RPTools.net

Well let me ask, would you guys rather have token packs in rptok format where they are already sized and such or leave them as PNG?

There is an issue with trying to visually make all tokens the same 'size' and that is the kind of gear and such they are wielding (or their physical shape). For example, I could have a soldier standing straight up - arms at side, and compare that to a soldier thrusting a spear. The spear soldier has this long pole item and if we left it in PNG format, there is no way the two tokens side by side will look the same size. For example, the guy with the spear will have a much smaller head when placed next to the guy standing at attention.

Unless of course, we change their layout in Maptool and extended their weaponry and such outside the cell and saved it as an RPTok file.

A good example of this are the tokens that are bundled with Maptool. Drop them to the map - you will see that their weapons extend outside the cell. This way they all look the same size when next to each other. Those bundled tokens are all RPTok files.

But, that comes at a cost too - I personally cannot stand when the selection "candy cane" selects the PNG instead of the cell when moving tokens. Unfortunately, this is what it is and we have to deal with it for 1.3.

So you guys tell me - should I go through all 998 tokens, change the layout and extend them outside their cells and save them as RPTok's, or leave them as PNG's for the community to decide how to handle them?

Top down tokens are just tough - real tough.

IMHO, PNGs are better because they offer more options/freedom to the end user.

Would an option with a rough scale work? so that with the PNGs they would fit with any other items, such as chairs - and would only need to be resized for under or over sized objects?

If we could work that scale that in to the default size of a token so most of the stuff can be dropped straight in and work.

e.g 256px for 3 feet (roughly the size of a man sized token). That would make tokens easy to make, and keep everything fitting together.

Well to be quiet honest with you Cweord, at this phase of the game we are accepting whatever people are willing to give. I see where you are coming from but I really don't want to put restrictions in place.

While I personally like stuff that is built around 100 pixels per cell (good balance between size and quality), I really don't want to force my preferences on the rest of the community. Some users like the whole 200 pixel per cell quality like that done with Dundjinni while others like 50 pixels per cell because they like massive maps.

So I really don't want to enforce a specific size; if people want to give us 100 high resolution images, thank you. If someone wants to give us 100 low resolution images, thank you. I am sure there will be someone in our community that will appreciate and use the artwork.

To be honest here, I am very appreciative that people out there are sharing their stuff with us. I think it is very cool and I open my arms up to them.

I agree with you, and don't think we should turn anything away or enforce a size, but if we had a recommended size, then people who aren't bothered what size they work in could work to it.

At the moment as there are no suggested set ups, then people who are undecided about what format to provide in get no guidance.

If you're going to make an art-pack, make all your images a higher resolution. Start at 300 dpi at minimum. This will allow you to sell or graciously donate your high resolution art packs separately outside of MapTool for use with printed materials. At 300 dpi, 300 pixels = 1" = 5 feet. That is a very good starting point for any artist creating an art pack and a pretty generic measurement for rpg maps.

It is always better to start at a higher resolution and export lower resolution images from the original. Always. Unless you're making sprite artwork and working in a limited number of pixels heh. Once you have your high resolution print images, I suggest exporting them at two sizes: 100px per inch and 50 px per inch.

Yeah, it's extra work, but you provide people with options and options are good.

Natha wrote:IMHO, PNGs are better because they offer more options/freedom to the end user.

Agreed. The only issue with PNGs is that they blit slower to the screen, especially if hardware acceleration isn't enabled. But yeah, PNGs are the way to go for almost everything. Well, until Java comes with a JPEG-2000 library.

(JPEG-2000 includes support for transparent pixels. The better compression would be great for transferring assets over a slow(er) connection.)

The new art packs are live in the library downloader

Very cool! Having the complete set of packs from Devin is wonderful.

dorpond wrote:I will review the art pack and make sure it is usable, well organized, and fulfills the three rules above. If so, we will get it in there.

I have a question about this you haven't specifically answered in this thread.

I'm currently working on an art pack for buildings and furnishings that emulates the handdrawn style/templates I often use in my table top games. Since I'm going through the work of creating it for myself, I thought I'd just go ahead and set it up as an artpack to share with the community and give something back.

Anyway, you talk about usable and well organized, but you don't specify exactly what those mean to you. I think I can safely assume that usable means the art pack has to contain more than a bunch of unrecognizable lines and squiggles - it needs to have elements recognizable by a number of people and enough of them to make them worhtwhile for people to download.

But organized isn't so crystal clear. I'm assuming that means the pngs should be named with logical names, and placed within a folder structure that places them in logical groupings - IE, a folder named furniture might have seperate subfolders named chairs, tables and beds - is that correct

I have another Art Pack related question

Let's say I create Art Pack X and it gets added as an official MT Art Pack. Then later on, I add a whole bunch of components to Art Pack X, and submit those, too.

Do they get added as some form of update to Art Pack X? Do they get added as Art Pack Y? If the original art pack gets updated, how do people who've downloaded it before know?

I'm asking because I have a certain completion goal for the art pack I'm working on - but that goal is broken down into several smaller intermediate goals, any of which could be usuable as an Art Pack itself. Trying to decide if I should wait until I'm completely finished before submitting something, or if I should contribute at each of my intermediate goals.

Good questions and sorry about the delay.

You pretty much hit the nail on the head with useful and organized. Useful to me is a map designed for gaming on - maps with room to move. As far as objects, items that are useful are those that people will use much of the time. A pack of spoons, mixers, and toasters are pretty useless unless someone is making a kitchen map, which isn't often. Also, if objects look horrible because they are designed for a 10 pixel per cell map, go back and make them a bit nicer. 75 or 100 is a sure win because it offers pretty mapping for low memory consumption.

You are correct with organized. I like things in sub folders, especially if there are a lot of things. File names too because some of us use the search feature to find items in large folders.

Now, the art packs themselves cannot be appended to. I discussed this with Trevor during design and we came to the conclusion that the best way for 1.3 is the way it is now:

- Cannot add to the pack once it is release.
- If a updated pack is released, call it something new like "Dorponds Tree Pack ver.3"

The user base can easily delete the older artpack and we can easily take the older artpacks off the list of available downloads.

In maptool 1.4, we will make the artpack system much better with the ability to append and such - we just ran out of time with 1.3.

Hope this helps!

Thanks!

Is it allowed to use external (and free) textures from the web in the process of creating the art objects?

Check the lisencing on the specific image you want to reproduce.
You should generally be safe if it's creative commons or similar, but you may need to give credit.
hope that will answer what you need, if not someone more knowledgeable about the different lisences will point out what each one is called and allows you to do.

Mal