Make me buy Character Artist 3

don't take it as a troll (please), but : is Character Artist better than Heromachine3 for exemple (free software) ?

Is there things I can do with CA3 that are impossible to do with HM3 ?

Is CA3 Art better thant HM3 Art ?

Thanks for anwsers.

ps : I'm waiting hard for CC3+ so make it faster pls ;-)

Comments

  • Simon RogersSimon Rogers Administrator, ProFantasy Traveler
    Probably best that I don't compare, but if anyone wants to try Heromachine 3 it's over here.
  • One specific thing I'd like to know with HeroMachine versus Character Artist -- with HeroMachine, to an extent I can skew objects to adjust sizes (so if I say want a zaftig character, since character designer programs otherwise refuse to give us that option, I can make that happen by custom skewing pieces of the portrait). I understand doing so might mess up snaps, but I'd be interested in the option.

    Can you do that with Character Artist as well? Can I do it as easily as in HeroMachine? More easily? More nicely?

    I'd be curious about a general comparison as well. Honestly, I often prefer to draw my own characters, but use Hero Machine sometimes to come up with a quick rendering. Apart from easy import into CC3 maps (I assume I could make character portraits for battle maps easily) I need to know what CA3 has to offer for $40 that I can't get from HeroMachine for free.
  • RalfRalf Administrator, ProFantasy 🖼️ 18 images Mapmaker
    edited December 2013
    Yes, you can use all the scaling options of CC3, meaning you can just plain scale everything, or scale x and y separately to make wider or thinner versions. And if you keep the same scale within one character, you can even continue to use snap.

    I haven't used Heromachine much myself, because I don't like the comic style very much - that's purely a matter of taste of course. I'd say the CA3 style is a little more detailed and more natural. It seems to me working with it is also faster, but there are not as many variations (for example, CA3 is purely fantasy).
  • As far as my comparisons go, I would say that HeroMachine produces only comic book style characters but wider range of them - beyond the scope of fantasy only - than CA3 does. CA3 produces more realistic looking raster graphics. If you want the comic book look, HM probably is the better choice. That's not what our group wants, so HM is pretty much useless to us. I'd also mention that those of you who like to draw your own characters can make your own PNG symbols for CA3 and add them to your CA3 symbol library. Once you do that, you quickly can assemble characters of your own preferred style and creation in CA3.
  • the CA3 is not bad but I would sure like to see some more options maybe as an expansion pack.
  • Posted By: Keenthe CA3 is not bad but I would sure like to see some more options maybe as an expansion pack.
    What options would you like to see?

    For my part, I'd like to see something like a CA3 symbol set that offers a considerably bigger graphics library than the one that's delivered. We're going to test CA3 to see if we want to use it to create NPC graphics for a forthcoming product. The program produces what we want, but with the relatively small graphics library, we're somewhat concerned that our NPCs are going to start looking the same in short order. However, we still have to determine whether that concern is merited.

    We could, of course, make our own extended graphics for CA3, but that's time consuming, and we have other fish that are more important to fry.
  • I think expansion packs could cover eras like sci-fi, old west, Roman times, Ancient Japan, as examples.
  • well more head shapes and hairstyles for sure. a simple way to scale width and height maybe. more clothes and gear options. from my playing around I could only make a few characters that looks different
  • I bought and used CA 3 after passing over CA 2 in the product list since I started using Profantasy products. My honest feedback is that I love your mapping software. I never tried the Character Artist because I really didn't see the imagery before on the website as something to spend money to do. There I said it. CA 3 is definitely nice. I created illustrations for the current party in my D&D game and I was pretty happy with the results.

    Here's a couple of things I ran into which leads into my wishlist for the future...

    I can foresee a lot of illustrations looking very similar in the future as there wasn't quite as many options as I was anticipating (mostly in the realm of gear). I was able to improvise spectacles on what character where I needed them. I have to admit, you can add what you need with some work, creativity, and thinking outside the box with any of your programs and that's a big plus with me.

    I suppose, what I hope for is an expansion with a lot more symbols for gear, magical items, and variations of normal gear covered in the current symbol catalog.

    On a scale of 1/10, I'm going with a 8 on this. More content would be the next phase in my opinion.

