Home
Creators
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

Mapmaking Pack - Remaster Update & Dungeondraft Integration Poll (Patreon)

Published:
2021-06-16 23:26:51
Imported:
2026-06
Tags:

Poll

Mapmaking Pack - Remaster Update & Dungeondraft Integration Poll

  • Dungeondraft Integration 3.0 1447
  • DD 2.0 with Duplicates 18
  • DD 2.0 with BREAKING changes 25
  • 2021-06-16
  • 1490 votes
{'title': 'Mapmaking Pack - Remaster Update & Dungeondraft Integration Poll', 'choices': [{'text': 'Dungeondraft Integration 3.0', 'votes': 1447}, {'text': 'DD 2.0 with Duplicates', 'votes': 18}, {'text': 'DD 2.0 with BREAKING changes', 'votes': 25}], 'closes_at': None, 'created_at': datetime.datetime(2021, 6, 16, 23, 26, 52, tzinfo=datetime.timezone.utc), 'description': None, 'allow_multiple': False, 'total_votes': 1490}

Content

Hello everyone!   This "Remaster" Update has substantial changes like completely new File Structure and also adds new content - which requires a fresh download of our whole Mapmaking Pack 

All new releases will follow this File Structure from now on, so I strongly recommend redownloading the whole pack fresh now so your asset folder is not a mess when you add new content to it!  -  Or you can  join our pCloud Live Libraries for automatic updates.

1. File Structure Changes:

As we've mentioned previously, we are changing our File Structure.

We realize that we just re-did asset file structure at the end of last year, but there was a bit of discontent with the scheme we went with.   So we've gathered a lot of feedback, and implemented necessary changes, we hope that we succeeded in improving and streamline it.    You'll see the new file structure once you download the new Mapmaking Pack Zip, but if you want a general idea, you can check out this google doc.

2. Asset Changes & New Variants

Alongside the new file structure, we've also "remastered/retouched" some older assets, updating their textures, shading or applying some color corrections, while keeping the same design/linework.

We've also added new variants and some new assets as well to fill in some gaps.

All "Stone" objects color matched to our 3 stone colors  (Added "Sandy"/03 color variants where missing.)

Added Rusty/Non-Rusty variants to lot of objects where missing and many other touch-ups and changes.

Total of over 900 files were adjusted / added.

3. _Old_Walls

We are remaking all the wall tiles for the next update.  All brick/Stone walls will be color corrected to match our 3 Standard stone colors which means new variants which will require naming adjustments.  We are also adding new wall tile options (T, X sections etc.)   Changing the whole folder to "_Old" now is the easiest solution as a prep for that update so we don't have to move stuff around/rewrite things again later.

4. Poll - How this affects Dungeondraft Packs?

Honestly, I'm not sure.  We are still trying to figure out and decided on what would be the best solution on how to implement these changes to the DD packs. As you know, file name changes and other adjustments would be *BREAKING changes. **BREAKING - When asset is removed or renamed, and you have it in your WIP map, it'll disappear and has to be placed again.So here are the options we have:    A:  Dungeondraft Integration 3.0 - Start Fresh - Cleanup the packs and implement all the changes, not backwards compatibleB:  DD 2.0 with Duplicates - Implement changes and new variants, leave old assets in the packs. This will mean that the packs will be pretty messy and there could be duplicate files in some places. C: DD 2.0 with *BREAKING changes - Implement the changes into 2.0 with potentially substantial number of breaking changes.   Please let us know what you think would be the best approach. Thank you!

Files

Comments

Ian Mac Intyre

What exactly is the difference between did 3.0 and 2.0 with breaking changes?

Alexis

I would say 3.0 would make the most sense, since the only reason not to update would be if you are currently working on a map, in which case the worst thing would be having a messy one for the foreseeable future just because you wanted to update your current project without redoing anything

HedgehogBC

I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

Fynnmous (edited)

Comment edits

2026-09-10 10:00 Who has two thumbs and is not a big fan of duplicates? <---this guy
2021-06-16 23:36 Who has two thumbs and is not a big fan of duplicates? <---this guy

Who has two thumbs and is not a big fan of duplicates? <---this guy

Jonathan Lumsden

i believe 3.0 will be new packs and the old ones will be untouched if anyone wanted to still use them. 2.0 Breaking would overwrite and rename the current packs which would destroy them for people who wanted to still have them available somewhere. So I don't work there but my guess is it will now be 2 separate versions instead of saving over the current one

Forgotten Adventures

It's only really relevant if you plan on reopening older maps or have maps that are Work in progress (WIP) Breaking changes mean that assets that are renamed or removed would disappear from your old/wip map files created with older versions of the 2.0 packs. 3.0 wouldn't be compatible with maps created with 2.0 packs. So you wouldn't be able to open older maps if you only has 3.0 packs. (if you keep 2.0 files, you can still open them with those obviously)

basuraego

**shrugs**. It's the only way to be sure.

TRENTJH

169th vote for 3.0 nice, jokes aside, I personally tend not to go back to old completed maps, and I feel like a lot of us map makers tend to follow the same stigmata

Forgotten Adventures

That's how I personally feel as well, but I wanted to make sure that's what the majority prefers. Because we've got some vocal minority with the 2.0 update not being backwards compatible.

