Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 2.1K All Categories
- 200 Site Announcements
- 66 News and Announcements
- 134 General Discussion
- 836 Fractal Mapper
- 214 Fractal Mapper General
- 616 Maps and Symbols
- 32 Skwyre Virtual Table Top
- 29 Skwyre General Discussion
- 3 Skwyre How-To
- 361 AstroSynthesis
- 270 AstroSynthesis General
- 91 AstroSynthesis Plug-ins and Scripts
- 105 The Keep
- 105 The Keep General
- 59 ScreenMonkey General
- 18 ScreenMonkey Setup and Configuration
- 310 Inspiration Pad Pro
- 310 Inspiration Pad Pro General
- 135 NBOS Character Sheet Designer
- 135 Character Sheet Designer General
Making a New Program of FM8
This starts off as a response to Zeremoniac's thread "Designing World Maps." I'm separating it from the thread, because Zeremoniac has taken it from the theme mentioned in the title to a wish list, a certainly legitimate wish list, but one that needs some comment.
<SNIP>
The list goes on well beyond this point.
It's not my intention or desire to deny Zeremoniac any of the tools he wants or needs. If NBOS determines that there is a profitable market for such extensions and has the desire to serve that market, then I very strongly urge NBOS to offer such features as an add-on package to FM8 rather than building these things into the FM8 kernel. Why? Let's look back at what Ed Diana wrote a few days ago in reply to Zeremoniac:
The things in Zeremoniac's wish list - or a large part of it - are not what FM8 has been for to date, and as a customer I want very, very much for FM8 not to turn into that.
Dealing with this issue is just a touch difficult, because Zeremoniac has built a hurdle into it. He has given us his definition of what world building is and insists that any other concept of world building isn't world building at all, because he apparently has a monopoly on that definition. Never mind that just about any successful RPG campaign world that's been built to date has done so quite successfully without Zeremoniac's wish list. Ed Greenwood who created the Forgotten Realms wasn't a world builder after all, because he didn't do it Zeremoniac's way. Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson, who created Greyhawk and Blackmoor weren't world builders at all. In 1996, Richard Baker wrote the "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons World Builder's Guidebook" for TSR (TM), which long was considered to be THE reference work. His book didn't use Zeremoniac's toolbox. Apparently he knew nothing at all about world building. Why? Because Zeremoniac says so.
So ... let's dismiss Zeremoniac's insistence that his definition is the only definition for the nonsense that it is.
I'm a successful world builder. The folks mentioned above were much better and more important world builders than I am. I was involved to a certain lesser extent in one of those projects. That's why my name is in the published credits. I recall how a new and young member of one of these project teams, who was a Mac freak, gave the project leader a big recommendation that the team should use the kind of tools that Zeremoniac wants.
What the hell do we want to do that for? the project leader asked. We're building a world where adventurers go out and kill orcs, not some kind of computer junk.
The three of us in the Vintyri (TM) Project have only four FM8 licenses among us. But we're 100% opposed to having the FM8 kernel modified to add the tools that Zeremoniac wants. We want to continue building our Jörðgarð (TM) world in the traditional manner, not in Zeremoniac's manner. We and he both can rejoice in the fact that he doesn't have to acquire it with its lack of projections, etc.
Why are we against having it added to the FM8 kernel? The answer is, our own experiences. Any time a piece of software is modified so substantially, it takes a long time before it works reliably again. One patch follows another. On revision follows the next. FM8 now does most of what we want it to do quite well, without system crashes, without problems of any significance. We want it to stay that way.
Anyone who is skeptical about my aversion to sweeping changes in a cartographic program need only take a look at the ProFantasy (TM) forums. Campaign Cartographer (TM) 3 has been around now since 2006. About half the forum postings still are complaints about installation problems, operational problems, missing elements, problems under Windows Vista, problems under Windows 7, etc., etc. After eight major patches, the program still is riddled like Swiss cheese with problems. One only can beg NBOS to spare us such woes.
