Not signed in (Sign In)

Vanilla 1.1.4 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome Guest!
Want to take part in these discussions? If you have an account, sign in now.
If you don't have an account, apply for one now.
    • CommentAuthorJMunsonII
    • CommentTimeDec 11th 2019
     
    Wow... amazing work and LoE going on here... :o
    • CommentAuthorLoopysue
    • CommentTimeDec 11th 2019
     
    Thank you very much, Jon :)
  1.  
    Posted By: JimPThose star-like forts were due to improvements in cannon. High walled castled were easily broken into with cannon. But these type of forts on this map could resist cannon fire much easier.

    And since those same walls were sloped, that helped in the defense as well.

    Of course, when more modern artillery came in, these forts could be taken down as well.



    The origins of these star forts come from Italy, the "trace italienne" and were much improved upon by the French Marechal, Vauban, but also the Dutchman, Coehorn (there are various spellings of his name). My first M.A. thesis was on this period of warfare but limited to the years 1702-1711, focusing on John Churchill, Winston's ancestor.

    This is one of the major reasons why I wanted the Ferraris style, 10 years ago, but although I moved on to do another M.A. on the impact of the U.S. Civil War on the British military, my original thesis and appreciation of this map style has never diminished.

    There is, of course, a whole history of these star forts, the various sieges, the methodology of besieging one, and so forth.

    However, these forts could never withstand a determined besieger, they could only hope the weather got too bad, the siege was lifted due to other constraints the enemy faced, or that a friendly army would force the issue, but unless the previous happened, once besieged such a fort would eventually fall, due to the fact that while these were better than the old vertical-walled castles, the batteries of heavy guns could and did tear apart the brick and earth that these walls were made of, along with any human defenders in the way. It was a real science and the contemporaries treated it as such.
  2.  
    Sue,

    I continue lurking here, trying not to drool, waiting for the moment I can buy and download this style.

    You're doing great work and I am very pleased to see that you were able to do the walls and bastions ... and I will need a tutorial from you on how it is done. :)
    • CommentAuthorLoopysue
    • CommentTimeDec 11th 2019
     
    Thank you, Khornishman :)

    The fortifications I have done are relatively crude, consisting of a lighted bevel on a white shape and a blend mode set to multiply to let the background paper show through. I am currently trying to work out how to simplify and improve the method. There are limits to what you can do with a bevel, and I think it may be necessary to do the more complicated forts (if you are thinking of replicating them in any way) using shaded polygons rather than a bevel. This is because some of the more complex forts have sloping walls that vary in length due to undulations in the landscape. A bevel can only be one constant length.

    Any necessary instructions should be included in the Mapping Notes that come with the annual.
    •  
      CommentAuthorQuenten
    • CommentTimeDec 11th 2019
     
    There are actually quite a number of Star forts in the (not so) United Kingdom
    • CommentAuthorLoopysue
    • CommentTimeDec 11th 2019
     
    Maybe I only focus on the older ones. I like them better :)
    • CommentAuthorLoopysue
    • CommentTimeDec 12th 2019 edited
     
    Which is better to use?

    I want to use either "Percent of View Width", or "Percent of Drawing Extents Width" for all these various glows (all the black lines you can see on the road, dyke and fort). They should all be exactly the same in appearance as if they have been drawn with the same pen. The trouble I am having is that as soon as I zoom out to look more generally at the map I can't see them at all if I set it up as the correct number of map units.

    The glows are all out of sync at the moment, but I'm trying to figure out which way to go before bringing them back into alignment with each other.
      aa.png
    •  
      CommentAuthorMonsen
    • CommentTimeDec 12th 2019
     
    Most effects should be in percent of drawing extents, otherwise the relative size of the effect compared to other entities will change as you zoom in/out.

    Some effects, such as glow on fonts may be better as a percent of view width though. This setting ensures that the effects are just as visible regardless of zoom level, but is rarely appropriate for actual map content.
    • CommentAuthorLoopysue
    • CommentTimeDec 12th 2019
     
    Thanks Remy :)

    I thought that might be the case, but I wasn't sure. I didn't know about text glows, but will bear that in mind now that I do.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMonsen
    • CommentTimeDec 12th 2019
     
    I did a blog post abut the Effect Units a few months back if you want more detail.
    • CommentAuthorLoopysue
    • CommentTimeDec 12th 2019
     
    That's brilliant!

    How did I miss it?

    Must have had my head stuck in an annual at the time.

