I think I understand, though I would need to see the FCW file to be certain, but you appear to be drawing the river as a shape rather than as a single line. Most river drawing tools are intended to be used to draw the entire river as a single line from source to mouth, then broken at convenient points to make the parts gradually wider line widths towards the ocean if preferred.
Have you tried drawing the rivers as a single line and then extending the sea into the estuary as far as the estuary is wider than the river?
I'm drawing the river as a zig-zag with width 2, so it's easier to see, and so it's wider than railroads. I may need to use width 4. I'm drawing the sea as a polygon. At the mouth, the river divides into several branches, I'm only showing the northernmost and southernmost major branches; as it meets the sea, there's a pair of notches becaue of the mis-match between width-2 and width-0 objects. I've overlapped sea and estuary elsewhere to avoid the notch.
I'm also having some trouble with small islands and lakes, especially in the Sivash; they're too small for the snap grid, and not worth the trouble of a more detailed grid.
Once I finish tracing the coast (as a set of polygons), rivers (zig-zags), railroads (more zig-zags), etc., placing the cities, etc. I'd like to see which styles will work with them.
I'm guessing really wildly now because I don't know what's happening in the drawing, but I think you might need to edit the estuaries so that the coastline meets each river in turn.
P.S. I originally planned to use the 1930s Overland style, hence the title, but couldn't figure out how to draw anything in that style. If I can covert a copy of what I've drawn, I'd like to try that.
I'm sorry Marja, but I've failed to understand what the problem is with your map. However, there is another problem you aren't aware of, in that everything you've drawn so far has been drawn on the same sheet. That means if you want to apply different sheet effects to (for example) the rivers in the future, you will first have to move the rivers to the RIVERS sheet to be able to do that without affecting the rest of the map.
However, if you intend to make changes anyway and haven't got too far it is simple enough to move groups of things like rivers to a different sheet when you are ready.
There is an old live mapping session where Ralf covers making a new map in the 1930 overland style here, if you are interested. The forum thread referred to in the live stream is this one.
If I've interpreted correctly what you're saying in conjunction with your FCW map, you're drawing the rivers using lines, but in places, these need to expand into both an estuary or a delta before reaching the sea.
Where lines (rivers) meet polygons (sea, estuary) as you've described, yes you do need to draw the river lines with care, and extend them into the polygon areas to disguise the join. This is normal practice.
While I can see you're trying to draw the rivers and coastlines as accurately as possible for the scale of the map, I'm unsure if this will work well for the game it's intended for. Generally for hex-map boardgames, features such as rivers either run along the edges of hexes (because they form a game-specific terrain barrier) or through the middle of hexes (if they don't). However, your map shows yours do both in places, which suggests the rivers are really more scenic features of the map than important terrain elements with a game-specific purpose. If correct, that makes me think you probably don't need to worry so much over needing high accuracy, and including every tiny (for the map scale) island or river bend, for example.
As Sue noted, you need to change the sheet the rivers (actually all the water features) are on right now, because this will create problems further down the line, most especially because they're on one of the bitmap sheets currently, and that's one you'll need to hide or remove to show just the final map version of what you've drawn.
Hope you manage to resolve the problems you're having drawing using the 1930s Overland style.
While I can see you're trying to draw the rivers and coastlines as accurately as possible for the scale of the map, I'm unsure if this will work well for the game it's intended for. Generally for hex-map boardgames, features such as rivers either run along the edges of hexes (because they form a game-specific terrain barrier) or through the middle of hexes (if they don't). However, your map shows yours do both in places, which suggests the rivers are really more scenic features of the map than important terrain elements with a game-specific purpose. If correct, that makes me think you probably don't need to worry so much over needing high accuracy, and including every tiny (for the map scale) island or river bend, for example.
I'm using the smaller hexes as a snap grid. I'm trying to make sure rivers and rail lives will pass through the larger hexes, not along the sides, but the fine-tuning can wait.
However, there is another problem you aren't aware of, in that everything you've drawn so far has been drawn on the same sheet.
I'd carefully made sure they weren't in the same layer, and checked by showing and hiding different layers, so how come you both say they're in the same layer? I've put both rivers and sea in coasts, because there isn't a separate layer for rivers. Also cities/towns in structures. I've started railroads in railroads; the source maps are frustratingly contradictory about these.
Thanks for the Youtube link, but I have sensory issues and can't follow video demos.
