@Traveller Nothing is set in concrete at this stage. I'm considering some kind of mountain ridge symbol as an addition to the bevel effect, so that people who want a bit more than just a bevel can have it. I'm going with dots and circles for structures, though. Anything more detailed than that would look terrible at this scale. Those kinds of things could be included in the regional version of the style, which I hope to do at some point.
It looks good, but I'm not particularly fond of that soft edge on the forests. I suspect that it would really need something like an alpha threshold (possibly multiplied by distance from edge) effect to sell it, though, so I'm not sure that there's much you can do about it in this context. Maybe single-cell symbols with hard edges along rim of the forest, but then you'd lose the ability to merge forest sections by simply overlapping them (which needs fixed-origin fills for best effect). Of course, you can merge blocks using one of the CONTOURSM family which might be workable.
I’ve come a long way in a year, but terms like alpha threshold (possibly multiplied by distance from edge) and CONTOURSM remind me how much more I have to learn with CC3+. 🤣
I really like the latest iteration. And I rather like the mountain ranges, but if they are meant to be hills, with mtn symbols on top, I would increase the smoothing somewhat. But I realize that you know where that is all leading, so really i will wait till you get to work on those. but the fills are great, IMO
They can be hills or mountains. I haven't decided what to add to the mix yet, but there's always flexibility in any style for people to use what they prefer.
Sue, as an aside, I really appreciate these style development threads. The first annual I bought in advance was 2024’s. Being a new user at the time, I had planned to wait a few months to see what came out and possibly spend my money instead on stocking up on older annuals. The Sinister Sewers development thread got me invested in it and I subscribed to the annual in December 2023 before anything was released. I imagine these threads are useful for your creative process but as a bonus: they’re good marketing, too!
(I also stocked up on older annuals over the year and now I think there are only three more to get.)
This is an embed external element. It can be deleted using the delete key or the backspace key. To view the full element, press the preview button below.
I’ve come a long way in a year, but terms like alpha threshold (possibly multiplied by distance from edge) and CONTOURSM remind me how much more I have to learn with CC3+. 🤣
This is an embed external element. It can be deleted using the delete key or the backspace key. To view the full element, press the preview button below.
I tried all kinds of sheet effects on the forest, but I didn't find one called alpha threshold. Is that an old name for something we already have?
No, an alpha threshold effect would be a new effect. The idea would be to set the opacity of everything below a certain level to 0 and above that to 255, getting rid of the smooth transition. Combined with an opacity gradient (and ideally multiplication), it would let you chew off the soft edges of fills. I probably shouldn't think out loud when I'm tired.
This is an embed external element. It can be deleted using the delete key or the backspace key. To view the full element, press the preview button below.
I did some test mapped volcanoes. The thing is, though, that you have to change the inclination of the global sun to get a more noticeable shading effect, which I think is affecting the Bevel, Lighted effect on the bevel mountains.
This is with the sun inclination at 30 degrees.
And this is with the sun inclination at 60 degrees (the default setting).
I'm a bit undecided about which of these is better for both.
(I know they are really a bit big, but there will be smaller ones.)
Question: will we have access to that fill (orange and rusty) you have on the mountains for use wherever we wish? I hope so.
As for the sun inclination, I sorta like them both---though favor the 60 degree one. Overall, just love this style. I'm wondering if it will lend itself to regional maps as well?
I think the snag is that volcanoes tend to be, and make, their own mountains, so they'd typically affect how the mountains nearby look as well - that is, they'd blend into one another completely. Right now, they look a bit too much dropped-in-from-space.
That can work in some cases, where the volcanic mountain is quite isolated especially - the classic example might be Olympus Mons on Mars, which has a vast cliff almost all around its outer base.
However here, the symbols look rather out of place currently in both versions.
Calibre - Yes, those orange and brown fills are the two tundra fills. This is intended as a continental scale style, but I'm sure everyone will use it as they see fit.
Wyvern - It's pretty difficult making mergable bitmap symbols, or you end up with a bunch of hex shaped mountains so they can sit smothly side by side, and I really don't want hex shaped symbols. I've deliberately given them a sharp edge at the base to help define them a bit, but I will also try a fade edge.
I think I like them better as well, though I want to add a few more details, either to the image or the map file.
While I'm developing my own kind of mapped mountain technique, I should make it known that I will do mirror versions of each symbol, since reflecting just the one original doesn't work well. Map files don't like being reflected. The whole style will look better if you don't mirror any of the symbols, but stay with everything the right way around.
Rotating and scaling is fine. Just resist the idea of mirroring things.
The fresh version is definitely better Sue, although for full best effect, the mountain ridges probably need drawing afterwards, to fit with the symbol properly - for instance, where there are two or three ridge lines meeting, that should be where the volcano is in most cases, and the ridges should flow into it, though you could have additional, probably smaller, vents elsewhere too. Knowing how tricky bevels can be though, this may be impractical in reality. Probably depends how much abstraction from reality you can live with; it's not meant to be Google Earth, after all!
Comments
@Calibre We ninjad each other.
You could use just the hills as they are, or you can add the mountain tops I mean to create.
So does that mean the symbols will be the mountain tops and the hills are shown by the bevel effect, Sue?
I haven't really decided yet. Let's try a few things first.
For a continental size map I think the option to use only fills for terrain is better.
And keep symbols for POIs (cities, castles and such)
Oh, Ms. Sue
Speaking of mountain symbols/fills. Could we have a top down volcano option?
