I think the sheet effects gong away is so you can ad things and not slow down your computer. I see it often, or not at all. So I cannot pin down which template is the biggest problem with this.
If you see the message "Sheets missing in the current drawing", it should mean that you're loading an effects settings file on the Sheets & Effects dialog and that the effects in the loaded file are referencing sheets that don't exist in your drawing. Those missing sheets will be added and your existing effects will be kept in place. HOWEVER, if you hold down the Shift key when loading an effects file, it removes all existing effects definitions from all sheets before loading the new file. It probably ought to have a warning message before doing that.
Actually @jslayton, it is the opposite way around. If you don't hold down shift, all effects are wiped and the new preset is applied, but if you hold down shift, the current effects are kept.
Oh dear. It looks like both @Monsen and myself are wrong here. Holding down shift affects things like the drawing settings name and draw tools style, but always overwrite the effects. I misread the code, probably because I really wanted it to be the way I described.
The technical minutiae here are that in every drawing there is a master entity with a lot of settings that also owns all of the effects definitions. When changing an Effects Preset, this entity and all of its child effects are copied from the preset drawing into the current drawing and the preexisting master entity is deleted, along with all of the old effects (the missing sheets information message walks the list of effects and checks to make sure that all of the sheets are present). If Shift is not held down, the contents of the master entity in the current drawing are copied to the newly-loaded one; if Shift is down, the contents of the new master entity loaded from the presets file are kept and the contents of the old one are discarded. In either case, the effects are changed to the newly-loaded one.
Generally, don't hold down Shift when changing the effects presets because it won't help you with what effects are present in the drawing. Changing the Effects Presets value will always discard all of your existing effects. Clicking OK and then doing an UNDO might fix this problem, but it also might not.
True, programmers do like to keep a box of rusty knives and razor blades next to their desk because they need those things once in a while. Sensible people put them into a drawer that closes. The knives, not (always) the programmers.
Maybe it shouldn't be so easily accessible, most mappers never need it.
The problem with idiot-proofing something is that the Universe just builds a better idiot. Usually that's me, with my "well, what does THIS big red button do?"
Maybe a better solution is instead to make the selection part of the dialog instead of holding down shift. A radio button or whatever, that when you change it from the default you get a message about not changing this unless you know what it does and understand the consequences? And maybe have backed up the file first?
Tools/options for 'continental sized' maps. I realize FT3 is supposed to handle most of this, but for CC4, is there any way to add options or tools or commands that would allow for an easier method for drawing very large continental masses. I can do so now with great effort, of course. Just asking.
Maybe you can elaborate on what kind of tools you are thinking about to make this easier? There isn't really a size limit (except node limits if you go a bit overboard with the detail level) so drawing a huge continent isn't really any different from drawing a small island. But if you have any concrete ideas for what you are thinking about to make it easier, it would be interesting to hear.
Nothing I'd call concrete. Maybe options like a select box: continent or regional which would let you set symbols scales/fills outside of the mapping environment. Fighting scaling was MY main issue. Maybe I just need to study the tutorials better heh. I would suggest, however, that the program seems preset for regional mapping. Anyway, thanks for considering my idea.
I know (and freely admit) that I'm coming in with a lot less experience with CC3+ than a lot of folks, but I do have extensive professional experience with CAD systems in general. My wishlist would include:
1) Quick and dirty ability to project a map section onto a sphere. I know Fractal Terrain exists, but if I'm sketching out a large continent (current project is about the size of Africa) it would be really nice to be able to do something simple, like define the size of the globe, define the latitude and longitude of a single point, and pop open a spherical view to see what it looks like on a globe. Even better would be the ability to drag it over the globe until I find the right placement for it.
2) A better stretch command, specifically (but not exclusively) for better coastline editing. Right now, I know of two ways to edit a fractalized coastline, and neither of them are great, so maybe I'm just doing this wrong:
2a) Node edit: The problem here is that I have to edit one node at a time, including each and every fractalized node that the system made for me. Tedious. Painful. Excruciating.
2b) Stretch command: Now I can grab more than one node, but only if they are in a single(?) rectangular selection window, and the results almost never look natural.
