If you are using a drawing tool you can undo your steps node by node by pressing DEL. But note that this is only the drawing tools. The polygon tools on the right toolbar don't have that facility. I'm not sure I fully understood that first point because you are talking about contours towards the end of it.
If you want to give it a go again learning how to make that specialised catalogue we can do that as a blow by blow exercise one step at a time in a new WIP thread for that purpose. Just start one. It will be a bit slow as each stage will have to be a response, but we can do that. Or... maybe if you start that thread and list the things you want in the catalogue (the X tool from Y style, and the A symbol from B style, etc) we can do it that way.
I'm not sure a tablet would really help, since most of the drawing actions in CC are mouse-centric. I'm not sure that's the proper way to describe it but I'm sure you know what I mean.
Ouch! I have to be careful I don't cause carpal tunnel flare ups in my drawing hand. I imagine an old break like that would be worse, but I do have a sort of idea of where you're coming from there.
Thanks very much for the offer. I'll think about it when I do a new map. Mapping is currently at a stand still anyway.
Edit: I understand the drawing tools (if that is even the right thing to describe it) that allow one to backspace when a line goes astray are different from the polygon tools and since I use the polygon tools for contours, rivers, roads, and maybe some other things I just think of them as contour line tools. Obviously my contour lines using the drawing tool have perhaps hundreds of points and when I inevitably make a mistake my recourse is to delete it and start over. Obviously, it is very demoralizing.
It seems to me that being able when composing either a line or polygon, the backspacing capability without everyone having to make a "special" tool would be good for everybody. But I probably don't understand all details about doing so.
My hands as well as my eyes make it harder to draw with precision.
Thank you for your very kind author, I hit the save/send button before my thought was fully composed. Perhaps before I start with my next map, I will take you up on the offer to learn to compose that specialized catalog feature to draw my contour/polygon lines.
P.S. I had to buy a new computer and thus far I have not attempted to load CC3+, the annuals, or my work on the new computer.
I should add right away that there is no need to delete a whole contour line because of one mistake. There are editing tools and methods that take a few seconds - even if you've realised you switched contours half way around. But we can talk about that closer to the time when you start mapping again. I just wanted you to know now you don't have to do that to yourself.
The blurriness of the terrain can be adjusted by scaling the terrain. It's set pretty large at the moment because the map itself is huge. That white rectangle is the extent of a default 1000 x 800 map unit map.
Here I have halved the scale of the terrain fills. (The trees in the cities are placeholder scribbles and not the final trees). The grass is a final fill texture, but the tundra above it is an isometric version of the Birdseye tundra and is likely to be updated before publication.
The shade of the water is a tricky one. Some people prefer this darker water, and some prefer it much lighter. I started with water that was approximately the same shade as the Birdseye water, but went darker in response to other requests.
Stretching the mountians on the X axis might make them look rather pixelated. Maybe use mountains from a different style?
Loving that ruins symbol especially, Sue, the way it reflects everything in the unruined place. Will this apply to the other settlement types too (please!)?
Piggy backing on a comment someone else said a page back: I do love how the unwalled city / town / village / hamlet symbols can be combined together (along with castles and other structures) to form isometric cities. Ricko in particular has done so many beautiful city maps with those overland symbols These symbols look like they could be used similarly, so that’s exciting for me.
They weren't specifically designed for it, being more carefully graded to match the unspoken standard that each step down a level is 2/3 the area covered by the previous level. It's not exactly a specification, but it's the rule that the Mike Schley symbols seem to follow. For example the Town is 2/3 the size of the City, and the Village is 2/3 the size of the Town, and the Hamlet 2/3 the size of the Village. However, all the buildings in each symbol are the same scale so there's no reason you couldn't if you wanted to. I'm not sure they will look as great as Mike's used that way because I've given each of them an approximate circular base (circular viewed isometrically).
I know Ricko has used your Spectrum Overland symbols similarly, so I bet someone as talented as he is will make it work. Looking forward to getting to trying them out.
