Map Scales

[Bogie]

In the game mapping world most people use 1" on the workspace = 5' on the game. And then we classify our resolution as dpi or ppi with the "inch" referring to an inch on the workspace. The confusion to most of us is coming from you referring to pixels per game inch. So your reference to 8 pixels per game inch translates to 480 ppi on the workspace. Most of my maps are done at 100 ppi or 1.66 pix per game inch and while not super high res it is not bad. at 200 dpi ( 3.32 ppgi) the resolution is excellent. I don't think you need to go any higher than that if your intent is to use a projector or print at 1" = 5'.
Two examples the first is at 100 dpi the 2nd is at 200.

100dpi ............................................200dpi

[Forkbeard]

In the game mapping world most people use 1" on the workspace = 5' on the game. And then we classify our resolution as dpi or ppi with the "inch" referring to an inch on the workspace. The confusion to most of us is coming from you referring to pixels per game inch. So your reference to 8 pixels per game inch translates to 480 ppi on the workspace. Most of my maps are done at 100 ppi or 1.66 pix per game inch and while not super high res it is not bad. at 200 dpi ( 3.32 ppgi) the resolution is excellent. I don't think you need to go any higher than that if your intent is to use a projector or print at 1" = 5'.
Two examples the first is at 100 dpi the 2nd is at 200.

I had assumed, incorrectly, that DPI/PPI would be wholly unused here. I certainly never use it, preferring the flexibility to vary scale from map to map. A statue in one map could be reused as a larger statue in another, without the need to alter the DPI in the image.

I see no reason to hold DPI in terms of workspace inch. The VTT is entirely scalable, so the only thing that matters is game units scaled from pixels. In that way, you can translate across gaming systems without any intermediate calculation. In other words I'm arguing absolute values, versus some arbitrary gaming system's intermediate translation.

Also a smaller map could have more detail, although my VTT can handle pretty big maps easily, by pre-caching scales/rotations and only drawing and manipulating relevant image areas (i.e. those visible). It's easy for a VTT to manipulate pre-rasterized images, than it is for Photoshop to handle all the layering. I had always assumed photoshop double-buffered so to speak, but panning and zooming these images, I'm now convinced it does not (or perhaps it is delayed).

I think it was Battlegrounds that shocked me, in terms of how poor the speed of zooming was, and that was small maps and not great quality either.

Your examples are great, and I concur that your second image is a good quality in terms of gaming use in a VTT. It also coincides with my new 4 pixels per game inch. You can't easily read script on a letter on a table, but how often is that needed?