Guoccamolé

4th option) DD 3.0 with converter program from 2.0 to 3.0. (Just a thought.)

Stev

I'm fairly new to the Forgotten Adventure's art. A fresh start won't be any problem for me. You're doing great work and I apprecaite you reaching out and asking.

Neal Grindstaff

3.0 gives me an excuse to stop endlessly retouching maps.

MouScribble (edited)

Comment edits

2026-09-10 10:00 A fresh start moving forward sounds like the best idea. We can keep our archives of the 2.0 DD packs separate that way, and switch to them if for some reason we have to go back and edit a previous map. But, moving forward, having the stuff resorted for easier navigation sounds like a dream. It's vexing when I want to build kitchen or pantry decor, I have to search so many different unrelated categories just to find food items, like eggs and mushrooms, for example, instead of just having Food and Ingredients. But, I have to say, aside from some sorting and search grievances, the packs are amazing. Thanks for all the hard work you all put in, and I'll continue to wow my players with the awesome assets you make here in my maps for a long time. &lt;3
2021-06-17 01:10 A fresh start moving forward sounds like the best idea. We can keep our archives of the 2.0 DD packs separate that way, and switch to them if for some reason we have to go back and edit a previous map. But, moving forward, having the stuff resorted for easier navigation sounds like a dream. It's vexing when I want to build kitchen or pantry decor, I have to search so many different unrelated categories just to find food items, like eggs and mushrooms, for example, instead of just having Food and Ingredients. But, I have to say, aside from some sorting and search grievances, the packs are amazing. Thanks for all the hard work you all put in, and I'll continue to wow my players with the awesome assets you make here in my maps for a long time. <3

A fresh start moving forward sounds like the best idea. We can keep our archives of the 2.0 DD packs separate that way, and switch to them if for some reason we have to go back and edit a previous map. But, moving forward, having the stuff resorted for easier navigation sounds like a dream. It's vexing when I want to build kitchen or pantry decor, I have to search so many different unrelated categories just to find food items, like eggs and mushrooms, for example, instead of just having Food and Ingredients. But, I have to say, aside from some sorting and search grievances, the packs are amazing. Thanks for all the hard work you all put in, and I'll continue to wow my players with the awesome assets you make here in my maps for a long time. <3

Carl Crawford

Is there a link for downloading the token in one big zip file like there is for the mapmaking pack?

Karkarov

3.0 for sure. If people are currently working on a map with dungeondraft they can just finish using the non 3.0 assets and update once done. Like an earlier poster mentioned, once a map is done generally speaking it is done, and you are unlikely to go back and mess with it.

Aegis Virium

You're going to need to shift to 3.0 eventually anyways. It's like pulling a bandaid off - do it fast. Like others have said, you can just use the old assets when you want to work on an old map. Personally, once my maps are done... I'm done. I don't make them for archival purposes. What people who are still working old maps CAN do is make a secondary assets folder. Put the new assets in one folder, I'd say the current folder. When they want to load up old maps, just point the asset folder to the archived asset folder. It's not elegant

Aegis Virium

Ooops, hit the enter key! It's not an elegant solution, but it could work for those who are mid-work on map projects, or find that they need to do a little 'tweaking' here and there.

Richard Ogle

I would redue a whole map before I’d tweak something. Especially since I have learned a couple new tricks or got more assets since.

Bryan Wallbridge

I agree, 3.0 is the logical option - and thank you for asking.

NordicSparkle

Like people have mentioned here I don't go back to edit old maps. I think if you keep those legacy files up alongside of the newer ones. Should give time to adjust to the new structure.

Royston Shufflebotham

This won't be the last time something like this happens, so it might be worth considering adopting some sort of formal versioning policy so future decisions are no-brainers and behaviour is predictable. For instance, Semantic Versioning (https://semver.org/spec/v2.0.0.html). FWIW, I think that introducing breaking changes and still calling it '2.0' would just force people to maintain 2 separate things called '2.0', which is effectively the same as bringing in '3.0' but harder to manage.

Matthias PAXION

I dont' go back to old maps but I like prefabs...

von Boomslang

3.0. Redundancy is just kicking this mess down the line, and breaking 2.0 is confusing and removes the entire point of doing it. If you gotta, do it, and do it soon.

Paul Clarke

Make it better. Do Versioning as mentioned above. Best of both worlds. Need 3.1 then release pack 3.1