|
Post by erk on Apr 1, 2014 16:11:46 GMT -9
Digression: I think the GIMP does have more resampling options in newer versions, including cubic, but I'd have to check.
In topic: those sound like solid arguments for making a range of 150-300dpi standard. Higher is a waste of bandwidth, lower is bad for printing.
|
|
|
Post by erk on Apr 2, 2014 12:49:03 GMT -9
For those curious, I can confirm that at least v2.6 and later of the GIMP support cubic interpolation, which preserves sharp edges quite nicely. Huzzah!
|
|
|
Post by bravesirkevin on Apr 2, 2014 23:36:29 GMT -9
For those curious, I can confirm that at least v2.6 and later of the GIMP support cubic interpolation, which preserves sharp edges quite nicely. Huzzah! I stand to be corrected, as I'm a Photoshop user and have barely touched the GIMP, but from what I can tell "Sinc (Lanczos 3)" interpolation might do a better job of preserving sharp edges than Bicubic interpolation. Very cursory research leads me to believe that the Lanczos method was designed specifically to preserve details like graininess and hard edges. Photoshop actually has 3 different forms of bicubic interpolation, while the GIMP only seems to have one. Bicubic (Sharper) is like the basic one but it favours a steeper curve and thus retains hard edges which is why it's best for downsampling, while the Bicubic (Smoother) option favours a more gradual curve and thus does the opposite by creating a smooth transition between two differently coloured pixels, allowing for a less blocky upsample.
|
|
|
Post by wisdomknight on Apr 7, 2014 15:24:47 GMT -9
Is there any serious consideration as to the type of connectivity issues. Connectimg walls, tiles etc.
|
|
|
Post by glennwilliams on Apr 7, 2014 16:54:05 GMT -9
Is there any serious consideration as to the type of connectivity issues. Connectimg walls, tiles etc. There's a good issue. Just as figure bases are mostly standardized, so should those for base plates. Personally I favour connectors that can be glued to the underside and interlock. Simpler the better.
|
|
|
Post by bravesirkevin on Apr 7, 2014 17:51:04 GMT -9
Connectors and all other linking-system specific elements have been deliberately left out of the best practices. The intention was to handle that separately in an optional universal system with the acronym CUTS.
|
|
|
Post by dungeonmistress on Apr 8, 2014 9:22:06 GMT -9
There are several really good linking systems out there and I for one would have a very difficult time choosing which I like best, It would have to a situational choice. "Would A work better in this situation or would B work better?"
It's also a matter of personal preference and what you are comfortable with.
Although; I see the appeal for a system that is universal. The problem would be which one to choose?...hmmm....
|
|
|
Post by mproteau (Paper Realms) on Apr 8, 2014 9:50:21 GMT -9
I used to want a universal system. I'm personally comfortable with two or three systems. I just want to work in a system that (a) *I* like to work with, and (b) it's an open enough system that others might want to use it, too. It just so happens that I'm a huge fan of TLX, and while I'm desperate to avoid public religious wars about the merits of modular building systems (I'm happy to discuss it in a more intimate setting (PM or IM is great)), I'm finding it very hard to improve on much of the TLX system in a meaningful way. I'm not done though - I'm at about an hour a week if I'm lucky doing paper stuff - and there's a lot of ideas to test out.
|
|
|
Post by wisdomknight on Apr 8, 2014 10:50:30 GMT -9
Well the reason I ask is, how would vendors make anything other than props without a connection system in place?
