I've been making notes on a new TU since January, and really need to get some mapping started to proceed further. My dilemma is whether to go ahead now and do it in the traditional Traveller 2-D scheme of hex mapping on paper, or wait until I can buy software to map in 3-D.
My purpose in making this thread is to think-out-loud some of the pros and cons to each choice, and get some input from others here, especially those of you who have actually used a 3-D map system for Traveller.
*****
2-D: Traditional Traveller Maps on Paper
Pros:
- Easy to visualize relative locations and distances. Gamers are familiar w flat maps of all kinds, and Traveller players are familiar w subsector and sector maps.
- Easy for me to make. If I don't find a free universe generator that I like, I can do it myself in Excel and Access. I am familiar w Access and can make a database that will be easily maintained and customized, and can make any queries or reports that may prove useful in universe creation or in game play. I have lots of blank hex maps and can print more as needed.
- 2-D mapping provides the information most often needed in game: Where are we now, and where can we get to from here?
- I can do this right now.
Cons:
- 2-D is unrealistic, as the universe seems to be laid out in 3-D. A flat map does not provide as many alternative paths to or around a given location as would be available in 3-D.
3-D: Software Display (or flat simulation such as 2300AD Near Star Map)
Pros:
- More realistic. Allows more alternate paths to get somewhere, and requires governments to plan and defend in 3-D rather than having neat borders.
- More systems fit into a compact sphere or cube of space compared to a large number of flat-mapped sectors.
- Coolness factor. 3-D computer display of multiple star systems, zooming in or out for detail or perspective (especially if 3-D display of planets in system is included) seems a lot more like what spacers would actually use.
- Integration of map with library data about systems and planets (assumed?).
Cons:
- I don't have software to do this right now, and for various reasons can't buy it for awhile. This is delaying progress on the new TU I have been working on.
- I don't relate well to paper simulations of 3-D, such as the 2300AD Near Star Map or the StarForce map.
- I don't know how well I'll be able to visualize with the software. I've had some discussions here on CotI that make it seem pretty awesome, but have not tried it myself, so am not sure whether it is worth delaying until I can use it.
- Some of what I have read suggests there are limits on display with low-end computers (such as mine), and limits on the number of systems that can be saved and displayed. I would not have either of these problems with an Access database and paper maps.
So, help me out, people. Is it worth waiting until I can buy 3-D software (AstroSynthesis has been highly recommended), or should I just get to work w tools that I already know? (I don't think that converting later from 2-D to 3-D is something I want to do.)
My purpose in making this thread is to think-out-loud some of the pros and cons to each choice, and get some input from others here, especially those of you who have actually used a 3-D map system for Traveller.
*****
2-D: Traditional Traveller Maps on Paper
Pros:
- Easy to visualize relative locations and distances. Gamers are familiar w flat maps of all kinds, and Traveller players are familiar w subsector and sector maps.
- Easy for me to make. If I don't find a free universe generator that I like, I can do it myself in Excel and Access. I am familiar w Access and can make a database that will be easily maintained and customized, and can make any queries or reports that may prove useful in universe creation or in game play. I have lots of blank hex maps and can print more as needed.
- 2-D mapping provides the information most often needed in game: Where are we now, and where can we get to from here?
- I can do this right now.
Cons:
- 2-D is unrealistic, as the universe seems to be laid out in 3-D. A flat map does not provide as many alternative paths to or around a given location as would be available in 3-D.
3-D: Software Display (or flat simulation such as 2300AD Near Star Map)
Pros:
- More realistic. Allows more alternate paths to get somewhere, and requires governments to plan and defend in 3-D rather than having neat borders.
- More systems fit into a compact sphere or cube of space compared to a large number of flat-mapped sectors.
- Coolness factor. 3-D computer display of multiple star systems, zooming in or out for detail or perspective (especially if 3-D display of planets in system is included) seems a lot more like what spacers would actually use.
- Integration of map with library data about systems and planets (assumed?).
Cons:
- I don't have software to do this right now, and for various reasons can't buy it for awhile. This is delaying progress on the new TU I have been working on.
- I don't relate well to paper simulations of 3-D, such as the 2300AD Near Star Map or the StarForce map.
- I don't know how well I'll be able to visualize with the software. I've had some discussions here on CotI that make it seem pretty awesome, but have not tried it myself, so am not sure whether it is worth delaying until I can use it.
- Some of what I have read suggests there are limits on display with low-end computers (such as mine), and limits on the number of systems that can be saved and displayed. I would not have either of these problems with an Access database and paper maps.
So, help me out, people. Is it worth waiting until I can buy 3-D software (AstroSynthesis has been highly recommended), or should I just get to work w tools that I already know? (I don't think that converting later from 2-D to 3-D is something I want to do.)