Those all look really good. Even though the relative sizes of the trees may not be precisely correct, the point of icons on a map is to be a recognizable abstraction of the thing, not an exact representation.
Having said that, common Joshua trees in my part of the world are mostly 10 to 15 feet with rare individuals getting up near 50 feet tall (my aunt's house had a giant one that got all of the water that it wanted for a very long time and was comparatively HUGE). Gum trees vary widely depending on species and growing conditions, but a lot of the imported ones hereabouts get 40 to 60 feet tall. The saguaros that I've seen were 20 to 30 feet tall, but Wackypedia says that they can get 40 feet tall. The saguaros tend to be a bit thinner than shown here.
Gums look great, but do need to be taller - they grow up to 65-130 feet in their natural environment (northern and central Australia). Though I am not sure of your scale here. Joshua trees reach a max of 45 feet. Saguaro grow up to 40 feet.
Joshua Trees can grow as high as 15 meters and can appear fairly massive. I am less familiar with the other ones. When compared to the mountains, all the plants seem much too large to me. The cactus appear to be a little too massive to me, but then I don't know that I've ever seen them next to Joshua or other large plants.
@jslayton - thank you very much. A very useful pair of images, since they also contained things I knew the size of - vehicles. It is plain to me that what I thought of as tree sized plants are really no larger than a temperate zone shrub. My mother, for instance, has things in her garden she calls 'shrubs' that grow taller than the average Joshua tree. Still a useful map symbol, though, since that whole desert area seems to be covered in nothing but Joshua trees and dry grasses. Thanks also for comments about the saguaro. I had been toying with the idea of adjusting them a little - particularly the really big one. They are a bit on the fat side.
@Quenten - Thanks. I realise the gums are a vast family and vary hugely in size. Not all of them have white bark either! The range you gave is enormous - the largest being twice as tall as the smallest. I think, though, that I am going to have to keep the size variation down to a much smaller range, or they will look raggedy rather than making a reasonable attempt at graceful, in a map where most other types of vegetation varies only by about 10 feet at most between individual trees. The gums look small compared to the palms, but the palms themselves are bigger than the gums. The tallest palms in the world are Columbian wax palms, which can reach 200ft. Again - palms can also be as short as a man when mature, so it's really difficult to know how big to make the different types of trees relative to one another. If it is any comfort the gums are taller than the regular deciduous trees.
@mike robel - Thanks - interesting information. The saguaro can reach 60ft, but the ones I've drawn could probably be a tad smaller than they are. It may well be that once I have shrunk the saguaro and Joshua trees down a bit to more like half the size of all the other trees everything else will look far more reasonable. After all, I don't think anyone is going to need to make a dense forest of saguaro or joshua trees any time soon. They are more likely to just be dotted around to indicate 'desert'.
...
Overall, I think Joe has the right of it in his first paragraph. These are symbols. The fact that all the trees look a bit large beside the mountain is pretty normal in overland fantasy maps. That is down to the need to be able to recognise the different representative types of tree - symbols that say what they are, rather than being totally accurate but otherwise illegible dots in various different shades of green and brown. Meanwhile, the mountains can't be too large, or there would be no room for anything else in the map.
I will play with the relative scaling between the vegetation types a little - make the desert flora a shade smaller, but I won't be able to go too far with it, since the images are already pretty pixelated at the scale they are.
The bushes are just general scrub stuff, Jim, but I was thinking of making them smaller. Then I decided to leave them alone and let people decide whether they wanted a dead shrub or a tumbleweed by scaling them accordingly.
Just like any other symbol. You right click while you have the symbol on the crosshairs, and click Separate x and y values, then enter different values in the boxes.
I hope these new gum trees look about right. I had trouble deciding what basic colour they should be. I also did some more work on the saguaros. They should be a more realistic shape now.
I'm going to stop worrying about the relative scale. All the tree objects are roughly three sizes - small, normal and large. That's so you can still tell what they are on the map, despite their relative sizes being different in reality.
These look much better to me. If those dried bushes are separate, I think they are, that would be great ! I would definatelly use them in my The Fantasy Trip game world.
That's really good news, Quenten, since the gum forest was mainly for my Australian friends.
Yes, Jim - the little bushes are separate symbols. They're classified as "Desert scrub" (or something like that) They should end up in the same symbol catalogues as the other desert stuff I hope.
I've been working on the remaining jungle and swamp trees this afternoon. The jungle trees are just fillers to go between the palms and nothing all that special, but the swamp trees are a bit more important than that. This is the wrong colour, because texturing in ngPlant is a pain and extremely basic, but it gives some idea.