The things we and other people see as possible improvements in the framework of FM8 are online in the Fractal Mapper 9 thread. If NBOS thinks it's a good idea to serve Zeremoniac's needs, then we think so too, but in the form of an optional add-on or add-in, please. Let's not hobble the FM8 kernel with the burden of what for some of us will be nothing more than a lot of extra baggage that we have no desire to use.
Zeromaniac wrote:I will list the things I am already missing after working for just two days with FM - partly to communicate my needs in case one of the developers is listening
1. Communication with other mapmaking programs, so that you can exchange not only raster, but also vector data.
2. Use of latitude and longitude as coordinates, and the ability to redraw maps according to different projections.
<SNIP>
The list goes on well beyond this point.
It's not my intention or desire to deny Zeremoniac any of the tools he wants or needs. If NBOS determines that there is a profitable market for such extensions and has the desire to serve that market, then I very strongly urge NBOS to offer such features as an add-on package to FM8 rather than building these things into the FM8 kernel. Why? Let's look back at what Ed Diana wrote a few days ago in reply to Zeremoniac:
Ed_NBOS wrote:Zeromaniac wrote:I just don't understand why FTP and FWE do not allow me to simply draw my own continental contours! Maybe I lack the typical gamer mentality (although I DO a lot of gaming), but why would I want ONLY automatically generated maps? I understand the usefulness of such an option, but am I the only one who actually wants to design a world by himself?
The reason FT and FWE dont let you draw out your own contours is because... thats not what they are for. They are for creating random terrain. That's their purpose. They are both 3D height field editors, not vector drawing tools. The data they store is very different from lines and vectors - they store information about points - elevation and other data. This data, once generated (or painted with the raise/lower tools) can then be converted to vectors-based graphics - but that conversion is one way. its easy to go from 3D to 2D data, but you cant effectively go from 2D to 3D.
Fractal Mapper, on the other hand, lets you draw out the contours of your map. So if you want to draw out something specific, just create the whole thing in FM.
The things in Zeremoniac's wish list - or a large part of it - are not what FM8 has been for to date, and as a customer I want very, very much for FM8 not to turn into that.
Dealing with this issue is just a touch difficult, because Zeremoniac has built a hurdle into it. He has given us his definition of what world building is and insists that any other concept of world building isn't world building at all, because he apparently has a monopoly on that definition. Never mind that just about any successful RPG campaign world that's been built to date has done so quite successfully without Zeremoniac's wish list. Ed Greenwood who created the Forgotten Realms wasn't a world builder after all, because he didn't do it Zeremoniac's way. Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson, who created Greyhawk and Blackmoor weren't world builders at all. In 1996, Richard Baker wrote the "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons World Builder's Guidebook" for TSR (TM), which long was considered to be THE reference work. His book didn't use Zeremoniac's toolbox. Apparently he knew nothing at all about world building. Why? Because Zeremoniac says so.
So ... let's dismiss Zeremoniac's insistence that his definition is the only definition for the nonsense that it is.
I'm a successful world builder. The folks mentioned above were much better and more important world builders than I am. I was involved to a certain lesser extent in one of those projects. That's why my name is in the published credits. I recall how a new and young member of one of these project teams, who was a Mac freak, gave the project leader a big recommendation that the team should use the kind of tools that Zeremoniac wants.
What the hell do we want to do that for? the project leader asked. We're building a world where adventurers go out and kill orcs, not some kind of computer junk.
The three of us in the Vintyri (TM) Project have only four FM8 licenses among us. But we're 100% opposed to having the FM8 kernel modified to add the tools that Zeremoniac wants. We want to continue building our Jörðgarð (TM) world in the traditional manner, not in Zeremoniac's manner. We and he both can rejoice in the fact that he doesn't have to acquire it with its lack of projections, etc.
Why are we against having it added to the FM8 kernel? The answer is, our own experiences. Any time a piece of software is modified so substantially, it takes a long time before it works reliably again. One patch follows another. On revision follows the next. FM8 now does most of what we want it to do quite well, without system crashes, without problems of any significance. We want it to stay that way.