    I may post a picture of the party here if I can figure out how to do it without it being pixelated (spelling? uh, who cares) Its a very large file that has the whole party. If anyone wants to see until I decide to take the time to put it on some server or something, let me know.
  • A png should reduce the pixelation.
  • I have all the mappers except FT and I never grabbed CA. The major reason is that so far as I can tell CA has been pretty much aimed at Fantasy which I play very little of.

    If/when I see catalogs that allow me to make illustrations for characters in horror, modern, pulp, scifi and espionage games spread across 1920's to modern. Plus support for supers, that will most likely get me to add CA.

    It looks like a large step forward from CA2, but I just don't play a lot of sword swinging and spell slinging.
  • Posted By: SpenceI have all the mappers except FT and I never grabbed CA. The major reason is that so far as I can tell CA has been pretty much aimed at Fantasy which I play very little of.

    If/when I see catalogs that allow me to make illustrations for characters in horror, modern, pulp, scifi and espionage games spread across 1920's to modern. Plus support for supers, that will most likely get me to add CA.

    It looks like a large step forward from CA2, but I just don't play a lot of sword swinging and spell slinging.
    The three of us in the Vintyri Project have been testing CA3 for about a week now. There are a few conclusions that we're starting to reach:

    1. CA3 is an add-on of excellent quality. It works really well.

    2. Whether it's useful is a question of what one wishes to create with it. As Spence points out above, there isn't much there for anyone gaming outside of the classical fantasy RPG category. If you are into classical fantasy and you want to make graphics of your PCs and some of the main NPCs, CA3 should do most of what you want. If, on the other hand, if one is running an epic campaign and one wants to illustrate all of the important NPCs that the PCs might encounter along the way, the results could become less than satisfactory. We find the library of parts that one uses to assemble the graphics disappointingly small. Anyone trying to illustrate the creatures encountered in an epic campaign probably will come to the conclusion in short order that everyone looks more or less like someone else who appeared earlier. Basic things are missing. There is not even a part included to give a character a long beard.

    3. Many classical fantasy game masters might also went to use CA3 to illustrate encountered monsters. The graphics library really shows its limits in this respect. If one wants to illusteate monsters, the possibilities are limited to birdmen, bugs, catmen. fiends, goblins, lizardmen, brainflenser (D&D calls them mindflayers), skeletons, snakemen, minotaurs, orcs and gnolls. Not even so basic a monster as a troll is offered.

    4. Another issue might apply only to our group's wants and needs. We find that many of the varicolor parts are too strongly shaded in tones of grey and black, giving the element a not always desirable dark tone. As an example, we set out to create an undead wizard wearing a fire-engine-red robe. We thought that should be possible. None of the three of us succeeded. Picking basic red colors, the dark shading gave us dark red tones. When we chose lighter shades of red, we ended up with greyed pastels.

    In reading these "minus" points, keep in mind that there may be some ways to resolve some of these points that we haven't discovered. Also keep Point No. 1 in mind: Despite what we perceive to be shortcomings, CA3 is of excellent quality. We haven't decided yet whether we'll use it, but that's only because of the relatively small library of parts.
  • I'd agree with a lot of what Vintyri just said, but I'm still finding the program wonderfully useful - as a *base* for other work. My artistic talents are limited when it comes to drawing, but I am finding that I can use CA3 to produce images I am capable of modifying quite easily to give me what I want even with my limited skills. For example, I'm using CA3 combined with Paint Shop Pro to deal with the colour issue he mentioned.

    I like it 'out of the box', but I also like the fact that its given me pieces I can adapt. I doubt I will do many images without modifications done elsewhere - but at least it gives me something I can modify.

    http://www.libraryofhiabuor.net/rathurboskpeople.html

    is one of my webpages. Of the images on that page, some are 'straight' CA3 but Bishop Vladimir, Jase duul Guidor, Rauk, and Trilothi duul Guidor have all been modified to some extent. I had to do that to get what I wanted - but I *can*. Without CA3 as a starting point, I would not have a hope.