A little late. Your "swamp trees" reminded me of Spanish Moss which grows in the South-Eastern US and in the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean. Once used as cushions in Model T's until Ford learned they had mites in them that made everyone itch, then they had to boil it. It's really not a moss. Apparently, its related to pineapple. Go figure.
Looking at your photo there, I can see that the colour of the Spanish Moss is a sort of dirty cream. Is it always that colour, or does it change with the seasons?
Sue, I just had a thought. Nowhere are there decent mangroves, but they are a very ubiquitous and important tree, for mapping as well. Any hope of one at this late stage, or should we await Spectrum 3? I look forward to new posts on this thread every day. Spectrum looks like replacing Mike Schley as my favoured style. I never really have taken to Wielink's style, despite it being a widespread favourite, and Jon Roberts is too limited, plus not as good as Spectrum part 1, let alone 2 (and 3)
I really don't have time to do more than has already been agreed with Profantasy. I'm pushing it even now because I've had a series of stupid delays at my end of things - like taking 2 days to find out why just one kind of tree simply would not render correctly.
I don't think there will be a part 3, which is why I'm being really definite about not doing anything beyond the spec until the spec has been fulfilled.
Comments
Those all look really good. Even though the relative sizes of the trees may not be precisely correct, the point of icons on a map is to be a recognizable abstraction of the thing, not an exact representation.
Having said that, common Joshua trees in my part of the world are mostly 10 to 15 feet with rare individuals getting up near 50 feet tall (my aunt's house had a giant one that got all of the water that it wanted for a very long time and was comparatively HUGE). Gum trees vary widely depending on species and growing conditions, but a lot of the imported ones hereabouts get 40 to 60 feet tall. The saguaros that I've seen were 20 to 30 feet tall, but Wackypedia says that they can get 40 feet tall. The saguaros tend to be a bit thinner than shown here.
And although individuals get large, plant populations can tend to have significant variations due to region (both due to genetics and climate). For example, the joshua trees up on the local mountains tend to grow much closer together and are a bit taller than those out on the valley floor ( warning: big images, but https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6478521,-117.9940618,3a,60y,274.23h,85.02t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sc8ZTUoJzEy3XFX3TDh-zOA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 is an example of a trip through the local mountain Joshua tree forest and https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0198032,-116.0203987,3a,60y,86.25h,77.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sU25MOQEHlWEIWfty6Mbg6g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 is an example of a drier one in Joshua Tree National Park).
Gums look great, but do need to be taller - they grow up to 65-130 feet in their natural environment (northern and central Australia). Though I am not sure of your scale here. Joshua trees reach a max of 45 feet. Saguaro grow up to 40 feet.
Joshua Trees can grow as high as 15 meters and can appear fairly massive. I am less familiar with the other ones. When compared to the mountains, all the plants seem much too large to me. The cactus appear to be a little too massive to me, but then I don't know that I've ever seen them next to Joshua or other large plants.
@jslayton - thank you very much. A very useful pair of images, since they also contained things I knew the size of - vehicles. It is plain to me that what I thought of as tree sized plants are really no larger than a temperate zone shrub. My mother, for instance, has things in her garden she calls 'shrubs' that grow taller than the average Joshua tree. Still a useful map symbol, though, since that whole desert area seems to be covered in nothing but Joshua trees and dry grasses. Thanks also for comments about the saguaro. I had been toying with the idea of adjusting them a little - particularly the really big one. They are a bit on the fat side.
@Quenten - Thanks. I realise the gums are a vast family and vary hugely in size. Not all of them have white bark either! The range you gave is enormous - the largest being twice as tall as the smallest. I think, though, that I am going to have to keep the size variation down to a much smaller range, or they will look raggedy rather than making a reasonable attempt at graceful, in a map where most other types of vegetation varies only by about 10 feet at most between individual trees. The gums look small compared to the palms, but the palms themselves are bigger than the gums. The tallest palms in the world are Columbian wax palms, which can reach 200ft. Again - palms can also be as short as a man when mature, so it's really difficult to know how big to make the different types of trees relative to one another. If it is any comfort the gums are taller than the regular deciduous trees.
@mike robel - Thanks - interesting information. The saguaro can reach 60ft, but the ones I've drawn could probably be a tad smaller than they are. It may well be that once I have shrunk the saguaro and Joshua trees down a bit to more like half the size of all the other trees everything else will look far more reasonable. After all, I don't think anyone is going to need to make a dense forest of saguaro or joshua trees any time soon. They are more likely to just be dotted around to indicate 'desert'.
