CC3 vs Photoshop

[Midgardsormr]

CC3 is a Computer Assisted aDventure program.

Clever; I like it!

I like to use both. CC3 and its add-ons have some powers that Photoshop lacks. As has been mentioned, its ability to handle scale is very useful to me because I don't really have a very good head for distances. Ironic in a mapmaker, I know, but there it is.

City Designer is extremely useful for laying down large numbers of buildings relatively rapidly, which is something Photoshop does not do well. However, a simplified image from City Designer can be styled in Photoshop or Gimp, giving the best of both.

On the other hand, CC3 and its add-ons do tend to push the cartographer into a particular style of map—it's possible to break out of that, but it takes a bit of thought. Also, there are some image quality issues; I don't do any text in CC3 any more. I do that entirely in Photoshop or Illustrator now because it just looks nicer.

Fractal Terrains, also, is much better when supported by Photoshop or Illustrator.

[Ascension]

I'd say that it depends on what your needs are and what you're looking to do. If you're just doing up stuff for your D&D group then it doesn't really have to be all that spectacular so I'd say CC3 is the way to go. CC3 can do some pretty nice things as there is evidence of many maps here that don't look like a CC3 map. If you want to do quick towns, CC3 is the way to go as well. If you can't draw at all then CC3 is also the best way to go.

If, however, you want to get more artsy and learn things for yourself and develop your own style then Photoshop/Gimp is the way to go. The styles are virtually limitless there and are only dependent upon how creative you are and not the people who do the artwork for Pro Fantasy.

Price is also a factor; Gimp/Inkscape are free, CC3 and its add-ons are affordable, Photoshop/Illustrator are pricey.

[Steel General]

Ditto what Ascension said...

[Nomadic]

I cant use GIMP... I just can't. I learned advanced graphical editing on photoshop and dealing with GIMPs interface after 5 years of photoshop is like driving a $1500 used car after 5 years with a sports car. Sure the clunker will get you from point A to point B fine but it isn't near as good at doing so. Of course you pay for what you get when it comes to photoshop vs GIMP.

[RobA]

I cant use GIMP... I just can't. I learned advanced graphical editing on photoshop and dealing with GIMPs interface after 5 years of photoshop is like driving a $1500 used car after 5 years with a sports car. Sure the clunker will get you from point A to point B fine but it isn't near as good at doing so. Of course you pay for what you get when it comes to photoshop vs GIMP.

Funny, I would say the same thing moving from GIMP to Photoshop. I find the weird interface completely counter-intuitive, and feel like the I am fighting the software to do what I know how to do so well in Gimp....

Guess it is little thing called perspective (You wouldn't believe the MDI/SDI holy wars, with both sides arguing valid points...)

And if you want to compare getting what you pay for, the cost to feature ratio makes Gimp the hands down winner

-Rob A>

[NeonKnight]

Funny, I would say the same thing moving from GIMP to Photoshop. I find the weird interface completely counter-intuitive, and feel like the I am fighting the software to do what I know how to do so well in Gimp....

Guess it is little thing called perspective (You wouldn't believe the MDI/SDI holy wars, with both sides arguing valid points...)

And if you want to compare getting what you pay for, the cost to feature ratio makes Gimp the hands down winner

-Rob A>

LOL! That's my Feeling with regards to CC3 and things Like GIMP and Photoshop.

I know to do things in CC3 but find the simple thing like drawing and filling a BOX or Circle in Photoshop/GIMP to be impossible!

[Nomadic]

Funny, I would say the same thing moving from GIMP to Photoshop. I find the weird interface completely counter-intuitive, and feel like the I am fighting the software to do what I know how to do so well in Gimp....

Guess it is little thing called perspective (You wouldn't believe the MDI/SDI holy wars, with both sides arguing valid points...)

And if you want to compare getting what you pay for, the cost to feature ratio makes Gimp the hands down winner

-Rob A>

Except I have never had any problem picking up and running with any other graphical based software before. GIMP is the absolute only program that I failed at learning. The interface is so mucked up for me that I can't even figure out how to do simple things.

As to your last comment the ease of use interface is the extra you get that more than justifies the cost. You are the only person I have ever heard that had trouble with it and I have known technophobic people that have given it a try. I am guessing this is due to your learning on GIMP as opposed to any other of the more standardized programs and then sticking with it and its very different interface.

At any rate I agree with waldron on the concept of nothing being intuitive. There's just different degrees of learning curve. For the majority in my experience photoshop has a much shallower curve due to its much larger support base and well designed layout. Thats not to say that GIMP isn't great for those without the cash, but for those that can afford it, PS is an excellent first choice for photo manipulation.

[loydb]

I'm a fan of CC3. I do my initial map creation in it, then use Photoshop to do labeling and various other bits of post-processing.

Check out this post, someone specifically asked what I did in Photoshop vs. CC3, so I figured out what I used each for. http://forum.profantasy.com/comments...page=1#Item_33

[waldronate]

There is no intuitive interface, not even the nipple. It's all learned. - Bruce Ediger

In any skill-driven activity, you tend to prefer the first way you learned it. For example, is the correct way to remove an object to select the objects and then select a modify attributes command, to select a modify attributes command and select objects to modify, or to type in a command that has all of the parameters needed to perform the command? The first is the object verb paradigm ("files delete"), the second is the verb object paradigm ("delete files"), and the last is the way of the command-line elders ("rm *"). Each is appropriate to its audience and context.

On the subject of value for the dollar, if my employer gives me a copy of Photoshop and pays me to use it, then that beats the heck out of having to do my own tech support for a "free" product with a user interface rather unlike the company-standard software applications I use every day.

[Kingbreaker]

There is no intuitive interface, not even the nipple. It's all learned. - Bruce Ediger

In any skill-driven activity, you tend to prefer the first way you learned it. For example, is the correct way to remove an object to select the objects and then select a modify attributes command, to select a modify attributes command and select objects to modify, or to type in a command that has all of the parameters needed to perform the command? The first is the object verb paradigm ("files delete"), the second is the verb object paradigm ("delete files"), and the last is the way of the command-line elders ("rm *"). Each is appropriate to its audience and context.

On the subject of value for the dollar, if my employer gives me a copy of Photoshop and pays me to use it, then that beats the heck out of having to do my own tech support for a "free" product with a user interface rather unlike the company-standard software applications I use every day.

I'm hosed then - I am most confortable with the Macromedia Freehand interface