    I'd love more symbols. I hope there will be symbol sets eventually. But I really do think it's great.
  • edited December 2013
    Posted By: Vintyri4. Another issue might apply only to our group's wants and needs. We find that many of the varicolor parts are too strongly shaded in tones of grey and black, giving the element a not always desirable dark tone. As an example, we set out to create an undead wizard wearing a fire-engine-red robe. We thought that should be possible. None of the three of us succeeded. Picking basic red colors, the dark shading gave us dark red tones. When we chose lighter shades of red, we ended up with greyed pastels.
    As far as I understand it, varicolor symbols often use a transparent sheet to shade, with light gray almost fully transparent and black fully opaque. This result in dull colors as you depict above.
    The varicolor feature is designed to create quick color variations (hence the name) in symbols.
    When you have the time to do it, you can get better result with the following method:
    1. Locate the png file corresponding to the symbol you want in another color (the non-varicolor version).
    2. Duplicate the file to avoid loosing the "official one'"
    3. Use an image editor (The Gimp, Photofilter etc.) to change the hues of the copied image file.
    4. Import this new image in a new symbol

    You'll get brighter colors, but it takes much more time...
    The picture below shows the result of the method applied to the DD3 couch with the varicolor version bottom left.

    Note: the white contour of the varicolor symbol appeared because I pasted the picture on another picture. If you do it within CC3, you don't get it.
  • A quick note.

    I have owned a copy CC for many years and can remember upgrading to CC2 back in 97.
    I had the same issue with CC when I had bought the original version because of a limited number of pre-built symbols.

    That went away as time went on and they added catalogs, and then the Annuals started. Now I almost have too many!

    My point is that I am sure that once things get settled we will see CA expanded to support other genre's. But you have to start somewhere.
  • Posted By: Joachim de RavenbelAs far as I understand it, varicolor symbols often use a transparent sheet to shade, with light gray almost fully transparent and black fully opaque. This result in dull colors as you depict above.
    The varicolor feature is designed to create quick color variations (hence the name) in symbols.
    When you have the time to do it, you can get better result with the following method:
    That's a good solution for almost everyone, but it won't work for us because of the nature of our products. All of our work is not only on an open gaming basis but also on an open source basis. That means that maps that we make - or in the case of NPC graphics, CA3 renderings that we might make - are available to our users in editable form. Any modifications we do of a PF symbol or any custom symbols we might use will produce only red Xs on our user's machine, because he or she hasn't installed these modifications or customs works. For that reason, we could use only the symbols provided by ProFantasy, so that our users who want to modify our work have access to all of the symbols that we use.

    This really isn't a CA3 issue so much as a CC3 issue. CC3 is unable to embed symbols. Therefore, an editable, open source map or NPC illustration is limited to the graphics libraries that ProFantasy delivers. As some have mentioned, ProFantasy well may offer expanded CA3 graphics at some time in the future, and if that occurs, then the issues that we've raised become less important.

    One should keep in mind that the embedding issue is relevant only to those who need to supply the original CC3/CA3 graphics in editable FCW form. It's quite possible that we're the only posters in this forum who are affected by this issue. If you aren't affected by it, then don't mix it into your decision regarding whether you wish to acquire CA3!

  • As far as I understand it, varicolor symbols often use a transparent sheet to shade, with light gray almost fully transparent and black fully opaque. This result in dull colors as you depict above.
    The varicolor feature is designed to create quick color variations (hence the name) in symbols.
    When you have the time to do it, you can get better result with the following method:
    1.Locate the png file corresponding to the symbol you want in another color (the non-varicolor version).
    2.Duplicate the file to avoid loosing the "official one'"
    3.Use an image editor (The Gimp, Photofilter etc.) to change the hues of the copied image file.
    4.Import this new image in a new symbol
    Hello,

    I really think it would be a really cool feature in CC3++ or CC3+++ to have a much richer notion of varicolor. What you propose is fine with mostly one-colored symbols, but varycolor is also used for two colors symbols (a shield with a coat of arms). What I would like to see is varicolor symbols with more than 1 mask layers, and the possibility for each layer to specify what transformation will be applied (multiply some user color by the mask alpha level, which is I believe what is currently done, but also hue transformation, as proposed by Joachim...).

    I'm not sure yet whether which transformation could be applied to which layer is something that should be specified by the symbol creator, or by the symbol user.

    I'm confident that this would allow for much more diversity in maps, while still being manageable by the user.
Sign In or Register to comment.