The problem isn't the Layers, it's the Sheets. You need to move all the water features off the BITMAP-1919 Sheet onto the RIVERS one. Remember, Sheets and Layers are the opposite to what many graphics-manipulation programs call them in CC3+. Sheets in CC3+ are, in general, much more important to get right than Layers, although Layers are important for grouping different Sheets at times too.
Okay, thanks. I think I've moved everything to the appropriate sheets.
I'm having some trouble seeing where I've drawn railroads, and distinguishing them from the ones on the clearest of my source maps. I'd like to temporarily fade that source map without blurring it, so it's easier to tell which are which. I tried the transparency efffect, and various settings for adjust hue/saturation, but none of them did anything. Any suggestions?
First, use the List option in the Info menu and pick the bitmap then hit D for do it - to make absolultely sure the bitmap really is on the sheet you think it's on. Then make sure that the Transparency effect is on that same sheet, and also make sure that the sheet effects are turned on (the little checkbox at the top of the Sheets and Effects dialog. Once you've done all those things the Transparency effect should work when you hit either Apply or OK.
I tried hiding and showing that sheet, then list w/ inverted colors. It's on the right sheet. I tried transparency, and checked sheet effects. I checked that the layer isn't fixed, and tried again. It doesn't work.
Ok, I can't see your image when I open your map. I just get a default red X image used to indicate a missing file (the one that only you have on your PC), so this may not work for you. I found that if you use the DELAYDRAWSYM command and change it from 1 to 0 (zero), the transparency will work for the rest of that session.
I was going through the Tome of Ultimate Mapping, and it notes that Fractal Terrains can use certain datasets to create global maps, and can export regional tiles of these. Unfortunately the standard ETOPO5 and GTOPO30 lack the needed resolution for regional maps. It has instructions to import ETOPO1 from here:
But none of the files seem to be compatible. It's all .grd or .tif instead of .bin and .hdr.
Any tips to import this data, and preferably other gis data? It would avoid a lot of tracing, and could allow better-looking maps with existing styles. I'd still have to adjust things to fit the hex grid, add the railroads I've traced and drawn from multiple reference maps, etc.
I found the relevant info for ETOPO2, which has 1/30 of a degree resolution, though not ETOPO1, which has 1/60. GTOPO30 is supposed to have 1/120, but it is cut into sections, which makes it harder to create maps which cut across sections.
ETOPO5 lacks the resolution for readable maps. ETOPO2 and GTOPO30 should have the resolution, but they show some lakes and lagoons as dry land, and cut off some inlets and some capes. Burning the map in, and exporting, both tend to lose more resolution.
I don't feel the Fractal Terrains results are reliable enough for my maps. And where coastlines have shifted between the map time and the dataset time, they can't be reliable enough. I know manually tracing the map won't be as precise, but if I can show the lakes, lagoons, inlets, and capes, maybe I have to exaggerate their width, I think that's subjectively more accurate.
Generally speaking, elevation data from the internet such as the ETOPO and GTOPO sets represent the bottom of the atmosphere. That means that the altitudes may represent land, water, or (in some cases) forest canopies. For every point on the surface, there is a single value that shows the altitude. Coloring of that altitude onscreen in FT3 is done purely by altitude, meaning that FT doesn't know anything about rivers or lakes.
If you'd like to have pre-rendered topography in FT3 for Earth, you'd need to use an image of the world that includes things like rivers and lakes rather than (or in addition to if you have lots of memory and patience) simple height data. The Natural Earth data set ( https://www.naturalearthdata.com ) is probably more what you're looking for the kinds of things that it sounds like you want to do.
Using modern geospatial data sets with ancient information overlays is quite painful in many cases due to the sheer levels of changes. For example, the Itiner-E information discussed recently elsewhere on the forum includes a Roman Roads overlay onto a modern geospatial data set. The modern coastline is comically wrong in many places compared to the one from 2000 years ago and quite a few river details have also changed (plus, most modern reservoirs behind dams aren't more than a century or two old). For the most part, though, the road data is sparse enough that the terrain differences don't matter much.
Fractal Terrains was never intended for working with data much more detailed than part of a continent.
I made good progress yesterday. I switched to a mix of CA42 cities instead of CA84, and added symbols based on the SI images, slightly cropped. I cleaned up the coastlines, too.
I organized my project folders afterwards.
