Sue, I tried to keep it more earth-like, with a largely empty southern hemisphere, otherwise too many continents. Do we really need more land? But it is easy enough to add another one. jslayton, I do now use RMF with Perlin's Improved Noise, but I just so liked this one that I redid it. Wyvern, I have deliberately left the sea out of the pictures, as we can deal with this better on the CC3 map.
Thanks Monsen. Plenty of land already. I actually added the SE continent. I thought the FT map was to be a rough guide to what the final CC3 map would be. I am doing it up in Mike Schley style, with just the coast, land, major mountains and major rivers, to see what it looks like. Will post when done. Ocean details can be added at that point if they are really felt necessary
I think that we can use these to generate a starting coast, mountain ranges, lakes, and rivers. But, I think that giving the various artist the right to change some of these elements would be advisable. The individuals can decide on whether to change up the lake mentioned above into a bay or to keep it and explain it in some fantastical way. (The thin strip of land is actually the ruins of a huge wall/dam built during the time of the Titans and is slowly falling apart.) If an individual wants to change the rivers, they can add, remove, or create all new rivers. Same thing for an artist who wants to adjust the mountains and hills. I see the FT has a basic template. Obviously you would not want to adjust anything that would cross into another's "work space" though. As such, you could remove a section of mountains to create a passage through the mountain range, but the mountains would still start and end in the same areas were it would cross over into another "work space". What size will this be and how will we accurately map out the area's?
Just some idea's and things to think about.
This should be awesome! It is sort of a "Thieves Guild" version of map making since we will all be telling stories with our maps. :-)
Posted By: CharlesWayneRobinsonThe individuals can decide on whether to change up the lake mentioned above into a bay or to keep it and explain it in some fantastical way.
That won't really work. The idea is to create a consistent atlas, and any person using the world map in the end will expect that the detail map he clicks through to will make sense based on what he saw in the world map (or any parent map). It is important that things defined on a higher level map stays consistent. We can't have something appear as a bay on the world map, and then a lake on the regional map. HOWEVER, there are a LOT of details not visible from a world map, and obviously the features that are there aren't as detailed as they would be in the regional (and then local) maps, giving the artist plenty of opportunity to sculpt and add features. As you zoom in, more mountains become visible, lakes and rivers not visible on the main map are needed, coastline needs to be more detailed, etc. All of this gives each artist quite a lot of room in designing the map as he or she sees fit, but still, it is important to respect the features of the higher level maps. Note that by respecting the features, I don't mean an exact copy of them. Each map is in it's own style and design. But if there is a mountain range crossing through from the world map, there should still be one on the regional, but using the style and symbols of the regional map. It will need to be more detailed than the parent map, and include features not visible from he world map, such and mountains passes and the such, but it should still be there.
It is not my intention to stifle creativity, but if this is to be a navigable, believable atlas, to be able to be used as a campaign world, features needs to make sense. Remember, this is an atlas, and not a patchwork map like the one from the guild Sue has been posting images from. We probably won't have too many maps meeting up edge to edge at all, actually, as opposed to that kind of cooperative patchwork. (I like that map too, but for CC3+, an atlas makes more sense)
Posted By: CharlesWayneRobinsonsince we will all be telling stories with our maps
That we will do. I am hoping people wil put all kinds of interesting things into their maps.
Posted By: CharlesWayneRobinsonWhat size will this be and how will we accurately map out the area's?
Roughly earth-sized. As for detail level, we are aiming at an atlas-style approache, where the top level map (world map) isn't terribly detailed, and then we will make regional maps of all important/interesting regions from the world map in higher details, making local maps from the interesting areas of those, city maps for the cities on the map, dungeon maps for ruins and buildings in the city, and so on. So it is a very variable detail level.
On the Mike Schley map of my offering, I have just put in land, rivers, main lakes and mountain ranges (indicated by mountain fill AND a thick black line). I guess coastlines are still open for more fetailed fractalization on a regional level, as well as addition of smaller islands. What do you all think about this
Posted By: MonsenThat won't really work. The idea is to create a consistent atlas, and any person using the world map in the end will expect that the detail map he clicks through to will make sense based on what he saw in the world map (or any parent map).
Posted By: CharlesWayneRobinsonsince we will all be telling stories with our maps
That we will do. I am hoping people wil put all kinds of interesting things into their maps.
Posted By: CharlesWayneRobinsonWhat size will this be and how will we accurately map out the area's?
Roughly earth-sized. As for detail level, we are aiming at an atlas-style approache, where the top level map (world map) isn't terribly detailed, and then we will make regional maps of all important/interesting regions from the world map in higher details, making local maps from the interesting areas of those, city maps for the cities on the map, dungeon maps for ruins and buildings in the city, and so on. So it is a very variable detail level.
