Too many bugs and too hard to use.

polypterus · March 2011

I just have to say that as much as I would like to use CC3 I have given up. I’m trying to make some simple maps using Fractal Terrains and CC3 and I find there are just too many things that do not work. Even simple stuff like fill styles go nuts when trying to plot the complex polygons that TF generates. I’m a graphics programmer myself and have written polygon fill from scratch, in assembly language no less and I have never seen this type of problem. These days the graphics card does much of this for you so I’m not sure why this is a problem. My assumption is CC3 is not using native hardware for much of what it does, which brings me to my second pet peeve; It’s very slow.

I mean really, I’m now working in 3D doing small fractal planets with full LOD and collision detection and its way faster than CC3. You guys really need to use the native hardware where possible. It should not be this slow even with the large polygons. You can always triangulate them to use the native hardware. There are probably 10 different ways to bring the program to an acceptable speed.

There are also some basic missing features. There are apparently no polygon Boolean operations. Come on! This should be a core capability of any drawing package. Something that should take me 5 seconds is now taking me 10 minutes + to do manually each time I have to do it.

Finally (as I’m sure you have heard many times before) your user interface is highly non intuitive. This really isn’t why I’m giving it up but it’s definitely something that needs improvement.

I know I’m probably sounding like an a-hole but I just feel this needs to be said. There are a lot of nice features in CC3 and it looks like you can generate some cool maps. However when I have to fight a program just to get something simple done, it’s always a sign that there are some core problems with the software.

JimP · March 2011

Its based on a CAD program, not a paint program. The selection process is different than any painnt program you may have used. I say this as the usual complaint about the interface is due to doing things in a sequence the software doesn't support.

Myself, I have turned out over 1 800 maps using this software.

I suggest working through any tutorials. They will help you learn the interface. I found I had to do that to understand the program.

I export FTPro maps, and import the bmp/ or png. But I trace them, I don't try for an exact match as I am not an artist.

JimP · March 2011

Oh, I didn't see the Boolean bit. I haven't found a need for it. Some others here might disagree with me.

polypterus · March 2011

First off I have used many CAD programs. We use Maya all the time which is a quasi-cad program. Also I realize that the intuitiveness of the interface is a matter of opinion. If that was my only issue I would still use it. I said as much in my initial post.

However, the fact remains that when you zoom out with detailed bitmap filled polygons the algorithm fails and it draws outside of the polygon. This is clearly a BUG. These are the same polygons generated by PF’s own Fractal terrain program. Secondly the reason I need Booleans is because I'm using FT and I want to output a set of several maps (one for each continent) for my world so I can detail my continents without severe distortion. This is pretty much a requirement if you are using FT at all and have any land near the poles. In order to do this I need to clip contours to the map boundary. In my case the boundary isn’t rectangular but even if it was the problem still exists. I have never used any CAD program without simple Boolean operations.

Now maybe if I’m just doing a map entirely within CC3 I may not have these issues, but PF sells both FT and CC3 and FT can export to CC3. It would seem like they should make this process work with a reasonably low pain threshold. I’m doing this for an RPG world which is supposed to be what PF is in business to support. In reality generation of large detailed maps brings the program to a crawl, to the point it becomes virtually unusable. Throw in random crashes and bugs and it is unusable.

I know the speed at which a modern computer does graphics. I program in DX9 and DX10 including the shader language. It is simply unacceptable to me that a program sold in this day and age and run on modern hardware have this sub-standard level of graphics performance. PF has concentrated on features (which for the most part are nice) at the expense of the core program. Really I think they should remedy this because if they ever get some serious competition they will go out of business if they don’t.

Ralf · March 2011

Thank you for your comments on our software. We realize the interaction between CC3 and Fractal Terrains can be improved, and we're looking at publishing a new and improved FT. Note the current version of FT was created quite a while ago for CC2 Pro.

