Trying to Find Creator of some Great Textures
sdavies2720
Traveler
I have a set of great textures that I'm using for my maps. I'm working on my website and want to gve credit but unfortunately I didn't record where I got these. There are three archives, 200x200,500x500, and 2000x2000.
The 200x200 has 81 textures in it, from agricultural to blight, to different forests, to land to liche_king to marsh, plas-tok, and rock(s).
The 500x500 archive has 61 textures, a subset, plus grass and shrubbery,
The 2000x2000 archive has 31 textures
They are all excellent. If this doesn't jog someone's memory, I'll post a sample or two.
Thanks!
Steve
The 200x200 has 81 textures in it, from agricultural to blight, to different forests, to land to liche_king to marsh, plas-tok, and rock(s).
The 500x500 archive has 61 textures, a subset, plus grass and shrubbery,
The 2000x2000 archive has 31 textures
They are all excellent. If this doesn't jog someone's memory, I'll post a sample or two.
Thanks!
Steve
Comments
Natalya Faden's files
Scroll down the page, I also link to the site she used to create them.
edit: corrected link to my new site on June 1, 2016.
Thanks again!
Steve
So I added a link on the second row of my site navigation menu 'hosted files, bitmaps, etc' leads to the page that links to all files I host. This includes bitmap fills.
I´m using a 3200x2400 map (a world map, that is) and the forests texture look way too small if i choose the "file to fill", or way too big if i choose the "strech to fill" option. Can anyone know what i can do for the texture look bigger than the size showed? Check that i´m using all the versions, the 200x200, 500x500 and 2000x2000 but all them give me the same problem. Thanks in advance, as always.
I trid it, it works but still the result is way worse than if i use the texture as symbols. Thanks though, perhaps with more trials i will get a better result.
I´m putting here two images of the map, first one has a scale of 600x600, the second one a scale of 200x200.
(map has no effects activated, i just created several forest areas, with different sizes, for showing the problem)
http://img541.imageshack.us/img541/8546/test1li.jpg
http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/1780/test2bx.jpg
When you select the bitmap fill, look at the Scaled line height and width. There are some numbers in areas beside width and height.
Change the number to the left of the decimal. I changed it form 9.9 to 6.9 and got a more detailed sand and dune bitmap fill. At 9.9 I got more of a sheet of sandpaper look that didn't show detail.
Sorry, I am on antibiotics for a sinus infection. Not just tired this time.
1. The scale of the bitmap fill
In the Fill Style dialog, on the Bitmap Files tab, the width and height fields indicate to what size (in map units) the bitmap fill will be scaled. You can leave it unscaled, which means the fill will always use his own pixel resolution matched to the screen - this looks best on screen, but also means the scale will vary depending on your zoom level. That's not good for exports and having a reliable idea how the finished map will look.
You should set this values so that the forest fill matches your map best. Don't worry about the sharpness of the fill at this point - we'll cover that in the next step.
2. The fill resolution chosen by CC3
To speed up redraw and display times, CC3 uses different resolutions of bitmaps at different zoom levels. If you are zoomed out very far, it's quicker to use a low-resolution version of the bitmap. If you are introducing a new bitmap fill into a map and it has lower resolution versions, they might not fit CC3's selection scheme here, or you can get confused by CC3 choosing different versions. For exporting or printing the map, CC3 will always choose the best resolution.
To check that you're getting the correct resolution when exporting, or to always see it on screen, click the Display Speed Setting button on the left toolbar. Set a "Fixed Bitmap Quality" at "Very High" and CC3 will always use the best resolution available.
Hope that helps.
Jim: i´m not sure which numbers you talk about. Are you talking about Scaled Width and Height? If so, they start on 1.0 / 1.0, i already toyed a bit with them, that´s actually the difference about the two maps i posted. But still didn´t get any good result. I´m starting to get pessimist and planning to abandon the idea of such forests. But thanks alot for the time and your patience. Learning is always worthy.
The template I created is for surface maps of 185 miles by 234 miles. The numbers show as 9.9900.
I changed the sand and dunes bitmap fil to 6.99 and it resolved into sand with dunes. Instead of what looks like very rough sandpaper. I have 'Tile to Fill' set. The pngs I use for my bitmap fills aren't part of a set of different resolutions.
The "scaled" box is unchecked, and values shown are 1.0 and 1.0. If i check the box, the scale doesn´t change, keeps values on 1.0 and 1.0, and it´s really small, so i have to put at least a 200.0 and 200.0 for having a fine resolution; if i add more resolution, let´s say 300.0 and 300.0, it "closes" the bitmap, showing it "bigger" but losing sharpness. That was what i was doing before.
My map is on a 3000x2400 scale, by the way.
Cartographer's Guild Textures
Thanks Shessar, will check there. I´m a member so shouldn´t be any problem. EDIT: didn´t find what i was looking for, but i found several interesting things. Thanks a lot.
EDIT: nevermind. I took the map, opened PS, cut the biggest part i could from the forest, and built my own forest texture
I include the forest texture i got, for anyone wanting to use it. I also got a darker forest, and a pines one that i can show if anyone is interested.
Thanks to all you that helped me here, namely Ralf Shessar and Jim. I´m glad i bought this product and i´m starting doing maps, with so helpful people is always a pleasure. Thanks again.