Assuming an impact crater, it's to do with the angle of the ejecta for the rim of the crater (the angle outside the rim should be shallower than the inside angle),. There's an unfortunate detail that the profile of an impact crater changes depending on a whole host of things, including the size of the impactor, what it hits, angle of impact, local gravity, and so on. Craters in wet rocks like on Earth have significantly different profiles than craters in dry rocks like on the moon due to strength of materials as well as gravity pulling stuff back down from the crater rim.
LOL! Maybe they are a little too perfect in form. I used a grid I made in Blender to draw them.
I do have another grid that isn't so perfect. Maybe that would be better, or make an older looking crater. The rim is certainly less pronounced. But for now I will carry on down the symbol checklist and maybe come back to the crater.
If there are any Blender enthusiasts here wondering how I did this without having those wretched virtual diagonals you get with a "Wireframe" material node, I learned how to make a true wireframe by watching this video.
Not yet, Quenten. It took me a day to draw the first one, and I have a lot of stuff to do to get to the end of my not so little list before I come back to the crater again.
The wireframe shows what I was seeing as symmetric edges is mostly just a trick of lighting and resolution. Nicely done on those angles!
In your copious free time, you could make the water that fills the crater as a few decal symbols that snap to the center point, which lets you have various levels of water for the single base geometry. That would be so very far down on the priority list as to be invisible at this point, though. And nearly impossible to explain to new users, of course.
I'm not sure even I know what you mean there, Joe, but I have a head full of trees, canyons, cliffs and map icons right now so that's hardly surprising.
I've started too many things all at once, it seems.
Do you mean different sized lakes as separate symbols to snap into position, or maybe to combine in the Symbol Catalogue from separate pngs?
Focus is difficult at the best of times. I was somewhat jokingly suggesting having water symbols to snap into the craters to allow reuse of the base crater symbol, but I doubt that the effort to create them and explain how to use them in the manual (and inevitable support requests) is worth that effort given the enormous pile of things on your list.
Comments
Thanks, Mike :)
If you are using a drawing tool you can undo your steps node by node by pressing DEL. But note that this is only the drawing tools. The polygon tools on the right toolbar don't have that facility. I'm not sure I fully understood that first point because you are talking about contours towards the end of it.
If you want to give it a go again learning how to make that specialised catalogue we can do that as a blow by blow exercise one step at a time in a new WIP thread for that purpose. Just start one. It will be a bit slow as each stage will have to be a response, but we can do that. Or... maybe if you start that thread and list the things you want in the catalogue (the X tool from Y style, and the A symbol from B style, etc) we can do it that way.
I'm not sure a tablet would really help, since most of the drawing actions in CC are mouse-centric. I'm not sure that's the proper way to describe it but I'm sure you know what I mean.
Ouch! I have to be careful I don't cause carpal tunnel flare ups in my drawing hand. I imagine an old break like that would be worse, but I do have a sort of idea of where you're coming from there.
Thanks very much for the offer. I'll think about it when I do a new map. Mapping is currently at a stand still anyway.
Edit: I understand the drawing tools (if that is even the right thing to describe it) that allow one to backspace when a line goes astray are different from the polygon tools and since I use the polygon tools for contours, rivers, roads, and maybe some other things I just think of them as contour line tools. Obviously my contour lines using the drawing tool have perhaps hundreds of points and when I inevitably make a mistake my recourse is to delete it and start over. Obviously, it is very demoralizing.
It seems to me that being able when composing either a line or polygon, the backspacing capability without everyone having to make a "special" tool would be good for everybody. But I probably don't understand all details about doing so.
My hands as well as my eyes make it harder to draw with precision.
Thank you for your very kind author, I hit the save/send button before my thought was fully composed. Perhaps before I start with my next map, I will take you up on the offer to learn to compose that specialized catalog feature to draw my contour/polygon lines.
P.S. I had to buy a new computer and thus far I have not attempted to load CC3+, the annuals, or my work on the new computer.
Ok. Any time :)
I accidently pushed send before I should have and was editing when your responded. Sorry for the confusion.
LOL! Ok. My answer is only slightly different.
Whenever you are ready.
...
I should add right away that there is no need to delete a whole contour line because of one mistake. There are editing tools and methods that take a few seconds - even if you've realised you switched contours half way around. But we can talk about that closer to the time when you start mapping again. I just wanted you to know now you don't have to do that to yourself.
