New(ish) Year, New(ish) Foundry!

[MrBenn]

Mappy New Year!
The turning of the year always seems to bring change with it, and the beginning of 2011 is no different.


Moving On
It is with a heavy heart that the first change brings sad news. Evil DIMwit has decided to take some time out of his Blue Suede Shoes, and will be resigning from his CA role in order to focus on other things and real-life projects. Evil, ED, DIM or Wit (as he is variously known) has done an excellent job on the gameplay workshop, and his experience and expertise will be missed.

So long, Evil DIMwit, and thanks for all the fish. We wish you all the best with life outside the foundry (although your crayons will always be welcome here when real-life is less demanding).


Moving Up
Back in April 20009, thenobodies80 joined the Foundry Assistant ranks, and since then has covered himself in blue food-colouring and been bouncing off the foundry walls like a cartographer possessed! Over the past year, he has grown to become Robin to my Batman. In recognition of this, it is my very great pleasure to announce that thenobodies80 shall hereby be known as "Deputy Foreman". Welcome on board (again)

Moving Around
In practical terms, these changes mean that the "staffing" structure of Cartography Assistants will change somewhat:

Melting Pot/Drafting Room: MrBenn, thenobodies80
Gameplay: iancanton, TaCktiX, MarshalNey
Graphics: RedBaron0, Industrial Helix
Forge / Beta: MrBenn, thenobodies80, ( Forza AZ )

With the shuffling around, I have asked the CA team to try be more prescriptive around setting development objectives/requirements.Please remember that we're here to help people make maps, and that for the most part we speak with experience and have high standards. We're totally dedicated to helping the conquer club community continue to develop the best-possible maps.


Bigger and Better
For as long as I can remember, the Foundry community has been pushing for bigger maps. It gives me great satisfaction to announce that the bigger and better future is now upon us! The Foundry Foreman has now been vested with power from the highest authority (lackattack) to allow maps that exceed the current standard guidelines.... I hereby present you with Supersize Maps!
Maps of SuperSize must be worthy of needing the additional space (ie they shouldn't be unnecessarily big); mapmakers will be required to suggest their intended image sizes during the design brief stage, with permission to exceed the standard guidelines in exceptional cases to be granted by the Foundry Foreman. (In exceptionally-exceptional circumstances, there is the further potential for flexibility)

• Standard maximum sizes: 630x600 pixels for a small map and 840x800 pixels for a large map.
• SuperSize limits: 1000x800 pixels for a small map, and 1400x1200 pixels for a large map

Upwards and Onwards
We're always looking to the future, so keep watching this space for news about a couple of other tweaks to foundry-related things that are in the pipeline.

--MrBenn

PS There's still time left to take part in the Golfe Contest.

[natty dread]

Nice! Big maps, woooo!

Bye e.dw. You'll be missed.

And congrats nobodies

[phantomzero]

Just in time for HIVE 2.0

It's going to be a dooozy.....

Congrats on keeping the foundry rolling guys!!!

[WidowMakers]

Just in time for HIVE 2.0

It's going to be a dooozy.....

Congrats on keeping the foundry rolling guys!!!

Yeah that is just what i was thinking.

Also...USA map PACK Mega (all 6 maps into 1)

[jrh_cardinal]

Just in time for HIVE 2.0

It's going to be a dooozy.....

please no

[fumandomuerte]

Just in time for HIVE 2.0

It's going to be a dooozy.....

Congrats on keeping the foundry rolling guys!!!

Yeah that is just what i was thinking.

Also...USA map PACK Mega (all 6 maps into 1)

Are you back??? your signature has me intrigued... Just like the one that qwert has been using for the last year!

EDIT: just realized that the maps are from majorcommand

[MrBenn]

Also...USA map PACK Mega (all 6 maps into 1)

I believe this belongs in the Map Ideas/Drafts forum

[RjBeals]

about time. this should open up a whole new generation of creative maps. I mean 1400 px! that's super sized!

[grifftron]

about time. this should open up a whole new generation of creative maps. I mean 1400 px! that's super sized!

boys are back in town...?

[Bruceswar]

about time. this should open up a whole new generation of creative maps. I mean 1400 px! that's super sized!

boys are back in town...?

Lets hope WM and rbjeal come back for a map!