Anyone who is skeptical about my aversion to sweeping changes in a cartographic program need only take a look at the ProFantasy (TM) forums. Campaign Cartographer (TM) 3 has been around now since 2006. About half the forum postings still are complaints about installation problems, operational problems, missing elements, problems under Windows Vista, problems under Windows 7, etc., etc. After eight major patches, the program still is riddled like Swiss cheese with problems. One only can beg NBOS to spare us such woes.
The things we and other people see as possible improvements in the framework of FM8 are online in the Fractal Mapper 9 thread. If NBOS thinks it's a good idea to serve Zeremoniac's needs, then we think so too, but in the form of an optional add-on or add-in, please. Let's not hobble the FM8 kernel with the burden of what for some of us will be nothing more than a lot of extra baggage that we have no desire to use.
Comments
But in general I'm a big believer in keeping projects in scope. Unsuccessful projects often end up that way because they overreach and cant be finished. The reason such a mapping system that uses different projections and other 'real' mapping technology hasnt been written yet is because its a very complex task which would be tough to implement as a product that can be sold at a price that general consumers of RPG software would find palatable.
since you refer a lot to what I have written, I feel the need to answer and clarify a few things.
First of all, I don't mind if the designers feel that the functionality I want are better served with an add-on! At the beginning of my (still-ongoing) quest to find the tools I need, I never expected a single software solution to work (well, at least not one within reasonable price range). I lack the competence to judge if your fears concerning the stabilty of the FM core after adding this functionality are justified; I'll leave that to Ed.
Mark, you really seem to take offense at my attempts to explain why my needs are, obviously, completely different from yours! My use of the term "world building" especially seems to enrage you - once more, I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings! That was never my intention. However, reading your last post I feel that we are both describing the same phenomena. You quote:
"We're building a world where adventurers go out and kill orcs, not some kind of computer junk."
I think we can agree not to dwell on the derogative expression "computer junk", but the first part of that sentence is EXACTLY what I was trying to express! You don't need to create a world to produce a setting where "adventurers go out and kill orcs". You need a campaign setting. Since most RPG campaigns never go beyond the scope of a single continent (if even that far), and even if they do, the playgroup rarely really cares for global interrelations, worldbuilding is redundant. That's what I was saying!
While I don't know exactly how Ed Greenwood developed the Forgotten realms, I think I know the basics how Greyhawk and Aventurien were developed, and they did NOT start with worldbuilding. They started with maps of smaller regions (at most, a continent) and never gave much thought to global patterns. Certainly, that makes a lot of sense when building campaign settings, since you need to map out a local area in detail for player characters to explore. But a "campaign world" is not a "world" in the sense of, for example, FWE and FTP; is not a completely designed globe where landmasses and climate patterns interrelate.
If you think about it, you will find that the needs I describe have actually been seen, and adressed to, by many RPG campaign builders for over thirty years! While in fantasy RPGs global maps were seldom useful, in science-fiction RPGs, they were a necessity. That's why Traveller and Star Wars used dice-shaped maps like the one Richard posted as an example in my thread. This really unwieldy map format was a necessity back then, since gamers just didn't have access to the computing power of modern pcs, but it shows clearly that the desire to produce global maps is not at all unknown in gamer circles!
Just don't dwell on the ambigous use of th term "world", Mark! A "campaign world" can consist of a single continent, or even an even much smaller region. I am sure many RPG campaigns in the Forgotten Realms never went beyond the area between Waterdeep and the Dales and never ever cared about the existence of Kara-Tur, Maztica or Al-Qadim, let alone spelljamming! Some may even have taken place in an area not larger than, e.g., bavaria. That's why I use the term "campaign setting" here - a setting can encompass less or more than a single world, and the amount and type of infomation known about it is tied to the needs of individual campaigns, depending on what the playgroup cares about. Building a campaign setting is in no way a lesser task thean building a world (and of course, these efforts can be entwined), but it is simply DIFFERENT, and that's why there are different needs involved.
You know, when I looked at your suggestions for improvements for FM 9, I thought: "WTF?" Special effects here, special effects there, more special effects... You obviously care a lot for the visuals of a map. I care for the data it contains. I certainly don't mind improved aesthetic options, but for me they're toys, not tools.