Now I've got the red xs.
I am not going to disorganize my project folders.
So I need to figure out how to select the xs to edit the location info to point to the images. I set the layers so they aren't hidden or fixed. This article https://rpgmaps.profantasy.com/why-do-i-see-a-red-x/ says "Use Numeric Edit on the image." I had a hard enough time selecting the images before, had to click the edges, and it seems to be impossible to select the xs at all. If I use Numeric Edit I get "Entity To Edit" and then "Command [EDIT]:" and "Entity to Edit" and "Command [EDIT]:" I look up "can't select" in these fora, no results. I look up "can't select" in the manual and tome, no results, "unable to select," no results, "to select," find out how to select by entity number, tag # 20123, do that, it still doesn't work!!!
"Note that for some images correctly selecting the image with the command can be a bit tricky, if you have problems, I recommend trying a different edge, or just zooming quite a bit out so your pick cursor is covering a much bigger part of the image (be careful not ending up selecting something else though)"
Well, that's an understatement.
I have to hide and freeze all other layers, and then zoom way out, so the cursor is almost as big as the map, then I can finally select an x; pick the next layer with the next x, hide and freeze the previous layer, repeat, etc.
Maybe box selecting the whole of the red X will be easier.
Make sure the images aren't on a frozen layer. Use List from the Info menu to find out what layer something is really on, and make sure that's not one of the ones you have frozen.
I made a test version using the Fantasy Hex style for the terrain:
The Fantasy Hex style created 2 sheets for land and sea symbols. I also tried the Mike Schley Hex style, but it created *several* sheets. I also tried importing 3rd-party hex tiles, but I'm not sure how to scale them during their import.
I had to move the town/city icons to another sheet, "points of interest," before adding the hex tiles. I moved points of interest and text to the bottom of the sheet list, putting them at the top when assembling the map. I moved "symbols" up just below the "bitmap" sheets, which are hidden here. I applied a 50% transparency to "symbols" so they would be lighter, and so the rivers, railroads, etc. would stand out.
... It looks like the North arrow stayed with symbols and disappeared under the sea.
I think it's too hard to distinguish navigable from non-navigable water, and broken from rough terrain. I am going to need to add hex numbers again. I would prefer not to have the large tree icons.
I transliterated place-names from period Ukrainian-language maps, instead of from current standard Ukrainian-language spellings.
I've done a couple more edits, and tried a couple more styles.
CC3 Overland Hex:
Mike Schley Hex:
In each case, I've applied a 25% transparency to each of the hex symbol layers.
Since most of these sets have different symbols for plains and farmland, I might want to find a population density map and use these symbols to show that. But for game purposes, I should probably use the clearer symbol throughout. I tried some other hex symbols, but the scales weren't right.
Also, I need easy-to-see and easy-to-distinguish symbols for moderately difficult and very difficult terrain, and I'm not finding that; I figure most of the foothills and marshes are wooded, so I can use wooded and more-wooded instead of different symbols for hills and marshes. But either they blend into the open terrain or inte each other.
Also, I want to fit the final map on either 2x Letter or 2x A4 pages, for easy printing, and I expect to give up a couple rows on the edges.
I couldn't manually resize the map. I had to use the resize function, and then move everything except the background+border+hex grid, I can tell that something broke, I quit and restarted, etc. it's still broken. I suspect that my careful grid alignments are off, too.
I have a "good" saved version, but I don't know if there's any good way to resize the map; I fear I may have to redraw everything from scratch.
It looks like the screen failed to resize. That's the most likely cause of the white vertical stripe on the right.
Hide the SCREEN sheet and see if it's still there. If I'm right and it's the screen, then two simple commands should set matters right again. First reshow the SCREEN sheet and type "COLLARDEL", then hit ENTER. The screen should have been deleted. Then type "COLLARAUTO" and hit ENTER. This should draw you a new screen around the outside of your map.
The new screen might not be the right size if you have a lot of things sticking out around the edges, but there are more collar commands explained in this article by Remy Monsen.
Comments
I think I understand, though I would need to see the FCW file to be certain, but you appear to be drawing the river as a shape rather than as a single line. Most river drawing tools are intended to be used to draw the entire river as a single line from source to mouth, then broken at convenient points to make the parts gradually wider line widths towards the ocean if preferred.
Have you tried drawing the rivers as a single line and then extending the sea into the estuary as far as the estuary is wider than the river?
