Deckplan Illustrations: What is the issue??

[mechascorpio]

Just got "Crowded Hours" and at a glance it's really nice, and great to have these adventures available for MGT.

But I really have to ask a question. It's been well over 2 years since the Traveller line of books got started. Why has Mongoose still not figured out how to consistently publish deckplans and technical graphics that look even decent?

The 16 pages of illustrations associated with the airship Handley Aviatrix are painful to look at, and nearly useless. The legends are all but illegible, and the graphics themselves look like they are 72dpi off a website. The illustration of the S Scout is better, acceptable, but still looks like a lower-res image badly placed during the layout process.

The map of the Sword Worlds subsector is riddled with artifacts that make it look really amateur.

OTOH, the plans on pages 176-177 of the Liner look great! And the Darrian subsector map on p185 looks nearly high enough resolution. A bit smudgy, but certainly better than p12.

I don't mean to insult the people behind the scenes, it's just that this is a fairly pricey book, and as a hardback Mongoose was certainly out to make an impression with it. So why aren't the lessons of getting it right being retained, and how does this stuff still get through QA looking like this?

In case the question isn't really answered, then just a statement from a customer. It really does matter to me. I would have bought this book at $5 more if it meant that it had graphics that lived up to the rest of the content.

 

[AndrewW]

I don't have any particular knowledge of Crowded Hours but as it had various authors and is a compilation of material it could be the various graphics where done by different people.

 

[phavoc]

Lol... yeah, one has to wonder about the deckplans. As a professional publishing house, you would think that they had a couple of people around there that could draw stuff out. Makes you really miss the high production values of the Gurps Traveller books. The hex background for deckplans was different, but they were sharp, well illustrated and well thought-out.

 

[dmccoy1693]

Besides GURPS, what books in Traveller history had excellent deck plans. I'm currently working on my own and if all I have to go on is Mongoose's, mine are probably going to look like Mongoose's. So where could one find, IYO, the best deck plans (besides GURPS)?

 

[DFW]

Besides GURPS, what books in Traveller history had excellent deck plans. I'm currently working on my own and if all I have to go on is Mongoose's, mine are probably going to look like Mongoose's. So where could one find, IYO, the best deck plans (besides GURPS)?

D20 Example: Deckplans 1: Scout/Courier ( Type S )

If you get to that quality, home run.

 

[far-trader]

Create your own style Jon, you'll be ahead if you do them a way you like instead of trying to please the diverse wants of fandom. Some will want simple plain line art, others will want fully realized photo quality full colour, and the rest will want something in between. If you do them your way at least you should enjoy the creative outlet.

The big complaints and things to steer away from imo are:

Wrong scale. Plans that are made for giants (the features being drawn too large) and ships that have too much or too little tonnage (though too little is almost never done, too much by far is very often the case). So no 3m long beds and 200ton ships with 400tons of deck space.

Poor resolution. I don't know how Mongoose can continue to get this so badly wrong. They've been advised on how to do it several times. They should be able to tell prospective artists what they have to do as a standard and it should be rescalable in PDF and printed at a properly sharp resolution. It's inexcusable. Somebody needs to wake up because someone, somewhere in the process, is asleep.

Mismatched images. There is far too much plans vs views dichotomy. The classic example is the venerable Type S with 3 decks, though 2 of them are of unusable height if you fit them into the sloping hull shape. And it really hasn't improved in MGT where the hull shape in the plan doesn't always match the shape of the picture. This may be down to different people doing the two views, which is imo a mistake.

Mismatched features. Similar to the above mismatched images and related to the wrong scale issues. In this case the deckplans don't match the design. Stuff like not showing the correct number of staterooms (or explaining why they don't add up) or other features. Again this should be avoidable by having one person do the whole ship; design, graphic, and plans. If more than one person has to do it, they MUST work together in close communication and check that the end results all match. It's just not that hard in the age of instant internet contact.

That's off the top of my head. There's no such thing as one right way to make deckplans, but there are a number of ways to do it wrong. And not one of the above is an artistic problem. They are all technical problems. Easily avoidable ones that should never happen with any reasonable oversight.