How I think it should work: The system should distinguish between the anchor points I put down, and the fractalized points the system creates. It should let me select one or more of those anchor points, let me move those and refractalize the path for me. (Preferably in real time on the screen. There is no place for screen refresh buttons in 2021)
Am I doing this wrong? Is there a better way that I've missed?
3) In general, a better selection tool. The boolean options, in particular, are arcane and unintuitive even to those of us who have worked with CAD systems for twenty years. The idea is nice, but the implementation needs to be wrapped in a better UI, possibly something inspired by AutoCAD's "QuickSelect". (And there, the key idea is to select first and then apply. Separating out the selection from the command is really useful.)
4) If legally possible, open up and document the file format. I have some hobby projects in mind that might really benefit from that. (E.g., I've been toying with the idea of using Generative Adversarial Networks on collections of real world maps to generate more realistic coastlines and island chains, sort of an alternative to Fractal Terrains. I don't do much with city maps, yet, but the same idea probably applies-- maybe even more so, since there are so many source maps to choose from. We've got upwards of 10,000 cities on the planet, but only one planet with coastlines.)
2) A better stretch command, specifically (but not exclusively) for better coastline editing. Right now, I know of two ways to edit a fractalized coastline, and neither of them are great, so maybe I'm just doing this wrong:
2a) Node edit: The problem here is that I have to edit one node at a time, including each and every fractalized node that the system made for me. Tedious. Painful. Excruciating.
2b) Stretch command: Now I can grab more than one node, but only if they are in a single(?) rectangular selection window, and the results almost never look natural.
How I think it should work: The system should distinguish between the anchor points I put down, and the fractalized points the system creates. It should let me select one or more of those anchor points, let me move those and refractalize the path for me. (Preferably in real time on the screen. There is no place for screen refresh buttons in 2021)
Am I doing this wrong? Is there a better way that I've missed?
Yes.
The way to edit fractalized coastlines are with the edit feature of the drawing tool. It lets you easily replace sections, be they large or small, and is the preferred way to edit landmasses and other entities.
Suggested before, but the more I think about it, the more I'd like boolean operations -- union, difference, etc. You can get similar results with multipolys (and I wouldn't want to see that go), but building complex shapes feels harder than it could be.
Also suggested before, but OUTLINE is kind of a primitive stroke -- I'd like the ability to go set the outline width. Now, unless I'm missing something, I have to go back and set the resulting outline's properties to thicken it up. for instance.
Feature to allow us to pull guidelines from either side and top to bottom of the drawing area. Just move up cursor, left click and drag a guide line down or across, move them at will, erase at will and, of course, like the grid dots, they don't render out in case you forget to turn them off. A ruler on every side would be awesome as well.
Feature to alter, easily, the scale of the map from imperial to metric at will! I'm told this is easily done: just change the scale bar to meters, etc.
Feature to allow for micro moves using arrow keys: variable and settable. So, I set it to move 1 pixel at a time, or whatever.
MOVE: currently, many polygons vanish when moving; you can only see the faint outline as it flickers across the screen. It's maddening. Please fix.
It mainly happens with vector buildings. I agree - very frustrating. I almost went bald after pulling my hair out doing the city of Khelaphet (in the Community Atlas). It would be great if they could be made visible for when you want to move them, resize and rotate , rather than the more laborious way of using the separate non-visual rotate and resize commands. You can see them when first placing, but not if you want to re-move, rotate or resize. Ugghh. Hair has regrown.
It's the 'tool' button on the left, in the same area as scale, rotate, etc. Man, this is so aggravating as I have OCD and 'misalignment' is not something my psyche can tolerate heh.
As Sue pointed out, the flicker on moving items is an unfortunate property of how the underlying CAD engine for CC3+ draws things attached to the cursor. The underlying algorithm uses what's call exclusive-or (XOR) drawing to move things in the window without damaging the underlying image (drawing something in XOR mode once shows the item in funny colors and then drawing the exact same thing again in the exact same place in XOR mode will remove it without damaging the underlying image). The cursor algorithm turns off fills and use zero-width lines to avoid really ugly redraws and huge amounts of flicker, but it's still pretty bad.