    Thanks again, Remy :)
    • CommentAuthorLoopysue
    • CommentTimeDec 12th 2019 edited
     
    Remy? I'm trying to generate a bitmap image for the macro drawing tools. I've done a png image for one of the aligned arable field tools, and I've saved it with exactly the same name as the drawing tool within the same folder as the drawing tool, but it isn't showing.

    It's a png file with dimensions of 600 x 415. Am I doing something wrong?

    Should I give that up as a bad idea, and go with Ralf's description of creating a tiny FCW file instead?

    EDIT: It's ok. I've gone with the FCW method and its working well :)
    • CommentAuthorLoopysue
    • CommentTimeDec 13th 2019 edited
     
    My head is in a muddle!

    If I want to save a symbols along line setting, where do I save it? I need 2 to do the Ferraris map - hedges with bush symbols and lines of trees.

    Same for the fill area with symbols. Where do I save them? I want to use the trees to make an automatic orchard fill.

    The reason for all this automation is that these maps are going to take time to draw, and anything that makes it a bit faster is good.
    • CommentAuthorLoopysue
    • CommentTimeDec 13th 2019
     
    I am really absolutely no good at macros.

    LOL!

    I can't get this to work at all.

    The patches in the centre of this piece are supposed to be filled like the orchard on the left.

    This is the macro:

    FORESTLOAD @system\fillers\CA158_Orchard.symfill
    SELSAVE
    SELBYP
    FOREST
    SELREST


    Obviously I have it all wrong, but I've no idea what I've done.
      Untitled5.png
    •  
      CommentAuthorMonsen
    • CommentTimeDec 13th 2019
     
    You cannot use the forest commands with the symfill settings, those are two different commands (Fill with Symbols and Symbols in area respectively)


    With the right commands, it should look something like this:

    SYMFILLLOAD @system\fillers\CA158_Orchard.symfill
    SELSAVE
    SELBYP
    SYMFILLM
    SELREST
    • CommentAuthorjslayton
    • CommentTimeDec 13th 2019 edited
     
    I recall seeing Remy write that the FOREST things are always inserted at their default size.

    Edit: looking at the FORESTOPT dialog, it looks like the size can be changed (Unit Size). Silly me.

    Edit Again: My reading comprehension is much poorer than my memory. Unit Size is the unit cell size for the placement algorithm, not scaling. Something to fix, then.
    • CommentAuthorjslayton
    • CommentTimeDec 13th 2019
     
    FOREST uses a set of varying-size symbols to fill its area, where SYMFILL uses single symbols of uniform(ish) size. Things Filled with FOREST can be faster to draw than those done with SYMFILL because there is a fixed overhead associated with drawing each symbol reference.
    • CommentAuthorLoopysue
    • CommentTimeDec 13th 2019
     
    LOL!

    Ok - I've just proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that I really am utterly hopeless with macros :P Every one of my macro tools has been written by Remy. I haven't had a single success to my name! LOL!

    The orchard is made up of a set of 15 tree symbols that are identical in size and placed in regular rows, so I think that despite the overhead I will stick with SYMFILL and put the right macro in the drawing tool - see what happens.
    • CommentAuthorLoopysue
    • CommentTimeDec 13th 2019
     
    YES!

    Thank you very much Remy!
      Untitled6.png
    •  
      CommentAuthorMonsen
    • CommentTimeDec 13th 2019
     
    You're welcome. And don't fret too much over the macro failures, most CC3+ user's don't write macros at all. I am pretty sure you'll have them under control soon enough.
    • CommentAuthorLoopysue
    • CommentTimeDec 13th 2019
     
    Thank you! You have more faith in my ability to get on with macros than I do.

    I think that is all I (ahem... you, I mean) need to do with the fill tools for now. The ESC settings for making hedges and rows of trees are probably better done by Ralf because I don't know where to put them for sure, or what to call them. With everything else I have just followed Ralf's blogs and copied the file naming convention.
    • CommentAuthorLoopysue
    • CommentTimeDec 13th 2019
     
    I have lots and lots of drawing tools (76). The problem I have now is that so many of them need illustrations that the half finished example map underlying the Select Drawing Tool panel goes through a whole second of green screen every time I scroll down through it.

    Currently, I have 2 of everything - straight and smooth. I am tempted to halve the number of tools by only having the straight version of a thing each time. Do you think it is reasonable of me to expect relatively new mappers to know how to switch the tool they want to use to smooth from straight on a temporary basis so that they can draw the thing they want to draw?
    •  
      CommentAuthorMonsen
    • CommentTimeDec 13th 2019
     
    No. In addition, I always recommend that people don't edit the default drawing tools, since there is no easy way to restore them if they mess things up.

