PDA

View Full Version : Looking to understand maps in FG



DrClarke
January 7th, 2007, 02:57
I'm plunging deeper into Fantasy Grounds and I'm now at the point of maps, and I'm looking for what the would be standard might be. I'll list off my examples in hopes that I'm being as clear as possible.

Q1: Does FG resize graphics at all or does it leave them in their original size.

Utilizing a graphic from the stock module "A Tale of Dinor": mines_deep.jpg, It's incredibly obvious that it doesn't work very well for miniature representation with no grids (graph paper). If I utilize the "Turn Grid On" feature on the same map in FG, I can drag a square to a numerical size.

Q2: What do those numbers represent? If I stretch it to 25, it populates the entire screen with a grid... is that 25mm grids?

Overall I'm not to partial to this. In no way am I knocking it's feature/functionality, but initially it doesn't float my boat. Maybe it'll grow on me.

Next, utilizing a graphic from the free download "The Wizards Amulet": farminterior2.jpg, It's something I'm more familiar with in a pen & paper sense, but just looks modified to suit the life of an electronic table. It looked static (pre-grided/graphed) at 50 pixels per square. This seems to make sense, because if one were to utilize a true one inch square, those maps would be pretty huge. I really like this format the most out of the two I've studied and I like that fact that the figures/tokens reflect the same gride size.

Q3: Is this 50 pixel = 1 inch a community standard for those who enjoy this map style format?

I ask because should I contribute anything I want to make sure I'm on the same standard as the community and should I wish to utilize something that pre-exists I want it to work with my creation (like a token for example).

I hope I'm making sense.

Griogre
January 7th, 2007, 07:17
Q1: Does FG resize graphics at all or does it leave them in their original size.

Utilizing a graphic from the stock module "A Tale of Dinor": mines_deep.jpg, It's incredibly obvious that it doesn't work very well for miniature representation with no grids (graph paper). If I utilize the "Turn Grid On" feature on the same map in FG, I can drag a square to a numerical size.
FG does not resize map graphics. You may zoom in on map images which does change the relative size of tokens. Tokens may be "locked" to fit a certain scale so there is some scaling of token sizes.


Q2: What do those numbers represent? If I stretch it to 25, it populates the entire screen with a grid... is that 25mm grids?

Overall I'm not to partial to this. In no way am I knocking it's feature/functionality, but initially it doesn't float my boat. Maybe it'll grow on me.

Next, utilizing a graphic from the free download "The Wizards Amulet": farminterior2.jpg, It's something I'm more familiar with in a pen & paper sense, but just looks modified to suit the life of an electronic table. It looked static (pre-grided/graphed) at 50 pixels per square. This seems to make sense, because if one were to utilize a true one inch square, those maps would be pretty huge. I really like this format the most out of the two I've studied and I like that fact that the figures/tokens reflect the same gride size.
The number is the number of pixels in the square. Many in the comunity here use 50 pixel grids and size their tokens appropriately. I personally do not. I use a smaller size because it allows me to show more map in the same screen area. The trade off is smaller tokens vs. showing more map at once. The standard grid size of the maps also determines the file size that needs to be transfered and how much video ram is required to actually display a map.


Q3: Is this 50 pixel = 1 inch a community standard for those who enjoy this map style format?

I ask because should I contribute anything I want to make sure I'm on the same standard as the community and should I wish to utilize something that pre-exists I want it to work with my creation (like a token for example).

I hope I'm making sense.
As I mentioned above many use 50 pixels and I would say it is 50 pixels = 5 feet = medium sized creature - rather than an inch. Part of the issue of setting a size for you tokens is how big you want your small, large, huge and gigantic size creatures to be.

Ramza0Tyr
January 7th, 2007, 11:54
Q3: Is this 50 pixel = 1 inch a community standard for those who enjoy this map style format?

I ask because should I contribute anything I want to make sure I'm on the same standard as the community and should I wish to utilize something that pre-exists I want it to work with my creation (like a token for example).
Search is your friend!