 

[AndrewW]

Poor resolution. I don't know how Mongoose can continue to get this so badly wrong. They've been advised on how to do it several times. They should be able to tell prospective artists what they have to do as a standard and it should be rescalable in PDF and printed at a properly sharp resolution. It's inexcusable. Somebody needs to wake up because someone, somewhere in the process, is asleep.

Just need vector images to be able to rescale them, which the ones in Secret of the Ancients part 2 are.

Mismatched images. There is far too much plans vs views dichotomy. The classic example is the venerable Type S with 3 decks, though 2 of them are of unusable height if you fit them into the sloping hull shape. And it really hasn't improved in MGT where the hull shape in the plan doesn't always match the shape of the picture. This may be down to different people doing the two views, which is imo a mistake.

Mismatched features. Similar to the above mismatched images and related to the wrong scale issues. In this case the deckplans don't match the design. Stuff like not showing the correct number of staterooms (or explaining why they don't add up) or other features. Again this should be avoidable by having one person do the whole ship; design, graphic, and plans. If more than one person has to do it, they MUST work together in close communication and check that the end results all match. It's just not that hard in the age of instant internet contact.

Yes, for the published books there have been 3 different ones involved, the author does the stats, another does the 3D image and then a third does the deckplans. With those the 3D image has been done before the deckplans and gets passed to the person doing the deckplans.

 

[DFW]

With those the 3D image has been done before the deckplans and gets passed to the person doing the deckplans.

That's not a good way to go. The 3D artist would have to be EXTREMELY familiar with Trav ship design (deckplans, component tonnage, etc) otherwise, Doggy breakfast buffet.

 

[AndrewW]

With those the 3D image has been done before the deckplans and gets passed to the person doing the deckplans.

That's not a good way to go. The 3D artist would have to be EXTREMELY familiar with Trav ship design (deckplans, component tonnage, etc) otherwise, Doggy breakfast buffet.

Doesn't always have to be the case though. In some stuff coming up (likely for Signs & Portents) the stats and deckplans where done by one person and passed onto the person doing the 3D illustration.

 

[middenface]

With those the 3D image has been done before the deckplans and gets passed to the person doing the deckplans.

That's not a good way to go. The 3D artist would have to be EXTREMELY familiar with Trav ship design (deckplans, component tonnage, etc) otherwise, Doggy breakfast buffet.

AHa that's me then...

I am pretty familiar with traveller and have some 3d - 2d skills too. My plans I do both - I have started doing some for Andrew ie a 3D image of his plans.

 

[DFW]

AHa that's me then...

I am pretty familiar with traveller and have some 3d - 2d skills too. My plans I do both - I have started doing some for Andrew ie a 3D image of his plans.

Good. That is the correct sequence. It is almost impossible to do the 3D exterior 1st. Hence, the messed up Scout/Couriers and what not.

You do good work too.

 

[AndrewW]

You do good work too.

I agree, he does.


Part of the problem in general is just the squished down to make them fit on a page. Just the way things work out sometimes, not exclusive to Mongoose Publishing either. Take Reign of Discordia for example, done outside just published by Mongoose Publishing has the same problem with most of the larger ships.

 

[far-trader]

You do good work too.

Thirded

 

[mechascorpio]

Poor resolution. I don't know how Mongoose can continue to get this so badly wrong. They've been advised on how to do it several times. They should be able to tell prospective artists what they have to do as a standard and it should be rescalable in PDF and printed at a properly sharp resolution. It's inexcusable. Somebody needs to wake up because someone, somewhere in the process, is asleep.

To be clear, more than anything else, this is what I'm talking about, and it can be true for both deckplans and maps. Either they're starting off with low-resolution images that have no place in a print product, or something awful is happening in the layout process.

There's absolutely more to getting it right in terms of the game rules, but I'm talking about purely aesthetic issues. Some are so bad that I wouldn't be able to determine if they were "right" or "wrong" anyway.