Part 1: Monsen, I was talking about the world map, not detail maps. :-)
Part 2 & 3: Actually, I am talking about the scale we will be working on for the parts of the world map we are doing in CC3+. I understand the overall FT3 size and layout, but are we not going to contribute to the top level map? If so, what sizes are we looking at when we create the FCW file (i.e. 9000 x 9000 or 8,000 x 8,000 templates?)
Apologies for my questions within my last post for not precise. :-)
I'm not sure, but I will still keep going with my example world - I can use it for my own use if it is not used here. Anyway, here is the first part of my Mike Schley map - just land, scale and compass.
The map is 8000 tall. The mountains are yet to be done. I thought of just doing the mountain Back fill, and perhaps a line along the main ridges, as Sue suggested. The actual details could be filled in by all of us if we choose to go with this. And you can come up with some names for the world and continents.
Posted By: CharlesWayneRobinson Part 1: Monsen, I was talking about the world map, not detail maps. :-)
Part 2 & 3: Actually, I am talking about the scale we will be working on for the parts of the world map we are doing in CC3+. I understand the overall FT3 size and layout, but are we not going to contribute to the top level map? If so, what sizes are we looking at when we create the FCW file (i.e. 9000 x 9000 or 8,000 x 8,000 templates?)
My thoughts is that the top map would be made by a single person (since that is in fact, one map), others would map the first level below (continent level maps). Since continents are very different sizes here (probably need to divide the largest one into several maps). So we are talking about templates ranging between 2000 to 4000 miles it looks like.
Well, I for one is quite quite happy with how this is turning out, so I'll just ask the rest of you. Do we need to have additional worlds to vote over, or should we just go with this design? If we are all happy with this one, it doesn't really make sense to spend too much time creating other worlds.
So far, nobody else have sent me a FT/world map, and I can't remember anyone else saying so either. (Of course, if someone else is actually working on a world in FT to present to the voting, then we will vote, just tell me if that is the case)
I agree - I'll finish the mountains fill, and the lakes, rivers and sea. then put it up here (in about 4 hours, I guess - almost finished the mountains) and we should then wait for Sue's.
Posted By: MedioIf Sue is doing a map, i´d wait, though.
Of course. We did agree to a voting and put out a call for maps, so if additional maps will be available, we'll definitely do a vote. I was basically just trying to save myself some unneeded work by not providing a few maps of my own as I originally said, because I think this works fine. I will still do that if people think it is necessary though, and I definitely welcome any FT maps from anyone else to put up to a vote.
Posted By: QuentenDo we actually need the FT maps.
I like to have the FT map for a couple of reasons - You can zoom in to an area and export more detailed coastlines from it, for example an island or section of coastline. This is useful for more detailed maps (local maps), as you don't have to take the coastline from the prior map and fractalize it to add detail. - You can make cool spinning globe animation. I find this really helps visualize the world in a way a map can't (Due to projection and edges)
Here is my map with the mountains as a Background fill, and a mountain fill. I prefer the latter, which do you prefer. Rivers and lakes next, then the sea, then bed.
This map is actually the perfect size for a campaign map - large enough to have a lot of variety but small enough that the players can someday explore a good portion of it.
I like it. A lot. Great job Quenten!
We should wait to see what Sue is cooking up, but I'm loving this map already.
I don't want to sound mean here but I am really not fond of a repeating pattern on mountains (or anything else really). That is why I have never used the mountain fill.
The Mike Schley style came with two different kinds of mountains for two different scales. One scale is for the 1000 x 800 regional area, and of course for getting closer, but there were also 12 different symbols for mountain ranges, meant to be used when you scale up to continents and worlds.
There are two problems with those symbols that I have come across. The first is that they only go mostly horizontal or mostly vertical. The second is that they are not very long symbols so would take quite a while to place them on a map this large. To limit a repeating pattern in those symbols, a couple of different single mountain symbols scaled to match the mountain ranges could be used.They would be used at the beginnings and ends of each mountain range symbol, trying to make sure not to repeat the same look over and over. This also lets a person redirect what direction the mountain range goes of they do not want it directly vertical or directly horizontal.
With all of that said, I feel that for a world map that we all plan on putting into an online Interactive Atlas, should use those properly scaled symbols, and not a mountain fill. I know this means much more work, but I think the results will be much better in the long run.
Here are the rivers and lakes. ? too many rivers, and no room for deserts. Sea next (just the light colour surrounding the land masses) Perhaps I could add some island groups (a la Pacific ocean) in the southern ocean area. I really now need detailed comments and suggestions. As a top level map, I do not think we need more detail, except the desert areas perhaps.
