called "TYP The Hidden Shrine Players Maps" in the case of Tomoachan.

[rob2e]

Whoa! Those are nice and were they added after initial release? I clicked on EVERY image and did not see those until I just "reloaded" the module. Oh well... THANX

[Zacchaeus]

No, all the player maps were included in the initial release. I suspect that you have been reading from the reference manual part where the only maps noted there are the DM ones. This on the basis that you would not be running the adventure from the reference but from the story as usual where all the battlemaps are linked.

[Trenloe]

Hopefully calm has returned...

;)

[rob2e]

I'll tell you exactly what happened. I opened the module for Tamoachan, clicked on "Images", looked through them, FREAKED OUT, posted, didn't realize there was ALSO another link called "Images & Maps" (an unusual process to have both?) until today.

Calm...

[Ennayr88]

No, all the player maps were included in the initial release.

ALL of them? I can't find the "west" side of the lower chambers for players. I have "east" and tier one, and two and three and I have all the DM maps. I am just missing that one.

[Zacchaeus]

Sorry I completely missed your post. Yes they are all there.

[Ennayr88]

How can I get that one since it is missing? I have unloaded and reloaded the module and it just isn't there.

[damned]

Go into your library and right click the module and Revert Changes.
If that doesnt fix it delete it from the vault and rerun the updater.