I mean you cant use Terraclips, TLX or Fat Dragon types of connectors legally. So it all great with a nice 28M logo and texture standards but if one cannot build/create/sell any module terrain, walls, buildings Im not sure how big a deal of a standard even is.
|
|
|
Post by wisdomknight on Apr 8, 2014 10:53:35 GMT -9
As a 3d/texture artist myself, having gained quite an amount of experience over the past months building paper models, I for one am seriously contemplating producing module paper products. I would love to take part in this developing standard right from the beginning.
|
|
|
Post by squirmydad on Apr 8, 2014 12:34:58 GMT -9
As a 3d/texture artist myself, having gained quite an amount of experience over the past months building paper models, I for one am seriously contemplating producing module paper products. I would love to take part in this developing standard right from the beginning. Here is a good blog that started discussion in the WWG forums that I believe is relevant to this discussion; Open Ground
|
|
|
Post by dungeonmistress on Apr 8, 2014 15:18:05 GMT -9
I'll definately be watching this! Thanks, squirmydad!
|
|
|
Post by bravesirkevin on Apr 8, 2014 15:50:54 GMT -9
The best practices were always meant to be system agnostic simply because there are so many systems out there. If anything it's meant to act as a bridge between them. 28Terrain was not meant to be world-changing. The main goal with it is to establish some conventions about things like scale so that designs play nicely together. That's the foundation, and once that's established we'd do some cool things like designing a universal open linking system that any designer can build for without stepping on toes and a shared resource repository where designers could share textures and stuff under a licence so that other designers could use them to build compatible designs. A lot of people have commented that 28terrain is kinda boring or ineffectual, but it's just the foundation. CUTS and the repository are a lot more interesting, but neither of them are much use if we don't first establish a set of best practices and get designers working to them. ]Here is a good blog that started discussion in the WWG forums that I believe is relevant to this discussion; Open GroundOoh... this looks interesting. Who's behind this?
|
|
|
Post by erk on Apr 8, 2014 16:43:11 GMT -9
]Here is a good blog that started discussion in the WWG forums that I believe is relevant to this discussion; Open GroundOoh... this looks interesting. Who's behind this? I enticed a friend into helping me make some missing TLX material that I don't like RPGing without. She is getting more into the project than I'd anticipated I'll get her to create a login 'round here. It's actually this project that brought me to this thread in the first place. Via mproteau.
|
|
|
Post by spaceranger42 on Apr 10, 2014 11:21:35 GMT -9
Just a couple of quick things here; GW's secondary product line for the LotR Battle Game are a true 25mm game, made so purposely so that they could not be kit bashed with WFB and 40K model kits. A tile set that is compliant to your standards would exclude 2in or 1in wide corridors? Or would including those not matter? 1:60 is actually not an acurate scale for gaming miniatures. 1:64, a standard modeling scale, puts a human sized figure at 27mm. Last but not least . . . and not meaning to step on anyones toes, but don't we all model to approximate scale already? Some games require quite precise base sizes as part of their mechanics, and HeroClix works off of a non standard grid on thier maps specifically so that other game maps won't be useful. Most table top wargames don't even use grid maps since you have to estimate the range of a taret by eye. So far as modeling to scale goes and having things look correct with industry standard miniatures, well that doesn't really work. GW uses the heroic scale for their main lines so their models actually average out about 32mm tall with over sized head, hands, and feet so that they read well on the table. Reaper goes back and forth between a true 28mm and a heroic scale as does WYRD, but WYRD has started generating models from 3D mesh so they get extremely fine detail which doesn't quite fit in either camp. Not downing on the idea, just a little devils advocate.
|
|
|
Post by alisatana on Apr 17, 2014 11:20:33 GMT -9
I'm pretty sure the 1:60 comes from the DnD general rule that says 1 inch equals 5ft, even though you're right about 1:64 being more accurate to 28mm scale. Something to keep in mind is the height of a base the minis are on, as a door made at true 1:64 scale would appear short next to a model on a 3mm tall base, so doors need to be made a little taller - and using 1:60 for the terrain is a shorthand for this. This article elaborates on that. TL;dr: A door in 1:64 scale is 1.25"(32mm) tall, but a door in 1:60 scale is 1.33"(34mm), adding that extra for base height. As for the LoTR game, I do believe the first post mentioned these are only one set of guidelines, and terrain meant for 25mm or 35mm would have its own set of rules. Also, HI! I'm the artist working on the Open Ground opensource template that Erk bugged into joining up. I've just finished writing up general build instructions and have the PSD template available for download (see www.opengroundterrain.com ) I'm still going to be making a few additions to the templates, such as guides for doors (and windows) at 25, 28, and 35mm scales. I'd also like to include more grids than the 1" and 1.5" squares - like what you mention about the HeroClix having it's own grid (I don't know anything about HeroClix) Also, do you know of a common size for any hex grids?
