Princes of the Apocalypse Maps? High Quality?

[lostsanityreturned]

When I said they were badly compressed I mean they look like files that are compressed to be two thirds to half the quality of their actual size. This offers no benefit to network connections.

Your tollerance for these may be what it is, but screen resolution differences don't alter the fact that compression artifacts are compression artifacts.
The OP was interested in opinions on this as their tollerances have meant that they didn't like the results they saw in SKT as much as their experiences with CoS.

Functional, but far from clean.

[Trenloe]

This offers no benefit to network connections.

With FG image compression has a big benefit during the sharing process. Files close to and above 1MB in size, when shared through FG, start to seriously slow down the old, inefficient network libraries currently used in FG. Resulting in significant time to share maps through to the players and a slowdown of FG on the GM side during the sharing process. Some of the sharing process is improved a bit if the GM runs on a capable computer with a fast internet connection. But, for many people, this is not always possible...

The two recommendations regarding images/maps (1MB or less in file size and maximum 2048x2048 resolution) are given for a reason. FG, in it's current architecture, struggles with files outside of these recommendations - significant sharing impact for file size and excessive memory use for image resolution.

Your tollerance for these may be what it is...

Fair enough, it looks like we do indeed have different expectations.

Like I said, some of the maps are far from great - due to the various limiting factors of the original file as provided by WotC and the above mentioned requirements. Looking at the screenshots here: https://www.fantasygrounds.com/store...?id=WOTC5EPOTA "most" of those maps look pretty good to me for online FG gaming.

[Temmpest]

I very much doubt they are 50 pixels per square in SKT, or if they are the image has been bloated to meet that. They're an eye sore. Thank you for your input. I think I'm better off getting the size and quality I want by buying the maps directly from Mike Schley, seeing as I mostly just want the maps.

So, are the maps on Mike's wesbite better quality than the one provided in the FG SKT module?

[ddavison]

We shoot for a high quality export to JPG. That is 60% quality setting in Photoshop. This normally gets a good display for battlemaps with a reasonably small file size. The issue comes up with large scale maps. Hoard of the Dragon Queen, Rise of Tiamat and Storm King's Thunder are the ones I'm most familiar with which have problems. FG players and DMs expect to use these maps as battlemaps with a 5' per square grid. Maps that use 10' per square, 20' per square or 50' per square lose a lot of quality converting to 5' per square. When they have the grid lines on the maps already, the grid lines tend to look really blocky when you multiply them by 2, 4 or 10.

[Trenloe]

So, are the maps on Mike's wesbite better quality than the one provided in the FG SKT module?

Yes - because they are bigger resolution and file size (less compression). Be aware that if you use these maps in FG you *will* have to reduce the resolution and file size to avoid memory issues in FG or too long sharing time and slowdown on the GM side.

[Temmpest]

Yep, I see what you guys mean. Some of those maps are for huge areas. Thanks for the info.

[Myrdin Potter]

I can only say, again, that my group ran through all of PoTA and SKT (I mashed the two together) and there were only a couple of maps in SKT that did not look great. Remember, not everyone is using a 4K monitor.

The worst map (in my opinion) was the grandfather tree in SKT and it looks like crap in the printed book as well.

I know from forum discussions that Smiteworks gets the files used to publish the books, and does not often get the source and hi-res files from the artists. Where they can get them, they do, and maps are often upgraded after the initial release when they can. The WoTC maps as published have had issues. The original PoTA map of the valley had the wrong scale and wrong encounter site placement.

I also convert modules from source material and if there is no map without a grid, it is really hard to get everything to line up and look great.

So everything is subjective, but at normal screen resolution and use, I find the maps quite functional. If anything, the pixel size limit simulates the issues you have with actual table size when you play with pencil and paper instead of virtually.

[VI66]

When I open up The Lost Mines, some of the maps are so small I can't even see them. When I resize (zoom in) they are so blurry I still can barely see them and that my friends, is discouraging at best. The player version maps/battle maps are better for the most part. I hope this situation is addressed with the Unity engine 64 bit set-up.

[Moon Wizard]

The GM maps are only for GM to reference room numbers, secrets, etc. The player maps are higher resolution, and meant to be used with players and their tokens.

None of this information is different in FGU. The module content is the same in both. (Except for the possible inclusion of LOS blocker information.)

Regards,
JPG

[VI66]

Groovy thanks. Just getting started once again as I've been away awhile so, must relearn everything which wasn't much to begin with.