The use of XOR drawing also means that if you have edges that overlap an even number of times, then they won't be visible onscreen during the move operation at all. Vector symbols are usually designed to have an odd number of overlaps, but some drawtools produce an even number of overdraws (separate outlines can cause this), resulting in unexpectedly missing parts.
The flicker is scheduled to be fixed in CC4. I asked which command was causing it because some commands do things a bit differently. I wanted to make sure that it wasn't one of the fringe commands.
1 - 64-bit support. Memory constraints are a truly awful thing to deal with, and the fact that PF is still stuck in the XP-era of memory limits is infuriating. I have 128GB of RAM, with plans to go up to 384GB, and the total capability of rocking 1.5 terabytes of RAM on my machine - I want to be able to use it! And a CAD program in 2021 that can't address more than 4GB of RAM is absurd.
2 - Stability. Being unable to start on a truly large map or create a detail-heavy map without crashing or abhorrent slowdowns in 2021 is all different kinds of irritating.
3 - Cross-platform. Kind of baffling that I can use AutoCAD and Fusion360 on my 2019 Mac Pro natively, but guess I have to switch to BootCamp in order to load up CC, huh? I read once that the CAD base is supposed to be Windows-exclusive, but I'm more inclined to believe that the programmers don't want to have to learn Objective-C for the few libraries that need it.
I do not think it is that programmers do not want to learn the new language. It is just that the Apple Desktop market is so small it is unlikely people want to write code for such a small user base.
AutoCad runs $220 a month Fusion 360 is $400 for a year. CC3 is less than $50, so for Autodesk the programming is worth it. Not to mention due to old foggies in the 80's, they kept pushing Apple is for design and Windows is not so Apple is well established in the design space. People who do design, art, layout, etc. are also inclined to use CAD so it makes sense to program for them.
I have no issues with them putting out stuff for Apple. It might be worth it. I am just more interested in the features and if maintaining new different codes is worth it from a consumer point of view.
16% of the desktop market (and increasing) is small? Also, Campaign Cartographer's base is CAD. It seems strange to use the perception that Apple's ecosystem is design-oriented to explain why a design program is not ported to it.
Also, the majority of Apple Desktops in circulation are Intel x86_64. Aside from a few APIs and the requirement for 64-bit (since macOS Catalina), there really isn't much different between Windows/Apple code. About 95% of most code is portable, especially if its done in C++, and minor tweaking can address what remains.
Like I said, I would prefer a macOS version, and I think it would do quite well.
Applie shipped 16.1% of computers sold in the second quarter of 2021. That is the highest on record. However, that is not the same as 16% of all computers on the market. Apple is moving to an M1 chip. If you are going to write software, it should be for the latest chipset, not the past. That is part of the problem with CC3 now. It is written for single core 32-bit processors.
I didn't say that the design perception of Apple was a reason not to port it. It was rather, Autodesk makes a huge amount of money so it is worth to time to use Apple. Professionals in the design space use these at work. If I am making hundreds or thousands of dollars per license, it is financially worth it to support Apple. Profantasy is used primarily at home by non-designers. At less than $50, it becomes more suspect as to if it is worth the cost. They would need to decide how much time it will spend to code combined with how much time to maintain vs the additional sales.
As I said, it may be worth it. There is increasing market share and more companies are providing native support for Apple. However, most of the user base is Windows only and those customers will want as many features as possible.
Comments
I think the sheet effects gong away is so you can ad things and not slow down your computer. I see it often, or not at all. So I cannot pin down which template is the biggest problem with this.
I'm not sure either, but it's not that bad most of the time.
When it happens, there is a info box about missing sheets that are added and then everything is without any sheet effects.
Saving often in multiple files gets rid of that, so it's no big issue luckily. 😊
If you see the message "Sheets missing in the current drawing", it should mean that you're loading an effects settings file on the Sheets & Effects dialog and that the effects in the loaded file are referencing sheets that don't exist in your drawing. Those missing sheets will be added and your existing effects will be kept in place. HOWEVER, if you hold down the Shift key when loading an effects file, it removes all existing effects definitions from all sheets before loading the new file. It probably ought to have a warning message before doing that.