Cal
If course. I was already considering it - to keep that supervolcano-sized lava flow under control.
@Traveller Nothing is set in concrete at this stage. I'm considering some kind of mountain ridge symbol as an addition to the bevel effect, so that people who want a bit more than just a bevel can have it. I'm going with dots and circles for structures, though. Anything more detailed than that would look terrible at this scale. Those kinds of things could be included in the regional version of the style, which I hope to do at some point.
It looks good, but I'm not particularly fond of that soft edge on the forests. I suspect that it would really need something like an alpha threshold (possibly multiplied by distance from edge) effect to sell it, though, so I'm not sure that there's much you can do about it in this context. Maybe single-cell symbols with hard edges along rim of the forest, but then you'd lose the ability to merge forest sections by simply overlapping them (which needs fixed-origin fills for best effect). Of course, you can merge blocks using one of the CONTOURSM family which might be workable.
I’ve come a long way in a year, but terms like alpha threshold (possibly multiplied by distance from edge) and CONTOURSM remind me how much more I have to learn with CC3+. 🤣
Thanks, Joe :)
I tried all kinds of sheet effects on the forest, but I didn't find one called alpha threshold. Is that an old name for something we already have?
I really like the latest iteration. And I rather like the mountain ranges, but if they are meant to be hills, with mtn symbols on top, I would increase the smoothing somewhat. But I realize that you know where that is all leading, so really i will wait till you get to work on those. but the fills are great, IMO
Thanks, Quenten :)
They can be hills or mountains. I haven't decided what to add to the mix yet, but there's always flexibility in any style for people to use what they prefer.
Sue, as an aside, I really appreciate these style development threads. The first annual I bought in advance was 2024’s. Being a new user at the time, I had planned to wait a few months to see what came out and possibly spend my money instead on stocking up on older annuals. The Sinister Sewers development thread got me invested in it and I subscribed to the annual in December 2023 before anything was released. I imagine these threads are useful for your creative process but as a bonus: they’re good marketing, too!
(I also stocked up on older annuals over the year and now I think there are only three more to get.)
Thank you :)
I do these threads to get a better sense of direction with a style, but if they also help to sell things that's good too.
Same here, bro
😁
Cal
No, an alpha threshold effect would be a new effect. The idea would be to set the opacity of everything below a certain level to 0 and above that to 255, getting rid of the smooth transition. Combined with an opacity gradient (and ideally multiplication), it would let you chew off the soft edges of fills. I probably shouldn't think out loud when I'm tired.
If it happens one day, that would be awesome! :)
For now, though, I've settled on an EFI combined with an Alpha Blur.
Love the forests. I guess they are deciduous and tropical - would like to see coniferous close up.
Thanks :)
Those are pine and deciduous.
This is tropical/deciduous (at the moment).
Thank you :)
Nice mountains chain! <3
Thank you, Ricko :)
I did some test mapped volcanoes. The thing is, though, that you have to change the inclination of the global sun to get a more noticeable shading effect, which I think is affecting the Bevel, Lighted effect on the bevel mountains.
This is with the sun inclination at 30 degrees.
And this is with the sun inclination at 60 degrees (the default setting).
I'm a bit undecided about which of these is better for both.
(I know they are really a bit big, but there will be smaller ones.)
Ms. Sue,
Question: will we have access to that fill (orange and rusty) you have on the mountains for use wherever we wish? I hope so.
As for the sun inclination, I sorta like them both---though favor the 60 degree one. Overall, just love this style. I'm wondering if it will lend itself to regional maps as well?
Cal
I think the snag is that volcanoes tend to be, and make, their own mountains, so they'd typically affect how the mountains nearby look as well - that is, they'd blend into one another completely. Right now, they look a bit too much dropped-in-from-space.
That can work in some cases, where the volcanic mountain is quite isolated especially - the classic example might be Olympus Mons on Mars, which has a vast cliff almost all around its outer base.
However here, the symbols look rather out of place currently in both versions.
Calibre - Yes, those orange and brown fills are the two tundra fills. This is intended as a continental scale style, but I'm sure everyone will use it as they see fit.
Wyvern - It's pretty difficult making mergable bitmap symbols, or you end up with a bunch of hex shaped mountains so they can sit smothly side by side, and I really don't want hex shaped symbols. I've deliberately given them a sharp edge at the base to help define them a bit, but I will also try a fade edge.
Here's a version of the same volcano (the one to the north pasted twice) with fuzzy edges. Is it better? Worse?
These I really like Sue - perhaps do active ones with red lava, and perhaps a crater lake in the bottom one as variants??
I think I like them better as well, though I want to add a few more details, either to the image or the map file.
While I'm developing my own kind of mapped mountain technique, I should make it known that I will do mirror versions of each symbol, since reflecting just the one original doesn't work well. Map files don't like being reflected. The whole style will look better if you don't mirror any of the symbols, but stay with everything the right way around.
Rotating and scaling is fine. Just resist the idea of mirroring things.
The fresh version is definitely better Sue, although for full best effect, the mountain ridges probably need drawing afterwards, to fit with the symbol properly - for instance, where there are two or three ridge lines meeting, that should be where the volcano is in most cases, and the ridges should flow into it, though you could have additional, probably smaller, vents elsewhere too. Knowing how tricky bevels can be though, this may be impractical in reality. Probably depends how much abstraction from reality you can live with; it's not meant to be Google Earth, after all!