[Kabanellas]

Wonderful idea that of the Supersize Maps ... will CC enable 10 player games to go along with it?

P.S. - thenobodies80, congratulations on the new position ... they should clone you!!

[Victor Sullivan]

, , and to thenobodies, EvilDIMwit and the larger map sizes, respectively.

I think IH will do a fantastic job in Graphics, I've always thought he belonged there more

-Sully

[theBastard]

congrats guys for CC update
nobodies, I do not know what your new position means, but congrat to you also

and thanks for supersize maps. I will need this

[bedub1]

Bigger and Better
For as long as I can remember, the Foundry community has been pushing for bigger maps. It gives me great satisfaction to announce that the bigger and better future is now upon us! The Foundry Foreman has now been vested with power from the highest authority (lackattack) to allow maps that exceed the current standard guidelines.... I hereby present you with Supersize Maps!
Maps of SuperSize must be worthy of needing the additional space (ie they shouldn't be unnecessarily big); mapmakers will be required to suggest their intended image sizes during the design brief stage, with permission to exceed the standard guidelines in exceptional cases to be granted by the Foundry Foreman. (In exceptionally-exceptional circumstances, there is the further potential for flexibility)

• Standard maximum sizes: 630x600 pixels for a small map and 840x800 pixels for a large map.
• SuperSize limits: 1000x800 pixels for a small map, and 1400x1200 pixels for a large map

How did you come up with those resolution's? Wouldn't it be possible to follow something that's more along the lines of what fits on a monitor? Looking at, oh, I don't know...every monitor made these days...why not stick to 1080p or something of the sorts? Like 1280x720(720p) for small and 1920x1080(1080p) for Large? Then full screen with no scrolly bars at all...and clickable maps...the average joe blow might be able to play without scrolling... (I might even go 1680x1050 for small maps).

I'd rather not have to go buy one of these to play CC... HP 30" 2560 x 1600 LCD given I don't have $1200 to blow on a monitor...

Check out this picture with common resolutions on it...

Click image to enlarge.

[natty dread]

Those are only the maximum sizes, it doesn't mean that every mapmaker needs to go with those sizes or dimensions.

Most maps will still be made within the old size limits. The supersizes are only for maps that can't be made into a regular size.

[MrBenn]

How did you come up with those resolution's? Wouldn't it be possible to follow something that's more along the lines of what fits on a monitor? Looking at, oh, I don't know...every monitor made these days...why not stick to 1080p or something of the sorts? Like 1280x720(720p) for small and 1920x1080(1080p) for Large? Then full screen with no scrolly bars at all...and clickable maps...the average joe blow might be able to play without scrolling... (I might even go 1680x1050 for small maps).

The SuperSize limits were based on typical monitor settings (partially from a poll of CC users and partially from other stats). We've had to allow a couple of hundred pixels for the sidebar and header bar; while we would have liked to go bigger we do need to consider the typical CC user, and not just those who have TaCktiX spec computers! (The small map size is optimised for users with 1280x1024 monitors)

After a bit of playing around with monitor settings, we decided to settle with 1000x800 for a small map image (note that the limit is no longer a square in order to minimise scrolling). To obtain the large map sizes, we multiplied the small sizes by 1/3 and rounded them up to be something more memorable... Like everything in the foundry, it's half-science and half-aesthetics

[bedub1]

(The small map size is optimized for users with 1280x1024 monitors)

Why? That's old school square CRT not new school rectangle LCD. Plan for the future...not the past or present.

[natty dread]

I have a 1280x1024 TFT monitor. It's definitely not just a CRT resolution.

And if we plan for the future, future monitors will very likely have a higher vertical resolution than 1k anyway, so...

[TaCktiX]

The most typical resolution of decent-size LCDs these days is 1980x1080, the so-called 1080p. Granted I'm ridiculous in having 3 monitors at that resolution (one's a TV). 21"-27" monitors all clock in at that resolution, only 30" monitors have the 2560x1600 of absurdity.

[bedub1]

The most typical resolution of decent-size LCDs these days is 1980x1080, the so-called 1080p. Granted I'm ridiculous in having 3 monitors at that resolution (one's a TV). 21"-27" monitors all clock in at that resolution, only 30" monitors have the 2560x1600 of absurdity.