For a map this scale you need to show major areas of Ice, Desert, Jungle, Swamp, Taiga Forest. Also, for most inland lakes, there are usually only one or two rivers leading into them and only one leading out if you are following an earth example. Of course, if not, then anything goes.
Posted By: QuentenAs a top level map, I do not think we need more detail, except the desert areas perhaps.
Well, assuming this is the top level map we end up with, I have a suggestion regarding terrain, like deserts. Let us leave it open for now, and backport any such terrain from the detailed maps as people make those. In general, I don't like too much backporting happening, the detail maps shouldn't force a change in the parent map, but perhaps leaving the world map a little "blank" in those areas will allow for more individual decisions form the designers of those, and then go back in and retouch the world map a little when the first level of maps have been made.
We'll still wait a few days before we go ahead and start up the project and start assigning and drawing those detail maps, in case there are other contenders for the world map en route, and in that case, we'll hold the promised vote.
Here is the map with some sea done. I have also shown the temperature zones. Red=Equator Orange=Tropics boundary (15 degrees latitude) Yellow = boundary of desert zone (ie desert is mainly confined to the area between orange and yellow. Otherwise dry savannah and scrubland. Green=Temperate (latitude 40 degrees) Much colder inland than on coasts. (I live just 200m south of latitude 40, nad because it is a small island it rarely falls below zero C (1-2/year) unlike areas north of me on mainland Australia where it is both hotter and colder. On the other hand we do get the Roaring 40s) White=Polar Circle (75 degrees latitude) Hope this helps with map design. Any rivers in the desert zone could be like a Nile or Euphrates. Tonnichiwa: Many areas in the world have multiple rivers draining into lakes.
Usually only one or two though, like I said. Occasionally you might get more, but you have five in two different lakes here. Or is that four going in and one going out? Either way, that many rivers going in to one lake usually doesn't work. But like I said, that is only if you are going off of earth standards.
If others are working on FT maps then we should wait. I agree with tonnichiwa about the mountains. I cannot say that am real fond of the river layout neither. I like how the temperature zones are overlayed though. I will go with whatever everyone decides though.
Tonnichiwa, I had the idea that the lakes with many inputs would be VERY marshy - a Wetlands extravaganza. I would like to keep one though. Charles, what about the mountains would you like to have improved. I agree with Tonnichiwa about using properly scaled symbols, but in the short term it is a lot of work, and takes away the ability to tweak it at a regional level. So I still regard the top level map as a very simple one. At this stage, I am against showing specific desert etc, but the zones should help in those designing regional maps. We can always 'backfill', I guess. Otherwise, the whole thing becomes too presrciptive, and more of one person's creation, which is what I do NOT want. Here is the last map till tomorrow (my time - 12.30am here)
Comments
jslayton, I do now use RMF with Perlin's Improved Noise, but I just so liked this one that I redid it.
Wyvern, I have deliberately left the sea out of the pictures, as we can deal with this better on the CC3 map.
I can hardly wait to see what the others put out.
I think that we can use these to generate a starting coast, mountain ranges, lakes, and rivers.
But, I think that giving the various artist the right to change some of these elements would be advisable.
The individuals can decide on whether to change up the lake mentioned above into a bay or to keep it and explain it in some fantastical way.
(The thin strip of land is actually the ruins of a huge wall/dam built during the time of the Titans and is slowly falling apart.)
If an individual wants to change the rivers, they can add, remove, or create all new rivers.
Same thing for an artist who wants to adjust the mountains and hills.
I see the FT has a basic template.
Obviously you would not want to adjust anything that would cross into another's "work space" though.
As such, you could remove a section of mountains to create a passage through the mountain range, but the mountains would still start and end in the same areas were it would cross over into another "work space".
What size will this be and how will we accurately map out the area's?
Just some idea's and things to think about.
This should be awesome! It is sort of a "Thieves Guild" version of map making since we will all be telling stories with our maps. :-)
HOWEVER, there are a LOT of details not visible from a world map, and obviously the features that are there aren't as detailed as they would be in the regional (and then local) maps, giving the artist plenty of opportunity to sculpt and add features. As you zoom in, more mountains become visible, lakes and rivers not visible on the main map are needed, coastline needs to be more detailed, etc. All of this gives each artist quite a lot of room in designing the map as he or she sees fit, but still, it is important to respect the features of the higher level maps.
Note that by respecting the features, I don't mean an exact copy of them. Each map is in it's own style and design. But if there is a mountain range crossing through from the world map, there should still be one on the regional, but using the style and symbols of the regional map. It will need to be more detailed than the parent map, and include features not visible from he world map, such and mountains passes and the such, but it should still be there.
