Map Scales
Hi everyone, I'm a newbie to the site and to mapping.
I'd like some feedback on scaling.
I'm interested in RPG maps for use in VTTs (my own to be precise), so scaling suitable for maps containing top down figure images. I think the term I've seen used is "Battle Maps".
I've purchased a few from roll20.net, and the standard there is 140px per 5', or 2 and 1/3 pixels per inch. I find this a little blurred in terms of the detail, and especially close up. It also doesn't look grand with certain textures.
I prefer an 8 pixels per inch scale, although I confess Photoshop is "slow" at 100' square on my i7, and I've switched to 4px/inch.
What scales do you use, and why?
I'm also using Filter Forge for my textures, and I have to say it's damn slow to render at even 4px/inch.
Also products like Genetica and Filter Forge seem completely ignorant of mapping use, in that scaling is either covered badly or covered in a bizarre way. It seems crazy that I need to use a spreadsheet to do something that would be trivial to build into the product.
What products do you use, and how do you find them?
Thanks in advance.
You mean that your working at 8 DPI ? most people will work at 300 DPI, or even higher. So, it's no wonder why it look blurred.
And I don't understand how it can lag on such a powerful computer. How big is you map (in pixels) ?
Is it for printing? If it's not for printing, you can work at any resolution. It makes no difference in a digital file and it should not look blurred. I just tested it and I'm using Photoshop CS3.
I agree. that resolution is very low. My normal setting is 300 DPI. Occasionally I work in 72 DPI, but very few things.
Some great mapping programs are Photoshop (obviously) and GIMP is a great one. It is free and is a very strong program.
For maps involving some sort of realistic height mapping, people also use Wilbur.
If your computer is lagging at that resolution, I bet your map size is WAY too big.
As far as scaling goes, I can't speak for everyone on here, but I know alot of people just eyeball it. It just takes practice and time to get scaling that makes sense with each other. I don't know if that answered your question or not.
Cheers
Capt.JH
I just had a quick thought here that there might be a slight mix-up in what is meant by scale.
The scale of 140px per 5' is scaled to the figures on the map. Most battle maps work at a scale of 1 inch per 5 feet. This means that that anything mesured 1 inch on the map would be 5 feet as comapred to the figure. A 5 foot man laying down would measure 1 real inch. and 140 pixels as well. If your map measures a scaled 50 feet across, it would be 10 real inches and 1400 pixels across.
I am not sure, but I think THAT is where the confusion comes from.
Art Critic = Someone with the Eye of an Artist, Words of a Bard, and the Talent of a Rock.
Please take my critiques as someone who Wishes he had the Talent
Oh. That would make a lot of sense. So this question is specifically for over head "miniatures" kind of map.Originally Posted by Korash
This would make more sense as to the scaling question.
It is true that some folks use 1" = 5' in terms of real-world printed maps and figures. You could indeed use DPI and that concept to derive resolution for printing purposes.
It's possible that a VTT could derive scale from DPI. Mine doesn't. Scale is held in a database and can be varied depending on preference. So a table for instance could be used at 4' or 6'. That is why I don't use DPI. Other than that, DPI is irrelevant.
Regardless of how we derive scale, we still have the issue of the on screen resolution being such that images are aesthetically pleasing.
DPI is not particularly relevant here, as it's only a means to derive scale. In my case scale is derived from a database, thus enabling a scale to vary as appropriate. The example I gave in the other reply was that of a table, that could potentially vary in size. Although I appreciate wood grain etc would be problematic.
As I said my images are 8 pixels per game world inch. So a 100' square area would be 9600 pixels square.
If you combine that with layers for base flooring (dirt and rock), flagstone internal flooring, cavern walls and internal brick walls, plus all the masking and anti-aliasing for shadows and damp effects... you can see how Photoshop struggles with manipulation.
It's not impossible, far from it, but it makes speedy progress impossible. Even Filter Forge struggles to generate 8 pixels per inch textures at 20' x 20'. Ideally I'd prefer to generate 100' x 100' images, to avoid texture repetition. Bland textures work, or repetitive patterns, but abstract complex textures show recurring patterns.
I use CS6 on a 2nd gen (I think) i7, with 6GB of RAM, so fairly old. The 8px/inch image takes around 4GB of RAM.
This makes more sense. I just never had anyone break the pixel numbers down into each square on the grid.
This resolution now makes much more sense to me. haha
Thanks for the clarification
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
My Battlemaps Gallery http://www.cartographersguild.com/al...p?albumid=3407
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?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