I think you mean 1920x1080. But yes, you are right. Which is why I don't understand why 1400x1200 has been chosen. Why not stretch the 1400 out further closer to 1920 and shrink the 1200 down to 1080?

Otherwise...if you are going for scroll bars...might as well make it even bigger. Given 1200 is 11% larger than 1080, might as well stretch the 1400 out to 2133, which is 11% greater than 1920. Thus the "big" map would be 2133x1200. And if you are going to do that...why even have limitations in the first place?

Is this a change for map makers, or for players? Are maps made for map-makers, or players?

[Bruceswar]

Laptops are slow to catch up!

[MrBenn]

The most typical resolution of decent-size LCDs these days is 1980x1080, the so-called 1080p. Granted I'm ridiculous in having 3 monitors at that resolution (one's a TV). 21"-27" monitors all clock in at that resolution, only 30" monitors have the 2560x1600 of absurdity.

I think you mean 1920x1080. But yes, you are right. Which is why I don't understand why 1400x1200 has been chosen. Why not stretch the 1400 out further closer to 1920 and shrink the 1200 down to 1080?

It's about scalability. The real limitation is on the small image size (Which as I said previously is optimised for users with 1280x1024 monitors). It would be pretty impractical to apply limits to the large map that did not have similar scalability - it wouldn't be practical to allow the large map to be wider unless there were also additional height.

[bedub1]

The most typical resolution of decent-size LCDs these days is 1980x1080, the so-called 1080p. Granted I'm ridiculous in having 3 monitors at that resolution (one's a TV). 21"-27" monitors all clock in at that resolution, only 30" monitors have the 2560x1600 of absurdity.

I think you mean 1920x1080. But yes, you are right. Which is why I don't understand why 1400x1200 has been chosen. Why not stretch the 1400 out further closer to 1920 and shrink the 1200 down to 1080?

It's about scalability. The real limitation is on the small image size (Which as I said previously is optimised for users with 1280x1024 monitors). It would be pretty impractical to apply limits to the large map that did not have similar scalability - it wouldn't be practical to allow the large map to be wider unless there were also additional height.

So is there any chance of re-optimizing the map for rectangular monitors instead of square monitors? Or is this just a waste of my time?

EDIT: I know wikipedia isn't really considered a source by many...but....

Until about 2003, most computer monitors had a 4:3 aspect ratio and some had 5:4. Between 2003 and 2006, monitors with 16:9 and 16:10 (8:5) aspect ratios have become commonly available, first in laptops and later also in standalone monitors.

It looks to me like you based your standard on something that was great...back in 2003 (8 years ago).

As of 2010 the breakdown according to http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_display.asp was like this. The first two are in fact squares, but the next 7 are rectangles. Do you have stats for CC users monitors resolutions? Rectangles might not currently hold the top 2 spots, but they have the greatest percentage, and the industry trend is moving from square to rectangle. Just go look at a TV now days. Can you even BUY a square one?

1024x768 20%
1280x1024 18.2 %
1280x800 17.3 %
1440x900 10.5 %
1680x1050 10.0 %
1920x1200 4.6 %
1366x768 3.6 %
1920x1080 2.3 %
1152x864 2.1 %
1600x1200 1.4 %
1280x768 1.2 %
800x600 1%

Square Total: 40.6%
Rectangle Total: 49.3%
Unknown: 3%
Other 4.8%

I'm not sure why it doesn't add up to 100%.

Map Resolutions are a little like politics. More often than not, you'll never win someone over to your side with any amount of evidence/hearsay/inference one can muster.--bedub1

[MrBenn]

55.5% fall into the top three categories on your list. The small map is optimised for these resolutions (although is slightly too tall for the 1024x768 size). I'm going to stop arguing semantics here, because the important thing is that the map size restrictionhas been increased - this has been something I've ben wanting for a long time (and so have many others)

[ironsij0287]

Those are only the maximum sizes, it doesn't mean that every mapmaker needs to go with those sizes or dimensions.

Most maps will still be made within the old size limits. The supersizes are only for maps that can't be made into a regular size.

Really I can see Supersize helping mapmakers with doing maps of places that are very elongated. The extra size will allow them to keep the same maximum height or width that we currently have but extending the other dimension even further to best fit the area within the map.