Actually @jslayton, it is the opposite way around. If you don't hold down shift, all effects are wiped and the new preset is applied, but if you hold down shift, the current effects are kept.
That's an interesting detail I never knew - about the SHIFT button either way.
Ah, that explains my problem - thank you, that'll help me a lot! 😀
Oh dear. It looks like both @Monsen and myself are wrong here. Holding down shift affects things like the drawing settings name and draw tools style, but always overwrite the effects. I misread the code, probably because I really wanted it to be the way I described.
The technical minutiae here are that in every drawing there is a master entity with a lot of settings that also owns all of the effects definitions. When changing an Effects Preset, this entity and all of its child effects are copied from the preset drawing into the current drawing and the preexisting master entity is deleted, along with all of the old effects (the missing sheets information message walks the list of effects and checks to make sure that all of the sheets are present). If Shift is not held down, the contents of the master entity in the current drawing are copied to the newly-loaded one; if Shift is down, the contents of the new master entity loaded from the presets file are kept and the contents of the old one are discarded. In either case, the effects are changed to the newly-loaded one.
Generally, don't hold down Shift when changing the effects presets because it won't help you with what effects are present in the drawing. Changing the Effects Presets value will always discard all of your existing effects. Clicking OK and then doing an UNDO might fix this problem, but it also might not.
And perhaps most importantly, never change the effect preset unless you really mean to since it will wipe effects.
Maybe it shouldn't be so easily accessible, most mappers never need it.
True, programmers do like to keep a box of rusty knives and razor blades next to their desk because they need those things once in a while. Sensible people put them into a drawer that closes. The knives, not (always) the programmers.
Maybe a better solution is instead to make the selection part of the dialog instead of holding down shift. A radio button or whatever, that when you change it from the default you get a message about not changing this unless you know what it does and understand the consequences? And maybe have backed up the file first?
PUSHING THIS BUTTON WILL LEAD TO A CATACLYSMIC EVENT THAT WILL BE THE END OF YOUR MAP AS YOU KNOW IT!
(Please proceed with caution.)
Sounds like a typical DnD adventure - at least one character has to push the big red button with a skull's head on it.
Since we've got a new wishlist thread and I don't see it here yet, I'm gonna throw in: Line of Sight export for common VTTs.
Not sure how to ask this:
Tools/options for 'continental sized' maps. I realize FT3 is supposed to handle most of this, but for CC4, is there any way to add options or tools or commands that would allow for an easier method for drawing very large continental masses. I can do so now with great effort, of course. Just asking.
thanks!
Cal
Maybe you can elaborate on what kind of tools you are thinking about to make this easier? There isn't really a size limit (except node limits if you go a bit overboard with the detail level) so drawing a huge continent isn't really any different from drawing a small island. But if you have any concrete ideas for what you are thinking about to make it easier, it would be interesting to hear.
I used the land tools for continents for drawing the northern hemisphere continents on my Crestar site.
Details on the region and nation maps.
Nothing I'd call concrete. Maybe options like a select box: continent or regional which would let you set symbols scales/fills outside of the mapping environment. Fighting scaling was MY main issue. Maybe I just need to study the tutorials better heh. I would suggest, however, that the program seems preset for regional mapping. Anyway, thanks for considering my idea.
Cal
Hi,
I know (and freely admit) that I'm coming in with a lot less experience with CC3+ than a lot of folks, but I do have extensive professional experience with CAD systems in general. My wishlist would include:
1) Quick and dirty ability to project a map section onto a sphere. I know Fractal Terrain exists, but if I'm sketching out a large continent (current project is about the size of Africa) it would be really nice to be able to do something simple, like define the size of the globe, define the latitude and longitude of a single point, and pop open a spherical view to see what it looks like on a globe. Even better would be the ability to drag it over the globe until I find the right placement for it.