It is not my intention to stifle creativity, but if this is to be a navigable, believable atlas, to be able to be used as a campaign world, features needs to make sense. Remember, this is an atlas, and not a patchwork map like the one from the guild Sue has been posting images from. We probably won't have too many maps meeting up edge to edge at all, actually, as opposed to that kind of cooperative patchwork. (I like that map too, but for CC3+, an atlas makes more sense) That we will do. I am hoping people wil put all kinds of interesting things into their maps.
Roughly earth-sized. As for detail level, we are aiming at an atlas-style approache, where the top level map (world map) isn't terribly detailed, and then we will make regional maps of all important/interesting regions from the world map in higher details, making local maps from the interesting areas of those, city maps for the cities on the map, dungeon maps for ruins and buildings in the city, and so on. So it is a very variable detail level.
Part 2 & 3: Actually, I am talking about the scale we will be working on for the parts of the world map we are doing in CC3+. I understand the overall FT3 size and layout, but are we not going to contribute to the top level map? If so, what sizes are we looking at when we create the FCW file (i.e. 9000 x 9000 or 8,000 x 8,000 templates?)
Apologies for my questions within my last post for not precise. :-)
Anyway, here is the first part of my Mike Schley map - just land, scale and compass.
?
How tall is the example map?
At this scale, what size would the mountains be?
And you can come up with some names for the world and continents.
So far, nobody else have sent me a FT/world map, and I can't remember anyone else saying so either. (Of course, if someone else is actually working on a world in FT to present to the voting, then we will vote, just tell me if that is the case)
- You can zoom in to an area and export more detailed coastlines from it, for example an island or section of coastline. This is useful for more detailed maps (local maps), as you don't have to take the coastline from the prior map and fractalize it to add detail.
- You can make cool spinning globe animation. I find this really helps visualize the world in a way a map can't (Due to projection and edges)
Rivers and lakes next, then the sea, then bed.
I like it. A lot. Great job Quenten!
We should wait to see what Sue is cooking up, but I'm loving this map already.
The Mike Schley style came with two different kinds of mountains for two different scales. One scale is for the 1000 x 800 regional area, and of course for getting closer, but there were also 12 different symbols for mountain ranges, meant to be used when you scale up to continents and worlds.
There are two problems with those symbols that I have come across. The first is that they only go mostly horizontal or mostly vertical. The second is that they are not very long symbols so would take quite a while to place them on a map this large. To limit a repeating pattern in those symbols, a couple of different single mountain symbols scaled to match the mountain ranges could be used.They would be used at the beginnings and ends of each mountain range symbol, trying to make sure not to repeat the same look over and over. This also lets a person redirect what direction the mountain range goes of they do not want it directly vertical or directly horizontal.
With all of that said, I feel that for a world map that we all plan on putting into an online Interactive Atlas, should use those properly scaled symbols, and not a mountain fill. I know this means much more work, but I think the results will be much better in the long run.
Sea next (just the light colour surrounding the land masses)
Perhaps I could add some island groups (a la Pacific ocean) in the southern ocean area.
I really now need detailed comments and suggestions. As a top level map, I do not think we need more detail, except the desert areas perhaps.
We'll still wait a few days before we go ahead and start up the project and start assigning and drawing those detail maps, in case there are other contenders for the world map en route, and in that case, we'll hold the promised vote.
Red=Equator
Orange=Tropics boundary (15 degrees latitude)
Yellow = boundary of desert zone (ie desert is mainly confined to the area between orange and yellow. Otherwise dry savannah and scrubland.
Green=Temperate (latitude 40 degrees) Much colder inland than on coasts. (I live just 200m south of latitude 40, nad because it is a small island it rarely falls below zero C (1-2/year) unlike areas north of me on mainland Australia where it is both hotter and colder. On the other hand we do get the Roaring 40s)
White=Polar Circle (75 degrees latitude)
Hope this helps with map design. Any rivers in the desert zone could be like a Nile or Euphrates.
Tonnichiwa: Many areas in the world have multiple rivers draining into lakes.
And you did invite comments and suggestions :P
Charles, what about the mountains would you like to have improved. I agree with Tonnichiwa about using properly scaled symbols, but in the short term it is a lot of work, and takes away the ability to tweak it at a regional level. So I still regard the top level map as a very simple one.
At this stage, I am against showing specific desert etc, but the zones should help in those designing regional maps. We can always 'backfill', I guess. Otherwise, the whole thing becomes too presrciptive, and more of one person's creation, which is what I do NOT want.
Here is the last map till tomorrow (my time - 12.30am here)