 

[DFW]

Yes, the limitations of presenting a TL 12 item in a TL 3 medium. Much better to offer the plans in a digital format that GMs can print to the appropriate size...

 

[AndrewW]

To be clear, more than anything else, this is what I'm talking about, and it can be true for both deckplans and maps. Either they're starting off with low-resolution images that have no place in a print product, or something awful is happening in the layout process.

They aren't low resolution, just happens with larger ships as they get squashed down to fit whatever room they allocate to them. They where done in Photoshop and sent in as jpeg images, but larger then you'll actually see in the books.

 

[kristof65]

It is almost impossible to do the 3D exterior 1st. Hence, the messed up Scout/Couriers and what not.

I disagree. I've been doing my Traveller deckplans for 25+ years by doing Stats, then Exterior views, and finally Interior Deckplans. Sometimes I'll even do the exterior first, use that to calculate my volume, and do the stats next.

But no matter which you do first, the key is that you have to have a good working knowledge of geometry, and the ability to translate 2d to 3d and back again. Otherwise your exterior and interiors probably won't match no matter which you do first. A lot of otherwise intelligent and creative people seem to lack that skill. I probably only developed it because I've had two years worth of HS drafting and architecture classes - which were taken because I loved drawing Traveller ships and deckplans. Some where around here I have a huge portfolio of Traveller ships that were drawn for extra credit in those classes.

As for presenting the plans in Mongoose Traveller products - Mongoose really needs to present a standard for presenting those plans.

First off, and IMO, most important, they need to set a minimum square size for their grid - if a deckplan can't fit on a single page using that minimum grid size (I'd suggest 10 quares/inch), then either no deckplan should be printed, or it should be more of a general schematic/layout overview of the major ship systems. The Azhanti High Lightning plan in Fighting Ships is done at around 12 squares per inch and is the smallest usable grid in that book. Most of the rest are practically unusable.

Second, deckplans should not be created in bitmap programs like Photoshop - they should be created in vector based programs like Visio, Smart Draw, Illustrator, or even better, a specialty program like Campaign Cartographer, so that they can be offered up to download and print at other scales. I'd gladly pay $1-$5 each to download ship plans one at a time as needed that I could print out at my preferred scale. Fighting Ships could have crammed in another 20-40 ships within the same page count by going with a more schematic/general layout of each ship. If the plans for those ships were then offered as downloads at $1-5 each, not only would it have made for a more usable product overall, it would have the potential to generate more revenue for Mongoose.

Finally, there definitely needs to be some more coordination between the persons doing the exterior views, the stats and the deckplans - or at least another person with the appropriate skills to doublecheck these things and make sure the obvious discrepencies are fixed.

 

[AndrewW]

Finally, there definitely needs to be some more coordination between the persons doing the exterior views, the stats and the deckplans - or at least another person with the appropriate skills to doublecheck these things and make sure the obvious discrepencies are fixed.

Some of the deckplans have been compared to the stats and adjusted before publication.

 

[Malakor]

. . .Second, deckplans should not be created in bitmap programs like Photoshop - they should be created in vector based programs like Visio, Smart Draw, Illustrator, or even better, a specialty program like Campaign Cartographer, so that they can be offered up to download and print at other scales. . . .

Inkscape is a free, open-source vector program that also works quite nicely. I typically use Illustrator, since I have it at work, but my son was wanting to learn how to make maps and do layouts for his restaurant (he's a chef), so I put Inkscape on his laptop and he loves it.

 

[middenface]

You do good work too.

Thirded

Ooof stop it lads, I'm blushing. Thanks anyway - 'bout time I put me talents to work!

I usually do the specs, then the 2d map but keep a though how it'll look in 3D. Then the 3D map - though I have on occasion gone and tweaked the 2d map.

As the 2D map is in the same prog as the 3d model - I can build the 3d model around the 2D map - though not always the 2d map matches the 3d model exactly - close though.

Ultimately the 2D map is eps or ai so it will scale 1:1 if you like