...
Overall, I think Joe has the right of it in his first paragraph. These are symbols. The fact that all the trees look a bit large beside the mountain is pretty normal in overland fantasy maps. That is down to the need to be able to recognise the different representative types of tree - symbols that say what they are, rather than being totally accurate but otherwise illegible dots in various different shades of green and brown. Meanwhile, the mountains can't be too large, or there would be no room for anything else in the map.
I will play with the relative scaling between the vegetation types a little - make the desert flora a shade smaller, but I won't be able to go too far with it, since the images are already pretty pixelated at the scale they are.
Thanks everyone! ?
If those bushes at the bottom of the saguaro are tumbleweeds, the saguaro is too small. maybe a slight increase, another 2 to 4 feet high.
I'm not sure about the sizes for the rest.
The bushes are just general scrub stuff, Jim, but I was thinking of making them smaller. Then I decided to leave them alone and let people decide whether they wanted a dead shrub or a tumbleweed by scaling them accordingly.
These symbols can be scaled, right? I have never tried to vertically stretch one although I frequently make them bigger or smaller.
They can be scaled just like any symbol can, Mike :)
LOL. Of course. But I don't think you can size them seperately for the X and Y axes?
Yes :)
Just like any other symbol. You right click while you have the symbol on the crosshairs, and click Separate x and y values, then enter different values in the boxes.
Hah! Well what do you know!?!
I hope these new gum trees look about right. I had trouble deciding what basic colour they should be. I also did some more work on the saguaros. They should be a more realistic shape now.
I'm going to stop worrying about the relative scale. All the tree objects are roughly three sizes - small, normal and large. That's so you can still tell what they are on the map, despite their relative sizes being different in reality.
Really good. The trees leaves for the gums could be a little more olive - not much. But that is good enough for a generic tree.
These look much better to me. If those dried bushes are separate, I think they are, that would be great ! I would definatelly use them in my The Fantasy Trip game world.
That's really good news, Quenten, since the gum forest was mainly for my Australian friends.
Yes, Jim - the little bushes are separate symbols. They're classified as "Desert scrub" (or something like that) They should end up in the same symbol catalogues as the other desert stuff I hope.
I think they look great Sue.
I've been working on the remaining jungle and swamp trees this afternoon. The jungle trees are just fillers to go between the palms and nothing all that special, but the swamp trees are a bit more important than that. This is the wrong colour, because texturing in ngPlant is a pain and extremely basic, but it gives some idea.
Well, I've still not done the swamp trees, but I've added a few more bits and bobs to the temperate zone vegetation.
This could be a bit of a game for you. There are actually 2 structures in this shot. I bet you can't spot the new one ?
Houses & igloos?
Oh, didn't see until it was mentioned. Good.
A little late. Your "swamp trees" reminded me of Spanish Moss which grows in the South-Eastern US and in the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean. Once used as cushions in Model T's until Ford learned they had mites in them that made everyone itch, then they had to boil it. It's really not a moss. Apparently, its related to pineapple. Go figure.
@mike robel - You made me chuckle, thanks
Looking at your photo there, I can see that the colour of the Spanish Moss is a sort of dirty cream. Is it always that colour, or does it change with the seasons?
Always that colour in Australia
I have seen green ones in Louisiana.
edit: I checked by web search, and it shows both gray and green, not in the same photo, in Louisiana.
My search phrase was 'Louisiana marsh moss'.
Here is the search.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Louisiana+marsh+moss&atb=v209-1&iar=images&iax=images&ia=images
Thank you, Jim. That's very useful ?
They get green when they are full of water and then dry out, turning grayish green.
Thanks Mike. That makes sense - a bit like a lawn goes brown in the dry weather but doesn't actually die (unless you are very unlucky).
Sue, I just had a thought. Nowhere are there decent mangroves, but they are a very ubiquitous and important tree, for mapping as well. Any hope of one at this late stage, or should we await Spectrum 3? I look forward to new posts on this thread every day. Spectrum looks like replacing Mike Schley as my favoured style. I never really have taken to Wielink's style, despite it being a widespread favourite, and Jon Roberts is too limited, plus not as good as Spectrum part 1, let alone 2 (and 3)
Sorry, Quenten.
I really don't have time to do more than has already been agreed with Profantasy. I'm pushing it even now because I've had a series of stupid delays at my end of things - like taking 2 days to find out why just one kind of tree simply would not render correctly.
I don't think there will be a part 3, which is why I'm being really definite about not doing anything beyond the spec until the spec has been fulfilled.
No Scope as you Go or MSUaaS for Sue!