    But you can make things easier with the drawing tools. Remember that most beginners find most of their tools in the symbol catalog window, so when you break down the set of tools to fit in the various symbol catalogs, there won't be so many at once. Also, most of the tool buttons (road, terrain, etc) only shows the tools that matches the filter, so people will only access the full list when they deliberately click the all drawing tools button.
    • CommentAuthorLoopysue
    • CommentTimeDec 13th 2019
     
    OMG!

    Now you are talking really complicated arrangements and patterns (from my point of view). I think it would be a real mess if I started down that road. I have no doubt that you and Joe would see me through it, but since this isn't just for me and my benefit but for an annual I think I should leave the exact details of the tool arrangements to Ralf - what goes where and what its called.

    I hope Ralf will forgive me for just dumping it on him as a big sack of 76 tools!
    •  
      CommentAuthorMonsen
    • CommentTimeDec 13th 2019
     
    He'll be furious. You'd better lay low for a few weeks ;)
    • CommentAuthorLoopysue
    • CommentTimeDec 13th 2019
     
    ROFL!

    Its bad of me, I know, but I really can't imagine Ralf being angry at anyone for any reason!
    •  
      CommentAuthorQuenten
    • CommentTimeDec 13th 2019
     
    I've heard that his upper limit before terrible rage sets in is 75 tools. 3:)
    • CommentAuthorLoopysue
    • CommentTimeDec 13th 2019
     
    Oh dear!

    I've just gone and remembered another one I forgot to make, which means its now 77 drawing tools!
    • CommentAuthorLoopysue
    • CommentTimeDec 13th 2019 edited
     
    Remy (or Joe) - how do I make one of those .FIL files?

    I forgot to make the dunes drawing tools. The dunes are all different shapes and sizes. The SYMFILL doesn't work well with them - as you can see. If I have the spacing wide enough to prevent overlap in the patches of dunes (they're partly transparent for practical reasons), the single dunes are too far apart.

    I've asked you both for so much help today it hardly seems fair to ask for even more. If you can just tell me where to look in the Tome that would be great.
      Untitled7.png
    •  
      CommentAuthorMonsen
    • CommentTimeDec 13th 2019
     
    Use the Fill with Symbols (FORESTOPT) command. I'm not sure if that's the right tool for those dunes though, the main idea behind that command is mainly to pack as tightly as possible.
    • CommentAuthorLoopysue
    • CommentTimeDec 13th 2019
     
    Thanks Remy :)

    Hmmm. That's exactly what I'm trying not to do - over-pack them I mean.

    I think I might have to make a new catalogue without the multiple dune symbols and mess around with the spacing in SYMFILL.
    • CommentAuthorLoopysue
    • CommentTimeDec 13th 2019
     
    That worked out a bit better, though its not perfect. For some reason the command generates a bit of an odd result with the square test areas. I've told it to stay away from the edge by half the spacing, but its only doing that on the left and top.

    It probably won't affect anyone too much, as I suspect it will be pretty rare to have any area of dune land that is exactly square.
      Untitled8.png
    • CommentAuthorLoopysue
    • CommentTimeDec 13th 2019
     
    Ok. Thanks to all your wonderful help I have been able to complete (for now) the drawing tools. Having just completed this work I realise I have still missed at least two things - the urban conglomeration tools, but I may do symbols for that instead of drawing tools, since they are very much harder to imitate using just a polygon with a fill and a few effects.

    This is what the full set looks like at the moment. Please feel free to comment about whether you think all of these are really necessary.
      Drawing tools.png
    • CommentAuthorLoopysue
    • CommentTimeDec 13th 2019
     
    Oh, and damn! Will you look at that? I've only gone and forgotten to provide drawing tools for the various bits and pieces of fortification!
    • CommentAuthorLoopysue
    • CommentTimeDec 13th 2019
     
    79 tools, and there really should be another 4
    • CommentAuthorroy.denton
    • CommentTimeDec 13th 2019
     
    Outstanding, that’s all I can say.
    • CommentAuthorLoopysue
    • CommentTimeDec 13th 2019
     
    Thanks, Roy :) I just hope Ralf can make something a bit more sophisticated than this (or at least weed out the unnecessary tools) for the annual, because at the moment scrolling down through this lot is causing some serious green screen time - and I have a new computer!
    •  
      CommentAuthorQuenten
    • CommentTimeDec 13th 2019
     
    What about freshwater swamp/march, and perhaps bogs/quicksand. Just a thought. And I think the number of tools is not really a problem - it is so much easier to use.
    • CommentAuthorLoopysue
    • CommentTimeDec 13th 2019
     
    Their all in there, Quenten :)

    The marsh tool isn't showing correctly, though I can't work out why. It's set up to draw on two sheets to give you an island with a muddy fringe. These are drawn on previously created areas of open water.