Community Map Standards (http://forums.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2682&highlight=square+pixel)

:)

Looking forward to seeing your contributions.

Later.

kepli
January 7th, 2007, 14:02
50 pix per square works fine, even when used on a Dundjinni export map.
Personally I would export a BMP at 100dpi (dots per inch) and cut that map up in pieces. Kinda like Kalmarjan describes in the link Ramza posted.

If you ever need help with Dundjinni maps, either ask here, at Dunjinni or at FUM ;) I even made a specific sticky thread at FUM for just that purpose.
Dundjinni advice (http://www.fouruglymonsters.com/community/showthread.php?t=34)

kalmarjan
January 9th, 2007, 01:54
I agree with Kepli on some points, but there is one caveat -

Using a map that is at 100 DPI is unneccessary, as the resolution of a screen is usually only 75 DPI. What results is a picture that has a file size that is too large, and an unneccessary size. (It has already been shown that some pic files larger than 1400 px x 1400 px will cause crashing problems with FG)

While the standard was 50 pix per inch (5 foot square) for maps, that was before the addition of the zoom tool in FG. Now it is not really that big of a deal anymore.

One thing to remember is that FG is essentially a Web application. This means that the file sizes of transfered items (like maps) are very important to your players. The larger the file size, the bigger the problems that will crop up. For instance, I find it is best to use a JPEG of a map at 75 DPI. When I save my maps out, I make sure to save it at a quality that I am happy with, and I apply a slight blur (with a radius of >.5 px) to ensure that there are no edge artifacts. The max file size that I use is 500Kb. Anything larger, and I find I have problems with the players recieving them.

I personally use the standard of 1 square = 70 px for tokens, as the map itself can be scaled, so I find it is more important to use tokens that are slightly higher in resolution so they can be seen on a map, even when scaled down.

I hope that helps you out,

Sandeman

kepli
January 9th, 2007, 09:45
True, maps exported at 100dpi would be large, but that's why I make them into jpgs and cut them in pieces. It's not perfect, but the size limitation FG has for maps makes that necessary. This is only for maps you actually fight on of course.
Since Kalmarjan uses 70pix and seems to be happy with that, export DJ maps as a bmp with 70dpi and you will get what he uses. Make sure to convert the bmp to a jpg though ;)

kalmarjan
January 9th, 2007, 11:55
True Dat! :)

Basically, things to remember:

Keep the resolution of the map down. (Max 1400 x 1400)
Keep the file sizes down
If it can be helped, try not to use the grid feature (Causes transfer errors, and could crash your machine if you update while a person is trying to log in)
Have your tokens at slightly higher resolution to keep the clarity while zooming in on a map.


For my maps now, I try and keep a scale of 1 foot = 25 px. I find I am happy with that. This way I can still zoom in a bit on a map, and my players are able to see what is going on with their tokens, without having to play at such a large scale. An example of such a map can be found here:

http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/3918/1820maingatecomplexrn5.jpg
http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/8441/moathousedungeon32iw0.jpg
http://img391.imageshack.us/img391/6501/moathousedungeon1827qh4.jpg

As you can see, I can still play on these maps at the full zoom, and not suffer any quality. If I want, I could zoom in another 25 percent to get the battle map I desire. Best of all, look at the file sizes of the maps. They are all around the 500Kb mark. :)

Sandeman

richvalle
January 9th, 2007, 14:04
Just to keep things fun...

I use big maps to play the whole game on (running Worlds Largest Dungeon). I chop each region up into 1/4 and we move and fight all on the maps.

This is a sample. Its about 2000x1800ish and about a meg in size. I think the one I was actually using at home was about 2 megs in size.

http://i96.photobucket.com/albums/l183/richvalle/WLD/Region%20J/j-bottomleft.jpg

This is FG zoomed in for a fight:
http://i96.photobucket.com/albums/l183/richvalle/WLD/Region%20J/screenshot0012.png

During non-fighting I zoom the map out a bit more and unmask it as people move around.

rv

Sir Bayard
January 10th, 2007, 01:05
heh, nice to know everyone's maps are better than mine! yay!