Also, I don't think that I'm really that alone with my needs even in the fantasy RPG community. Campaign building has always started out the same way (which you call "classic style"), going from maaping out smaller areas to larger ones, or starting out by putting a standalone-continent in the middle of a big ocean. Many people (I will exclude SF gamers here) simply don't know another way, and other ways simply were not accessible for gamers until, say, the 21st century and the advent of powerful pcs. However, given the option to design a globe first and filling in the details then, would people really consider this to be "useless baggage"? The very existence of FWE and similar programs suggests that people actually like creating worlds on global scales, and the first steps to detailling those maps have already been made with the ability to export those maps to mapmaking programs. Also, I noted that a much-asked feature for FM8 was the ability to create submaps for a larger map.
To me, integrating world building with mapmaking seems just like the logical next step, rather than an exotic pet idea of mine. I'm pretty sure, as soon as one publisher allows for the option to create and view maps in global view, customers will come to expect that feature very fast as the new standard. Mercator-type global projections have been out-of-date outside the gaming world for some time. Why should the gaming community cling to them?
I'm not enraged and my feelings are not hurt, but I am a bit irritated by your repeated insistence that world building is only that which you define it to be. That's one kind of world building, but not the only kind.
As far as new features that you want to see, I have nothing against them at all. They're not things that I want myself, but I'm quite content if they're made available to you and others who want them. It not only would be foolish but also a bit looney to wish to deny you such things. But I very ardently do not want to see them in the FM8 kernel. In fact, that would drive me rapidly to seek yet another program for the work we're doing, because FM8 no longer would be the program I want or am seeking. Offering your wish list as an optional add on or add in would take good care of both of us, if it works.
The remark about computer junk was not mine but that of a one time project leader at TSR who was an extremely successful world builder. I included it in an attempt to awaken you to the idea that the RPG world has many ideas about what world building is. Your concept is one valid concept but not the only valid concept. If you are awakening to that idea, then not all has been in vain. If not ... well --- you could keep trying.
Happy weekend!
I think it would be interesting if Ed or someone else with the necessary programming knowledge could comment on how much the engine of FM really needed to be altered to allow for orthographic projections. If I understand correctly, FM already uses vector data, and is obviously able to redraw vector objects at different scales when you zoom.
Is there a fundamental difference between applying a projection and zooming? In both cases coordinates need to be reset using a mathematical transformation. Why is it harder to transform lat/long data to x/y screen coordinates than to transform screen coordinates when zooming? Those special effects you like so much look to my completely untrained eyes much more dfficult to implement.
I understand that you personally don't need the features I mentioned. However, I am really irritated that you feel the need to almost threaten the developers by saying you wouldn't want to keep using their product if they dared to innovate it! Of course you want a stable software, but couldn't you put enough trust in the developers that they won't release it if it's unstable? Honestly, I really don't see how your stance is helpful.
Perhaps you don't understand programming issues well enough to understand my point. I am a professional programmer, and I also train other new programmers, although in database programming, not graphic engine programming. If you read Ed Diana's posting from two days ago, you might understand the scope of implementing your wishes into the program kernel of FM8. To achieve what you want, it is not necessary to change the FM8 kernel dramatically. It also could be done through add-on and add-in software that would leave the currently healthy FM8 kernel intact.
If you had read my posting carefully, you perhaps would have understood that my message was that I think NBOS should go the add-on/add-in direction rather than modifying the FM8 kernel. If you look at FM8's history, you'll see that it's at Version 8.10f. It started at Version 8.0. I know quite well what's been revised and why since then. A number of the changes were made because of flaws I pointed out in the software, which NBOS rapidly repaired, rather than whining about things on a forum.
No software works perfectly when it's first released. Windows 7 is a new product. I already have 19 fixes from Microsoft. If FM is enlarged to put your tools into the kernel, FM will need several updates too before it's really clean. That's the nature of the software business. Another nature of the software business is that people don't buy updates when their software is running well and the new package offers them no ostensible benefits. Look at the fact that Windows Vista never managed to replace Windows XP, with which most users were relatively satisfied. There's an old but good saying in the software business. Developers who ignore it tend to go out of business. It goes like this: If it's not broken, don't fix it.
