RPTools.net

I am known for making MASSIVE maps. I do this for many reasons but mainly for determining performance and trying to break Maptool.

Here are some interesting facts that I would like to share:

-If I made a 3000X3000 pixel map in photoshop, at a 50 pixels per grid setting (and 5’ per cell), the map would be 300' X 300'. In D&D, advanced archers can shoot well over 1000 feet. A 1000' map made in Photoshop at a grid50 setting would be 10,000X10,000 pixels. That is a LARGE map that will use up GOBS of RAM to load. (roughly speaking, a 5000X5000 pixel map will exceed the 256meg default setting in Maptool)

-I made a map out of stamps in Maptool 1.3 that spans around 2500 feet in both directions. That is the same as a 25,000X25,000 pixel map if I made it in Photoshop. Maptool is only using 81Meg or RAM - WOW! Now, the outdoor map is large enough to allow the rangers with the Far Shot feat to actually use their ability and shoot arrows very far (assuming there was a line of sight over that distance).

Conclusion: Bound maps are not an option for MASSIVE maps. If you need distance, you need to make your maps in Maptool with stamps.

Notable mentions for Trevor:
- The campaign file size is under 10meg and the assets are few (maybe under 20). The file takes a few minutes to load up on the GM's side.
- The map pans smooth as butter up close but when zoomed out, it halts to a crawl. If you could tweak the performance when zoomed out, I could easily see MASSIVE maps spanning 10,000 feet (5' per cell / grid50 setting equaling 100,000X100,000 pixels). WOW! That is roughly 2 miles! THAT WOULD ROCK!!!!
- This campaign is just stamps - no topology and no drawings.

You can check it out here. I didn't put any effort into making it look pretty - it was only for testing. This campaign was made with 1.3B6 so you will need to load it up with that version for testing.

http://www.rptools.net/dorpond/VillageForest.cmpgn

Another note that comes to mind for Trevor:
I could have sworn that castle massive map in 1.2 was well over 1 mile in each direction. Do you think 1.3 performace could have been crushed a bit with the 1.3 wrecking ball? Then again, that 1.2 map was made with texture drawing. *curious*. Understood if so - afterall we are changing a lot of things atm.

Shouldn't have been, but I'll take a look. Thanks for the campaign !


An additional note: there isn't really a limit to the space that is used to make a map. It'll just keep on going forever (well, technically, as far as your finite machine can interpret "forever") in each direction, without taking any more memory. What takes up memory is unique stamp images. So, you could conceivably make an entire world in very little memory if you reuse a lot of stamp images.

My latest map is 13,000 x 18,000 pixels, for the record.

I have yet to import it in to MapTool - I'll let you know how it goes.

(I'm slicing it up in to sections)

So you made the map with Photoshop? Yes, I am very curious how much RAM is used when using maps that large. I would probably use the 1gig version of the batch file before loading it

When you say import, you are just talking about loading up that "bound" map, correct? Yuu are not talking about re-creating it with stamps, right?

Let us know what you get!

Oh, also, what is the file size? Also, how much RAM does it take in Photoshop when you open it there?

It's so big I had to make it as two maps in Photoshop.

Combined size is 1.75 GB. And I am going to be going the stamp route.

WOW! So what you are saying is that a 1300' by 1800' map uses up 1.75 gig of RAM. That's is only roughly 1/4 of a mile.

1/4 mile map made in 3rd part mapper = 1.75G of Ram
1/2 mile map made in Maptool = 81M of Ram

That my friends is why making maps with maptool is the way to go! That just blows my mind!

I'll stick to Photoshop because I like how they turn out.

But memory is a consideration for people to keep in mind of course.

Photoshop makes a map take 2 to 3 times the RAM as the base image consumes, for the record.

That's why it's halves - Photoshop can't handle a 7 GB memory footprint.

I'm guessing that MapTool handles multiple objects by referring to their location?

That easily explains why there is less resource need. PS has to track every pixel while MT just has to track a reference to the object, and associated attributes. That makes a huge difference. Most CAD applications actually work this way as well.

Correct. It's actually pretty smart about it too. Even if you drop the same image from two different places it'll still use the one image in memory.

*Noticable Mention*

This is way too premature to bring up performance issues with 1.3 but I still wanted you to be aware of this recent finding Trevor since it may effect other things moving forward with 1.3

I made another MASSIVE campaign but this time in 1.2. I made it the same size as the 1.3 version and it didn't even slow down when zoomed out. For a matter of fact, I doubled the size of the map before 1.2 started to slow. Even now at 4700 feet X 4200 feet this map performs much better than the smaller 2500'X2500' 1.3 version.

Just wanted you to know. Something is slowing zoomed out pans dramatiically in 1.3 when using many stamps.

I also noticed that the file size for 1.2 is half that of 1.3 and 1.2 has twice as many assets on screen (roughly same amount of individual image files though). That is curiously strange. What could be inflating the file so much in 1.3?

One more thing: The 1.2 campaign file loads in a matter of seconds whereas the 1.3 campaign file does in minutes.

Here is the 1.2 campaign file:
http://www.rptools.net/dorpond/ForestTowns.cmpgn

Hopefully this is helpful to you.

Cool, I"ll check that out.

you guys are talking about these huge maps and how they still work but i am having trouble with my smaller one. i made a forest encounter with i admit a significant amount of trees (thats the look i was going for) and when i turned on F.O.W. my comp can't even really run it. i don't have a slow comp its a new gaming hp. i am not sure on the exact dimentions but it can't be over 500'x500'. the total size is 1,987KB i am not sure how big this is cause a can't compare it to other maps. is there a way to fix it with out changing the map itself or what can i do.

Are you using the topology layer ? If so, are you putting in tree trunks for each tree ?

Also, it's quite possibly the fog rendering, which uses translucent fog. Try turning fog on/off and see if the performance changes.

You might check and upgrade to Java 6 if you are on Java 5 since 6 has major speed improvements to translucent painting

even with F.O.W. off it is really slow like i can't zoom at all or it will come close to freezing. i am not sure what to do cause it is to slow to even work. i think i might remake it to see if that helps.