2) A better stretch command, specifically (but not exclusively) for better coastline editing. Right now, I know of two ways to edit a fractalized coastline, and neither of them are great, so maybe I'm just doing this wrong:
2a) Node edit: The problem here is that I have to edit one node at a time, including each and every fractalized node that the system made for me. Tedious. Painful. Excruciating.
2b) Stretch command: Now I can grab more than one node, but only if they are in a single(?) rectangular selection window, and the results almost never look natural.
How I think it should work: The system should distinguish between the anchor points I put down, and the fractalized points the system creates. It should let me select one or more of those anchor points, let me move those and refractalize the path for me. (Preferably in real time on the screen. There is no place for screen refresh buttons in 2021)
Am I doing this wrong? Is there a better way that I've missed?
3) In general, a better selection tool. The boolean options, in particular, are arcane and unintuitive even to those of us who have worked with CAD systems for twenty years. The idea is nice, but the implementation needs to be wrapped in a better UI, possibly something inspired by AutoCAD's "QuickSelect". (And there, the key idea is to select first and then apply. Separating out the selection from the command is really useful.)
4) If legally possible, open up and document the file format. I have some hobby projects in mind that might really benefit from that. (E.g., I've been toying with the idea of using Generative Adversarial Networks on collections of real world maps to generate more realistic coastlines and island chains, sort of an alternative to Fractal Terrains. I don't do much with city maps, yet, but the same idea probably applies-- maybe even more so, since there are so many source maps to choose from. We've got upwards of 10,000 cities on the planet, but only one planet with coastlines.)
@Humblest wrote:
2) A better stretch command, specifically (but not exclusively) for better coastline editing. Right now, I know of two ways to edit a fractalized coastline, and neither of them are great, so maybe I'm just doing this wrong:
2a) Node edit: The problem here is that I have to edit one node at a time, including each and every fractalized node that the system made for me. Tedious. Painful. Excruciating.
2b) Stretch command: Now I can grab more than one node, but only if they are in a single(?) rectangular selection window, and the results almost never look natural.
How I think it should work: The system should distinguish between the anchor points I put down, and the fractalized points the system creates. It should let me select one or more of those anchor points, let me move those and refractalize the path for me. (Preferably in real time on the screen. There is no place for screen refresh buttons in 2021)
Am I doing this wrong? Is there a better way that I've missed?
Yes.
The way to edit fractalized coastlines are with the edit feature of the drawing tool. It lets you easily replace sections, be they large or small, and is the preferred way to edit landmasses and other entities.
Suggested before, but the more I think about it, the more I'd like boolean operations -- union, difference, etc. You can get similar results with multipolys (and I wouldn't want to see that go), but building complex shapes feels harder than it could be.
Also suggested before, but OUTLINE is kind of a primitive stroke -- I'd like the ability to go set the outline width. Now, unless I'm missing something, I have to go back and set the resulting outline's properties to thicken it up. for instance.
I suggest:
Feature to allow us to pull guidelines from either side and top to bottom of the drawing area. Just move up cursor, left click and drag a guide line down or across, move them at will, erase at will and, of course, like the grid dots, they don't render out in case you forget to turn them off. A ruler on every side would be awesome as well.
Feature to alter, easily, the scale of the map from imperial to metric at will! I'm told this is easily done: just change the scale bar to meters, etc.
Feature to allow for micro moves using arrow keys: variable and settable. So, I set it to move 1 pixel at a time, or whatever.
MOVE: currently, many polygons vanish when moving; you can only see the faint outline as it flickers across the screen. It's maddening. Please fix.
all for now
Great Work!
Cal
MOVE: currently, many polygons vanish when moving; you can only see the faint outline as it flickers across the screen.
Which move command are you using that's showing this behavior?
It mainly happens with vector buildings. I agree - very frustrating. I almost went bald after pulling my hair out doing the city of Khelaphet (in the Community Atlas). It would be great if they could be made visible for when you want to move them, resize and rotate , rather than the more laborious way of using the separate non-visual rotate and resize commands. You can see them when first placing, but not if you want to re-move, rotate or resize. Ugghh. Hair has regrown.