You might also not be aware that CC3 uses a licensed CAD engine as its base, we do not program that ourselves (FastCAD). It's a fully professional CAD engine, with a few limitations built-in (e.g. no 3D) to make it feasible to use in the hobby sector. CC4 (which is still some time off) will use a newer version of FastCAD, with much improved speed.

markem@sim1.us · May 2011

I have used CC3 (et al) for about two years now. It is both a very powerful CAD system as well as a painful to use one. I have a love-hate relationship with it. I can understand both sides of the story having used 2D CAD systems before as well as 3D CAD systems, paint programs, and illustrator type programs. The biggest problem I had, when first starting is that this CAD system is pick, place, then set in some areas and pick, set, and the place in others which makes it confusing. FastCAD is very powerful in and of itself but it is based upon a DOS version and does need a major revamping which CC4 should use in the future. I have switched over to use Visio (the 2003 version) for most of my mapping that I do for people now. But Visio has its own set of problems. Mainly, everything is stored in memory whereas FastCAD actually seems to do paging of memory more like PhotoShop. So with FastCAD you can have any size map you want whereas with Visio you are limited by the amount of memory you have in your computer. 2GB seems like a lot but when you are trying to put in 3,000-4,000 mountains to make a mountain range - your memory can get eaten up quickly. You can buy Visio 2003 relatively cheaply. If you catch it right you can get it for around $100.00 USD. I would suggest you trying it. It will allow you to place things by doing drag-n-drop which is more intuitive than FastCAD's methodology and it does a very reasonable job of layering, multi-paged documents, as well as per-sheet layering (ie:On the same sheet varying layers). This allows you to create the various layers you want, place things on them, and then layer the individual items on each layer so different things on each layer will lay behind or in front of the other items. (Which is a suggestion for CC4 BTW.)

However, I would start off by creating my basic map in CC3 since it does do a much better job of fractal terrains. If you are going to do a terrain by hand though - Visio has a really easy way to do a coastline. I'm uploading an example map I have created. Be aware though, that this simple looking map takes forever to load into Visio (like 2 minutes) but in CC3 comes up in only a few seconds. This is where CC3 shines. You tell it to load and BAM! The map is there. Still, my suggestion to the people at Profantasy has been (and still is) to go look at Deneba's Canvas v3.5 or Visio's 2000-2003 interface. Both are 2D CAD programs and both can do what FastCAD does. The only difference between them and FastCAD is that FastCAD (as I've said) does seem to have a paging system built in like Photoshop so it can swap in and out a very large map.

markem@sim1.us · May 2011

I'm uploading a snapshot of Deneba's Canvas v3.5 to show what I mean by it being a 2D CAD system. This is a very old program. Canvas is now just an Illustrator program.

markem@sim1.us · May 2011

And here is an example of Visio 2003's interface. Note that it looks a lot like Canvas v3.5's layout. My suspicion is that Visio is a spin-off of employees from Deneba. But that is just conjecture on my part.

markem@sim1.us · May 2011

Note that Visio has a place for shapes to go (left side) and you can import as well as export your shapes. I had made a suggestion to the people at Profantasy that maybe they should re-write CC3 et al in Visual Basic for applications and then sell that to be used with Visio. In this way the best of both worlds would have been allowed. However, sadly, the current version of Visio is tending towards just being an illustrator program like Canvas has become. Further, as with everything Microsoft - Microsoft is pulling out features left and right. From Visio 2000 to Visio 2003 - Microsoft ripped out about 50 file formats as well as several features of Visio. Now, with their stupid ribbon menu you see a bigger menu but there is less on it and it is horribly arranged. Luckily, you can buy a Visual Basic application that returns all of the menu features found in Visio 2003 ($29.95 if I remember correctly) and it also removes the ribbon and gives you back the more normal menu across the top. Which is why I think ProFantasy should revamp into Visual Basic for Applications and sell everything as a plug-in for Visio. I know I'd buy it in an instant if they did so. There wouldn't even be that much to do other than convert all of the symbols into Visio vector shapes or - more likely - emf files which Visio can read. Here is another example of what I have done in Visio using CC3 to start off and then switching over to Visio to complete the project.

markem@sim1.us · June 2011

I thought I'd put an update to the map I had posted earlier. The trees in this map are from various locations around the internet. I've also bought some sets of tree images but most of these are taken from images/photos, put into Photoshop, modified so the surrounding items in the photos/images are removed, and then used. The setting is supposed to be early Japan only the person's reality of what Japan looks like in their world. Unlike before, textures from CC3 were added in to the background to give everything a better feel. Some of the trees were darkened and then brightened to bring out their colors. Enjoy!

ProFantasy Community Forum

Too many bugs and too hard to use.

Comments