|
|
|
Post by spaceranger42 on Apr 17, 2014 13:05:36 GMT -9
I don't know any games that use hex grids larger than 1in other than Battle Tech but I am sure there must be some out there. GURPS uses a 1in hex grid and back in the day D&D used a hex for outdoor maps.
|
|
|
Post by alisatana on Apr 17, 2014 14:14:15 GMT -9
Do you know, is that the hexes have 1" sides, or that they're 1" across? and if it's across, is that from side to side, or corner to corner?
|
|
|
Post by Dagger on Apr 17, 2014 16:22:15 GMT -9
Do you know, is that the hexes have 1" sides, or that they're 1" across? and if it's across, is that from side to side, or corner to corner? I would think it would be measured corner to corner... that way, a 1" hex would fit in the same footprint as a 1" circle.
|
|
|
Post by Parduz on Apr 17, 2014 23:05:47 GMT -9
Also, HI! I'm the artist working on the Open Ground opensource template that Erk bugged into joining up. I've just finished writing up general build instructions and have the PSD template available for download (see www.opengroundterrain.com ) WOW I'd also like to include more grids than the 1" and 1.5" squares - like what you mention about the HeroClix having it's own grid (I don't know anything about HeroClix) Also, do you know of a common size for any hex grids? About square grids, i can't think to anything else. I own a good lot of AT-43 miniatures, where the average base is 30mm and some figure have a 40mm base, and the 1,5" is good enough. About hexes, perhaps you could think at the heroscape hex size, which was already discussed here
|
|
|
Post by bravesirkevin on Apr 18, 2014 3:15:35 GMT -9
Do you know, is that the hexes have 1" sides, or that they're 1" across? and if it's across, is that from side to side, or corner to corner? The biggest problem with hexes is not their size, but their tilability. You can only tile regular sized hexes on triangular or hexagonal tiles, or irregularly proportioned rectangular tiles. I came up with an alternative solution that fits a tilable section of hexes into 3x3 inch square by squashing their height a little. The hexes themselves are big enough to accommodate the standard bases used on most human sized figures. Basically the hex is both 1" wide and 1" high.
|
|
|
Post by alisatana on Apr 18, 2014 9:33:25 GMT -9
Sir Kevin, Thanks, I'll do that to include on these templates for folks who play gurps - as I think exact tile shape isn't such a big deal with that system as it would be with other systems. I'd realized that I will need to make a whole other set of templates to do proper hex - and my partner pointed out that Mechwarrior, being the most prominent system that uses hex, is on a different scale anyway, so that's a project to tackle at a later date. I think Heroclix, and their 35mm grid will also have to have its own set of templates or use the 1.5" grid, again, something for a later date.
My main concern now is to make a more succinct beginners guide to construction, then the artists guide, once I've got those sorted out, I'll create a thread over in the free-downloads forum.
|
|
|
Post by dungeonmistress on Apr 18, 2014 13:39:57 GMT -9
Hail & welcome, alisatana! I am so glad to see you here! Your system has a lot going for it and I am already a fan. I am also looking forward to your instructions on how to work with textures. I have just downloaded gimp and I have an extensive file of free textures I've gathered from all over the net, but I haven't a clue as to how to put them together and use them. With so much creativity here on this forum, I believe you will fit right in! (It also helps if you're just a little 'looney tunes' like the rest of us) So, come on in, sit down, kick your shoes off and put feet up. We're glad to have you!