    The problem lies not so much in the fact that there are a lot of tools, but in the way that scrolling down them causes 1 second green screen every time you roll the mouse - on a map that is barely started. It would probably be much worse if your map was nearly complete.

    I am hoping that Ralf can somehow arrange things a little better than my crude 'all in the same bucket' approach.
    •  
      CommentAuthorQuenten
    • CommentTimeDec 13th 2019
     
    Sorry, I didn't see heath bog, and couldn't really make out that marsh island was also marsh.
    • CommentAuthorLoopysue
    • CommentTimeDec 13th 2019 edited
     
    No problem. It's taken me weeks to work it all out. There are just so many different types of fill - and all vary enormously between the different sheets. Sometimes its hard to tell if two samples are meant to be of the same thing. So I've had no choice but to make a personal choice about which sample to take more seriously than any of the others and try to make just one version of everything.

    Now, if its taken me this long to sort it all out, I can't really expect anyone else to immediately identify what each of these fills are - especially when the marsh fill is misbehaving in the illustration of itself. This is what it creates (you have to paste the little reeds around the edge yourself).

    Untitled9.png
    • CommentAuthorLoopysue
    • CommentTimeDec 13th 2019 edited
     
    Thanks to everyone for helping me along with this so far. I've had more than my fair share of attention over the last few weeks with all my little issues.

    I'm only a little mouse, and things just wear me out after a bit, so I'm going to take a short snooze and get back to it all later.

    Untitled10.png
    • CommentAuthorsuntzu
    • CommentTimeDec 14th 2019
     
    Great work sue ,my only comment would be that the "dunes" are too high

    Rob
    • CommentAuthorLoopysue
    • CommentTimeDec 14th 2019 edited
     
    Oh dear! And I was ever so careful to make them look just like the little bell shapes on the original.

    Do you really think so?

    Beach fill.png

    LOL! I just realised how much like the legendary "Does my bum look big in this?" question that was! :P

    So: Do my dunes look big in this map of mine?

    Thanks for the compliment on the rest ;)
    •  
      CommentAuthorQuenten
    • CommentTimeDec 14th 2019
     
    No - you are trying to keep to the style, which your dunes have.
    • CommentAuthorLoopysue
    • CommentTimeDec 14th 2019
     
    Aw thank you Quenten! :)

    To be honest I really hated the dunes in the original when I first clapped eyes on them. I thought they were the ugliest part of the map and thought immediately if there was a way I could kind of forget they were there. But after a while they kind of grew on me, and now I like them every bit as much as the rest of it. It's part of the style. We are just used to hills and things being less bumpy and bell-like than this. That's all.
    • CommentAuthorsuntzu
    • CommentTimeDec 14th 2019
     
    Sorry Sue , it was just an observation , i haven't seen the original

    Rob
    • CommentAuthorLoopysue
    • CommentTimeDec 14th 2019
     
    Oh Rob! Don't be sorry.

    I had quite a giggle about my lumpy dunes. And like I said to Quenten - I really didn't like them when I first ever saw them. They are uniquely alien to eyes that have grown up seeing the more contemporary forms; the much flatter curves that are used in maps today.

    I'm really tired right now. Sorry if you thought I was having a go at you. I was just chatting away with the mile-a-minute mouth I seem to have when I'm tired.
    • CommentAuthorWyvern
    • CommentTimeDec 14th 2019
     
    Is the Garden, parkland ellipse fill necessary? I suspect from the fact you've added it, it is, but I'd have expected it could have been drawn using the parkland smooth fill with the ellipse-drawing tool option. Maybe this is a special case from several of the original maps though?

    Not sure what the Freestyle, current settings fill is - perhaps something used in your own fill style construction process?

    Should the four Walls, dyke fills be superimposed on that uniform background colour which seems to extend right across their drawn extents and beyond? I note the Relief fill has this too, so possibly they should be, but they caught my eye as unusual.

    Everything else is looking great though!

    Hope you get the marsh island fill to cooperate soon...