I'm drawing the river as a zig-zag with width 2, so it's easier to see, and so it's wider than railroads. I may need to use width 4. I'm drawing the sea as a polygon. At the mouth, the river divides into several branches, I'm only showing the northernmost and southernmost major branches; as it meets the sea, there's a pair of notches becaue of the mis-match between width-2 and width-0 objects. I've overlapped sea and estuary elsewhere to avoid the notch.
I'm also having some trouble with small islands and lakes, especially in the Sivash; they're too small for the snap grid, and not worth the trouble of a more detailed grid.
Once I finish tracing the coast (as a set of polygons), rivers (zig-zags), railroads (more zig-zags), etc., placing the cities, etc. I'd like to see which styles will work with them.
Then I'm not sure where the white is coming from.
Please can you upload the .FCW file (the drawing file) to a comment below, so that we can inspect the problem?
It should upload if you hit the paperclip button at the bottom of the comment box.
The white comes from the background.
I'm guessing really wildly now because I don't know what's happening in the drawing, but I think you might need to edit the estuaries so that the coastline meets each river in turn.
Here's the current working version. It's about half the area of the original game map, and at an angle to it.
P.S. I originally planned to use the 1930s Overland style, hence the title, but couldn't figure out how to draw anything in that style. If I can covert a copy of what I've drawn, I'd like to try that.
Thanks for sharing the FCW.
I'm sorry Marja, but I've failed to understand what the problem is with your map. However, there is another problem you aren't aware of, in that everything you've drawn so far has been drawn on the same sheet. That means if you want to apply different sheet effects to (for example) the rivers in the future, you will first have to move the rivers to the RIVERS sheet to be able to do that without affecting the rest of the map.
However, if you intend to make changes anyway and haven't got too far it is simple enough to move groups of things like rivers to a different sheet when you are ready.
There is an old live mapping session where Ralf covers making a new map in the 1930 overland style here, if you are interested. The forum thread referred to in the live stream is this one.
If I've interpreted correctly what you're saying in conjunction with your FCW map, you're drawing the rivers using lines, but in places, these need to expand into both an estuary or a delta before reaching the sea.
Where lines (rivers) meet polygons (sea, estuary) as you've described, yes you do need to draw the river lines with care, and extend them into the polygon areas to disguise the join. This is normal practice.
While I can see you're trying to draw the rivers and coastlines as accurately as possible for the scale of the map, I'm unsure if this will work well for the game it's intended for. Generally for hex-map boardgames, features such as rivers either run along the edges of hexes (because they form a game-specific terrain barrier) or through the middle of hexes (if they don't). However, your map shows yours do both in places, which suggests the rivers are really more scenic features of the map than important terrain elements with a game-specific purpose. If correct, that makes me think you probably don't need to worry so much over needing high accuracy, and including every tiny (for the map scale) island or river bend, for example.
As Sue noted, you need to change the sheet the rivers (actually all the water features) are on right now, because this will create problems further down the line, most especially because they're on one of the bitmap sheets currently, and that's one you'll need to hide or remove to show just the final map version of what you've drawn.
Hope you manage to resolve the problems you're having drawing using the 1930s Overland style.
While I can see you're trying to draw the rivers and coastlines as accurately as possible for the scale of the map, I'm unsure if this will work well for the game it's intended for. Generally for hex-map boardgames, features such as rivers either run along the edges of hexes (because they form a game-specific terrain barrier) or through the middle of hexes (if they don't). However, your map shows yours do both in places, which suggests the rivers are really more scenic features of the map than important terrain elements with a game-specific purpose. If correct, that makes me think you probably don't need to worry so much over needing high accuracy, and including every tiny (for the map scale) island or river bend, for example.
I'm using the smaller hexes as a snap grid. I'm trying to make sure rivers and rail lives will pass through the larger hexes, not along the sides, but the fine-tuning can wait.
However, there is another problem you aren't aware of, in that everything you've drawn so far has been drawn on the same sheet.
I'd carefully made sure they weren't in the same layer, and checked by showing and hiding different layers, so how come you both say they're in the same layer? I've put both rivers and sea in coasts, because there isn't a separate layer for rivers. Also cities/towns in structures. I've started railroads in railroads; the source maps are frustratingly contradictory about these.
Thanks for the Youtube link, but I have sensory issues and can't follow video demos.