|
|
|
Post by bravesirkevin on Apr 19, 2014 2:22:16 GMT -9
Sir Kevin, Thanks, I'll do that to include on these templates for folks who play gurps - as I think exact tile shape isn't such a big deal with that system as it would be with other systems. The main popularity of the hex is that it comes a lot closer to emulating a realistic sense of distance than the square grid does. The square grids either just treat diagonal distances as being the same as orthogonal distances (meaning a spherical burst actually covers a square area) or they have mathematical formulas where you skip every two diagonal squares counts as 3 orthogonal squares meaning you have to do math to figure things out. With hexes, the diagonals the distances are the same in 6 different directions meaning a spherical burst covers a circular area without having to do any math at all. I'm speculating here, but I suspect the biggest proponents of hex based systems are folks who play games like Dungeons and Dragons that typically use the square grids, but hate the problems of square grids that I mentioned above. The only real reason 1.5" exists is to accommodate clix games like Heroclix and Mage Knight. There's no need to include 35mm in addition to that (and doing so would mess up the tilability since the lowest common multiple of 35mm and 25.4mm would be too large to make it practical for our purposes.) There is the question of Warhammer Quest and the related games. They used to use a grid of roughly 3cm squares if I recall correctly. The games are quite playable on 1" and 1.5" grids as the scale is less important there, and as the games have been out of print for many years now, and have effectively been replaced by games like Descent that use 1" grids, I'm not sure it's worth accommodating them specifically. People could always force the right scale by rescaling the tiles if they really wanted to.
|
|
|
Post by wyvern on Apr 19, 2014 4:23:43 GMT -9
I'm speculating here, but I suspect the biggest proponents of hex based systems are folks who play games like Dungeons and Dragons that typically use the square grids, but hate the problems of square grids that I mentioned above. Or possibly folks who came through from board wargames, many of which, going back to SPI in the early '70s, used hex-gridded maps.
|
|
|
Post by glennwilliams on Apr 19, 2014 5:21:56 GMT -9
I'm speculating here, but I suspect the biggest proponents of hex based systems are folks who play games like Dungeons and Dragons that typically use the square grids, but hate the problems of square grids that I mentioned above. Or possibly folks who came through from board wargames, many of which, going back to SPI in the early '70s, used hex-gridded maps. The hexes actually were Avalon Hill first, who in turn got them from an Army think tank.
|
|
|
Post by erk on Apr 19, 2014 6:31:38 GMT -9
I think if we were to do hex, hex would be a modified standard rather than part of regular 28terrain. Including hex support for regular square gridded tiles is a pain in the asterisk at the best of times... but it's only the ground tiles for which it matters anyway. That makes it easy to use 28terrain for all other aspects, eg height of walls and doors and things like that, and submit hexgridded material outside the standards or as "28terrain+HEX" or something. I think people looking for hex terrain are aware that they have nonstandard requirements.
|
|
|
Post by glennwilliams on Apr 20, 2014 10:31:14 GMT -9
Has anyone looked at Deadzone? It is based on 3" cubes That corresponds nicely with a 3" base proposed here. There aren't any other subdivisions: no hexes, no squares. Maybe, as tabletop gamers we're overlooking the obvious, there's no real need for the subdivisions except convenience. The 3" square in Deadzone is small enough it provides realistic movement and cover.
|
|
|
Post by wyvern on Apr 21, 2014 9:05:19 GMT -9
The hexes actually were Avalon Hill first, who in turn got them from an Army think tank. I stand corrected
|
|
|
Post by johnok on May 29, 2014 4:11:39 GMT -9
Hi, folks Lurked here forever... I have BOUGHT many cardstock/paper kits from: Fat Dragon Dave Graffam Mike (the) Haggard Worldworks Finger & Toe Plus many others "Arid Hills"?? (superb) Who is "Empire building" (Yes: I even bought some from you Kev) Sorry if I offend anyone, but I hope this initiative is dead. I like things as they (were) are. very best John K.
|
|