Greets, J
It's the 'tool' button on the left, in the same area as scale, rotate, etc. Man, this is so aggravating as I have OCD and 'misalignment' is not something my psyche can tolerate heh.
thanks
Cal
As Sue pointed out, the flicker on moving items is an unfortunate property of how the underlying CAD engine for CC3+ draws things attached to the cursor. The underlying algorithm uses what's call exclusive-or (XOR) drawing to move things in the window without damaging the underlying image (drawing something in XOR mode once shows the item in funny colors and then drawing the exact same thing again in the exact same place in XOR mode will remove it without damaging the underlying image). The cursor algorithm turns off fills and use zero-width lines to avoid really ugly redraws and huge amounts of flicker, but it's still pretty bad.
The use of XOR drawing also means that if you have edges that overlap an even number of times, then they won't be visible onscreen during the move operation at all. Vector symbols are usually designed to have an odd number of overlaps, but some drawtools produce an even number of overdraws (separate outlines can cause this), resulting in unexpectedly missing parts.
The flicker is scheduled to be fixed in CC4. I asked which command was causing it because some commands do things a bit differently. I wanted to make sure that it wasn't one of the fringe commands.
I'd be most interested in:
1 - 64-bit support. Memory constraints are a truly awful thing to deal with, and the fact that PF is still stuck in the XP-era of memory limits is infuriating. I have 128GB of RAM, with plans to go up to 384GB, and the total capability of rocking 1.5 terabytes of RAM on my machine - I want to be able to use it! And a CAD program in 2021 that can't address more than 4GB of RAM is absurd.
2 - Stability. Being unable to start on a truly large map or create a detail-heavy map without crashing or abhorrent slowdowns in 2021 is all different kinds of irritating.
3 - Cross-platform. Kind of baffling that I can use AutoCAD and Fusion360 on my 2019 Mac Pro natively, but guess I have to switch to BootCamp in order to load up CC, huh? I read once that the CAD base is supposed to be Windows-exclusive, but I'm more inclined to believe that the programmers don't want to have to learn Objective-C for the few libraries that need it.
I do not think it is that programmers do not want to learn the new language. It is just that the Apple Desktop market is so small it is unlikely people want to write code for such a small user base.
AutoCad runs $220 a month Fusion 360 is $400 for a year. CC3 is less than $50, so for Autodesk the programming is worth it. Not to mention due to old foggies in the 80's, they kept pushing Apple is for design and Windows is not so Apple is well established in the design space. People who do design, art, layout, etc. are also inclined to use CAD so it makes sense to program for them.
I have no issues with them putting out stuff for Apple. It might be worth it. I am just more interested in the features and if maintaining new different codes is worth it from a consumer point of view.
16% of the desktop market (and increasing) is small? Also, Campaign Cartographer's base is CAD. It seems strange to use the perception that Apple's ecosystem is design-oriented to explain why a design program is not ported to it.
Also, the majority of Apple Desktops in circulation are Intel x86_64. Aside from a few APIs and the requirement for 64-bit (since macOS Catalina), there really isn't much different between Windows/Apple code. About 95% of most code is portable, especially if its done in C++, and minor tweaking can address what remains.
Like I said, I would prefer a macOS version, and I think it would do quite well.
Applie shipped 16.1% of computers sold in the second quarter of 2021. That is the highest on record. However, that is not the same as 16% of all computers on the market. Apple is moving to an M1 chip. If you are going to write software, it should be for the latest chipset, not the past. That is part of the problem with CC3 now. It is written for single core 32-bit processors.
I didn't say that the design perception of Apple was a reason not to port it. It was rather, Autodesk makes a huge amount of money so it is worth to time to use Apple. Professionals in the design space use these at work. If I am making hundreds or thousands of dollars per license, it is financially worth it to support Apple. Profantasy is used primarily at home by non-designers. At less than $50, it becomes more suspect as to if it is worth the cost. They would need to decide how much time it will spend to code combined with how much time to maintain vs the additional sales.
As I said, it may be worth it. There is increasing market share and more companies are providing native support for Apple. However, most of the user base is Windows only and those customers will want as many features as possible.
I believe CC2/CC3/CC3+ is based on the FastCAD engine. But I don't know how much of it.