We members of the Vintyri Project are good and happy NBOS customers. As such, my message provided NBOS with some good, worthwhile customer feedback: Putting your tools into the FM kernel would create a product we would not buy. The reason is, FM already does most of what we need. None of what we still want would result from your wishes being implemented. So no, we wouldn't drop a package of good-running software for the opportunity to be guinea pigs.
As for:
What a bunch of nonsense. Send Ed Diana an E-Mail and asked him to what extent he feels threatened by me.
I've been reading all of your messages. They're a strange mix of serious points that really are worth discussing and considering on the one hand with an overdose of whining and pontificating on the other hand. It would be great to be able to take everything you read seriously. One could do that if you'd resist the temptation to write drivel like this:
Again, happy weekend!
You can do it now however it is a bit awkward... I'll demo this in a video too. A lot of things you can do but takes a bit of unconventional thinking, or thinking outside of the box.
I think Ed wants to keep his price reasonable. After all, FM does an excellent job in its own to give results that can look very professional. Kinda like using photoshop, its talent that will get you better results, and often that talent comes from thinking outside of the box.
I'll second that! And FM8 has an incredible number of avenues open for thinking outside the box. Most of them also work quite well. That's one of the things that makes me so enthusiastic about FM8 after working for 11 years with CC2 and CC2 Pro (and another year evaluating CC3).
See, that's strange: On one hand you raise the point that RPG software needs to be attractive to a large playerbase. Now, you make it sound as if FM was targeted at a minority of talented and experienced users who are able to get the results they want by "thinking outside the box", which is just a way to paraphrase that FM isn't designed too user-friendly.
I do not profess to be an especially talented mapmaker, nor do I aspire to become one. I want software which gives me the tools I need for the basics of mapmaking, and is accessible enough that it doesn't require a lot of talent or years of experience to use. My goal is not to download a program and, days later, produce maps whose aesthetics rival those of professional or semi-professional designers. (Although I get the impression that at least CC is designed to enable its users to do exactly that, altough at the cost of individual user input.) I just want to map a world of my own design - nothing fancy, no "artist junk", just a visual representation of geographical data which is easily processible by the viewer.
I'm saying if you WANT to use your artistic side, you can do this quite well with the tools given in FM. DOES NOT mean you have to.
For some reason your argument is like those on Photoshop forums, where a "novice" user see's something done by a brilliant photshop artist, and complains that he cant do that, because the novice has no desire to put in the effort to do the same tricks as the artist.
THATS ok, you do not want to do the work, but why make it look like its unacceptable to think outside of the box??
I'm trying to be "neutral" in giving out advice, but I'm starting to think that Mark is correct in thinking that you want a magic-box that will do everything for you.
It takes a certain type of person to take a program (be it 2d or 3d) and do amazing things with it. Not everyone can be this type of person. A lot of people "think" that if they have the latest version of "Vue" or "Maya" that they will instantly be able to create incredible 3D scenes (but in their effort only garbage is produced), yet, someone shows up using an old version of truespace, or blender comes along and blows people away by using their "inferior" software with artistic innovation... Do you blame the makers of truespace or Blender?
Richard,
I don't quite understand what is your point here. I'm the novice who explicitly NOT complains about not being able to reproduce the brilliant work of experts! That is not my scope. Of course there is nothing unacceptable with thinking outside the box to produce great artistic results. However, you and Mark made it sound as if you needed to think outside the box just to access the basic functionality of FM!
Yes, I want to "plop down" objects - not necessarily fractal blobs, but simple points, lines and polygons - and label them, just as you say. I expect that it takes a lot of effort to produce professionally-looking maps, and that's why I am explicitly NOT asking for a shortcut to do so. I just want to be able to work with the basics, since I know I am not an artist.