The problem isn't the Layers, it's the Sheets. You need to move all the water features off the BITMAP-1919 Sheet onto the RIVERS one. Remember, Sheets and Layers are the opposite to what many graphics-manipulation programs call them in CC3+. Sheets in CC3+ are, in general, much more important to get right than Layers, although Layers are important for grouping different Sheets at times too.
Yes, it's the sheets that hold the effects too, like glows and blurs, and so on. They are way more important than layers.
Okay, thanks. I think I've moved everything to the appropriate sheets.
I'm having some trouble seeing where I've drawn railroads, and distinguishing them from the ones on the clearest of my source maps. I'd like to temporarily fade that source map without blurring it, so it's easier to tell which are which. I tried the transparency efffect, and various settings for adjust hue/saturation, but none of them did anything. Any suggestions?
First, use the List option in the Info menu and pick the bitmap then hit D for do it - to make absolultely sure the bitmap really is on the sheet you think it's on. Then make sure that the Transparency effect is on that same sheet, and also make sure that the sheet effects are turned on (the little checkbox at the top of the Sheets and Effects dialog. Once you've done all those things the Transparency effect should work when you hit either Apply or OK.
I tried hiding and showing that sheet, then list w/ inverted colors. It's on the right sheet. I tried transparency, and checked sheet effects. I checked that the layer isn't fixed, and tried again. It doesn't work.
P.S. I have to use Numeric Edit to turn on alpha transparency for the image. https://forum.profantasy.com/discussion/comment/115341#Comment_115341
Ok, I can't see your image when I open your map. I just get a default red X image used to indicate a missing file (the one that only you have on your PC), so this may not work for you. I found that if you use the DELAYDRAWSYM command and change it from 1 to 0 (zero), the transparency will work for the rest of that session.
I was going through the Tome of Ultimate Mapping, and it notes that Fractal Terrains can use certain datasets to create global maps, and can export regional tiles of these. Unfortunately the standard ETOPO5 and GTOPO30 lack the needed resolution for regional maps. It has instructions to import ETOPO1 from here:
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/products/etopo-global-relief-model
But none of the files seem to be compatible. It's all .grd or .tif instead of .bin and .hdr.
Any tips to import this data, and preferably other gis data? It would avoid a lot of tracing, and could allow better-looking maps with existing styles. I'd still have to adjust things to fit the hex grid, add the railroads I've traced and drawn from multiple reference maps, etc.
I found the relevant info for ETOPO2, which has 1/30 of a degree resolution, though not ETOPO1, which has 1/60. GTOPO30 is supposed to have 1/120, but it is cut into sections, which makes it harder to create maps which cut across sections.
ETOPO5 lacks the resolution for readable maps. ETOPO2 and GTOPO30 should have the resolution, but they show some lakes and lagoons as dry land, and cut off some inlets and some capes. Burning the map in, and exporting, both tend to lose more resolution.
I don't feel the Fractal Terrains results are reliable enough for my maps. And where coastlines have shifted between the map time and the dataset time, they can't be reliable enough. I know manually tracing the map won't be as precise, but if I can show the lakes, lagoons, inlets, and capes, maybe I have to exaggerate their width, I think that's subjectively more accurate.
Generally speaking, elevation data from the internet such as the ETOPO and GTOPO sets represent the bottom of the atmosphere. That means that the altitudes may represent land, water, or (in some cases) forest canopies. For every point on the surface, there is a single value that shows the altitude. Coloring of that altitude onscreen in FT3 is done purely by altitude, meaning that FT doesn't know anything about rivers or lakes.
If you'd like to have pre-rendered topography in FT3 for Earth, you'd need to use an image of the world that includes things like rivers and lakes rather than (or in addition to if you have lots of memory and patience) simple height data. The Natural Earth data set ( https://www.naturalearthdata.com ) is probably more what you're looking for the kinds of things that it sounds like you want to do.
Using modern geospatial data sets with ancient information overlays is quite painful in many cases due to the sheer levels of changes. For example, the Itiner-E information discussed recently elsewhere on the forum includes a Roman Roads overlay onto a modern geospatial data set. The modern coastline is comically wrong in many places compared to the one from 2000 years ago and quite a few river details have also changed (plus, most modern reservoirs behind dams aren't more than a century or two old). For the most part, though, the road data is sparse enough that the terrain differences don't matter much.
Fractal Terrains was never intended for working with data much more detailed than part of a continent.
I made good progress yesterday. I switched to a mix of CA42 cities instead of CA84, and added symbols based on the SI images, slightly cropped. I cleaned up the coastlines, too.
I organized my project folders afterwards.
Now I've got the red xs.
I am not going to disorganize my project folders.
So I need to figure out how to select the xs to edit the location info to point to the images. I set the layers so they aren't hidden or fixed. This article https://rpgmaps.profantasy.com/why-do-i-see-a-red-x/ says "Use Numeric Edit on the image." I had a hard enough time selecting the images before, had to click the edges, and it seems to be impossible to select the xs at all. If I use Numeric Edit I get "Entity To Edit" and then "Command [EDIT]:" and "Entity to Edit" and "Command [EDIT]:" I look up "can't select" in these fora, no results. I look up "can't select" in the manual and tome, no results, "unable to select," no results, "to select," find out how to select by entity number, tag # 20123, do that, it still doesn't work!!!
"Note that for some images correctly selecting the image with the command can be a bit tricky, if you have problems, I recommend trying a different edge, or just zooming quite a bit out so your pick cursor is covering a much bigger part of the image (be careful not ending up selecting something else though)"
Well, that's an understatement.
I have to hide and freeze all other layers, and then zoom way out, so the cursor is almost as big as the map, then I can finally select an x; pick the next layer with the next x, hide and freeze the previous layer, repeat, etc.
Maybe box selecting the whole of the red X will be easier.
Make sure the images aren't on a frozen layer. Use List from the Info menu to find out what layer something is really on, and make sure that's not one of the ones you have frozen.
I made a test version using the Fantasy Hex style for the terrain:
The Fantasy Hex style created 2 sheets for land and sea symbols. I also tried the Mike Schley Hex style, but it created *several* sheets. I also tried importing 3rd-party hex tiles, but I'm not sure how to scale them during their import.
I had to move the town/city icons to another sheet, "points of interest," before adding the hex tiles. I moved points of interest and text to the bottom of the sheet list, putting them at the top when assembling the map. I moved "symbols" up just below the "bitmap" sheets, which are hidden here. I applied a 50% transparency to "symbols" so they would be lighter, and so the rivers, railroads, etc. would stand out.
... It looks like the North arrow stayed with symbols and disappeared under the sea.
I think it's too hard to distinguish navigable from non-navigable water, and broken from rough terrain. I am going to need to add hex numbers again. I would prefer not to have the large tree icons.
I transliterated place-names from period Ukrainian-language maps, instead of from current standard Ukrainian-language spellings.
That's a really great first map, Marja :)
Nice job.
I've done a couple more edits, and tried a couple more styles.
CC3 Overland Hex:
Mike Schley Hex:
In each case, I've applied a 25% transparency to each of the hex symbol layers.
Since most of these sets have different symbols for plains and farmland, I might want to find a population density map and use these symbols to show that. But for game purposes, I should probably use the clearer symbol throughout. I tried some other hex symbols, but the scales weren't right.
Also, I need easy-to-see and easy-to-distinguish symbols for moderately difficult and very difficult terrain, and I'm not finding that; I figure most of the foothills and marshes are wooded, so I can use wooded and more-wooded instead of different symbols for hills and marshes. But either they blend into the open terrain or inte each other.
Also, I want to fit the final map on either 2x Letter or 2x A4 pages, for easy printing, and I expect to give up a couple rows on the edges.
Something broke.
I couldn't manually resize the map. I had to use the resize function, and then move everything except the background+border+hex grid, I can tell that something broke, I quit and restarted, etc. it's still broken. I suspect that my careful grid alignments are off, too.
I have a "good" saved version, but I don't know if there's any good way to resize the map; I fear I may have to redraw everything from scratch.
It looks like the screen failed to resize. That's the most likely cause of the white vertical stripe on the right.
Hide the SCREEN sheet and see if it's still there. If I'm right and it's the screen, then two simple commands should set matters right again. First reshow the SCREEN sheet and type "COLLARDEL", then hit ENTER. The screen should have been deleted. Then type "COLLARAUTO" and hit ENTER. This should draw you a new screen around the outside of your map.
The new screen might not be the right size if you have a lot of things sticking out around the edges, but there are more collar commands explained in this article by Remy Monsen.