I do not expect FM to take me on the hand and lead me to professionally-looking maps without having to put effort in! I do, however, expect FM to allow me mapping and labelling the contours and points of interest of my self-designed world, in however a crude way I manage to get that done, and I want that world to be a sphere. That is all! I certainly don't want FM to be a magic-box that will do everything for me - how on earth did you get that impression?
To the contrary, I WANT to do everything by myself! I just need FM to provide me with the basic tools to do so - allow me to create labelled vector objects and points, and apply the computing power of my pc for zooming, rotating and refocussing my view of these objects. I certainly didn't expect the need to "think outside the box" to do just that. However, if for some reason I need tricky workarounds to do even that, and you happen to know them, it would be great if you could share! I certainly won't bug you, EVER, about not being able to match anyone's artistic ability.
You need to be able to think outside of the box to excel at anything. The idea has nothing to do with the functionality of FM8.
Oh, come on now. The Vintyri Project influence? We're a group of three people who produce free, open gaming products, not a Swiss bank!
The thing that made CC3 100% incompatible with our products was ProFantasy's decision to make it impossible to embed raster graphics in maps. Our maps must be editable by our users. That's key to the open source concept behind our work.
Having some understanding of the substantial changes in the FM kernel that would be necessary to implement the bigger points of Zeremoniac's wish list, I have serious questions about the 100% compatibility of our open FM8 maps with the new kernel. What's more, I can't picture the kernel being in really solid shape after such substantial stages. It would be not only a first but absolutely a miracle in the software industry.
When FM 8.0 was released, it was an astoundingly and admirably clean piece of software, absolutely one of the cleanest I've ever seen. Still, it had serious issues that pushed it to the borders of usability as far as our needs we're concerned. I passed every one of these issues on to NBOS with documentation and samples that showed the problem. Within two or three days, each problem was fixed. That's one of the great things about NBOS. CC3 has been around for four years and it still has more holes than a hunk of Swiss cheese. Look at the forums if you don't believe me.
So, to be more detailed about what we would do, just to clear the decks:
If NBOS were to put out FM9 with the kernel modified to support the key points on Zeremoniac's wish list without adding any functionality that I want, I would buy one license to see what kind of problems the new kernel would make, if any, with our existing work. If NBOS were to put out FM9 with the kernel modified to support the key points on Zeremoniac's wish list and with additional functionality that I can use, I would buy one license to see what kind of problems the new kernel would make, if any, with our existing work. In both cases, I would communicate those problems to Ed Diana and see if he can fix them, which might not be possible if the kernel had been changed substantially.
If those problems couldn't be fixed, sure, I'd look for new software. On the compatibility issue, NBOS wouldn't be reliable enough for me. As much as I like FM8 and Ed Diana, my first concern is for the users of our products. I want them to be able to rely upon the idea that they can continue using what we offer them over a reasonable period of time. The three of us take that idea just as seriously in our free and open environment as commercial producers do or should do. If FM9 were to make problems with our FM8 generated maps, and the problems were not reparable, we'd owe it to our users to seek a different solution.
However, all of this is more or less a waste of time, because it's purely hypothetical. I do believe Ed Diana has told us rather politely that this kind of change isn't going to come.
And that's exactly the point.
More likely, if I were ever to add support for this sort of thing in the suite, it'd be in FWE or a successor. It'd be far more feasable to create FM maps from FWE in multiple projections than it would be to make FM support them. This has, in fact, always been an option for future versions of FWE... just not one I've ever explored.
To be clear: I never insisted that the FM kernel had to be altered in any way, I was just defending my needs against the idea that they were far-fetched. And of course I didn't expect that any update or add-on would be available anytime soon, although I still hold that this is an important and logical next step the software should take.
In the meanwhile, I hope that Richard's tutorial will contain some miraculous workaround which spares me the manual overdrawing of coordinate grids and manual redrawing of map parts in different projections...
I'll be creating another set of more interesting videos on taking your FM export results and using a secondary software to alter the look, and then importing it back into FM and continuing editing within FM.
But this will be after I finish editing the current videos, I'm trying to chop this first bunch of vids down right now, editing through 3 hours of materials... I was having so much fun...
Did I miss anything or did you have to put this project on hold?