Thanks Sue!
A few things...
the blurriness of the terrain around the zoomed-in cities. Not liking that so much.
I prefer a longer X axis on the mountains (which I can do myself, of course); I feel this would improve the look of the mountains.
Textures for the various fills look excellent.
I think the water is too dark---but of course, I can change that myself.
Overall, excellent and I can't wait to give it a go.
Cal
Thanks Calibre :)
The blurriness of the terrain can be adjusted by scaling the terrain. It's set pretty large at the moment because the map itself is huge. That white rectangle is the extent of a default 1000 x 800 map unit map.
Here I have halved the scale of the terrain fills. (The trees in the cities are placeholder scribbles and not the final trees). The grass is a final fill texture, but the tundra above it is an isometric version of the Birdseye tundra and is likely to be updated before publication.
The shade of the water is a tricky one. Some people prefer this darker water, and some prefer it much lighter. I started with water that was approximately the same shade as the Birdseye water, but went darker in response to other requests.
Stretching the mountians on the X axis might make them look rather pixelated. Maybe use mountains from a different style?
I just remembered I hadn't shown the new mesas and buttes. Also 2 new fills - volcanic and wasteland. I think you've seen the red desert before.
The two small mountains top right in this shot are the varicolour versions, matched with the wasteland fill.
Ooh, pretty, pretty, pretty!
Loving that ruins symbol especially, Sue, the way it reflects everything in the unruined place. Will this apply to the other settlement types too (please!)?
Thank you :)
Yes - all the ruined symbols have the same floorplan as the unruined Structures.
Piggy backing on a comment someone else said a page back: I do love how the unwalled city / town / village / hamlet symbols can be combined together (along with castles and other structures) to form isometric cities. Ricko in particular has done so many beautiful city maps with those overland symbols These symbols look like they could be used similarly, so that’s exciting for me.
They weren't specifically designed for it, being more carefully graded to match the unspoken standard that each step down a level is 2/3 the area covered by the previous level. It's not exactly a specification, but it's the rule that the Mike Schley symbols seem to follow. For example the Town is 2/3 the size of the City, and the Village is 2/3 the size of the Town, and the Hamlet 2/3 the size of the Village. However, all the buildings in each symbol are the same scale so there's no reason you couldn't if you wanted to. I'm not sure they will look as great as Mike's used that way because I've given each of them an approximate circular base (circular viewed isometrically).
I know Ricko has used your Spectrum Overland symbols similarly, so I bet someone as talented as he is will make it work. Looking forward to getting to trying them out.
We have craters now :)
Mmmm, for some reason, they look like saucers.
Love, love, love those craters. My family has a cabin less than 2 miles from the rim of Crater Lake, Oregon, so I have an abiding love of calderas.
Assuming an impact crater, it's to do with the angle of the ejecta for the rim of the crater (the angle outside the rim should be shallower than the inside angle),. There's an unfortunate detail that the profile of an impact crater changes depending on a whole host of things, including the size of the impactor, what it hits, angle of impact, local gravity, and so on. Craters in wet rocks like on Earth have significantly different profiles than craters in dry rocks like on the moon due to strength of materials as well as gravity pulling stuff back down from the crater rim.
https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=impact+crater+height+profile shows some profiles for simple impact craters as well as more complex craters (bigger ones have central rebounds, flat bottoms, and really big ones may have multiple rims).
Volcanic craters can be more similar to those shown, but they are less prone to be quite so perfectly round or recessed into the plain.
For abstract crater symbols, I think these are quite nice.
LOL! Maybe they are a little too perfect in form. I used a grid I made in Blender to draw them.
I do have another grid that isn't so perfect. Maybe that would be better, or make an older looking crater. The rim is certainly less pronounced. But for now I will carry on down the symbol checklist and maybe come back to the crater.
If there are any Blender enthusiasts here wondering how I did this without having those wretched virtual diagonals you get with a "Wireframe" material node, I learned how to make a true wireframe by watching this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38ZC9BnN24U
I do like the somewhat irregular one better.
Can we see what they look like as symbols?
Not yet, Quenten. It took me a day to draw the first one, and I have a lot of stuff to do to get to the end of my not so little list before I come back to the crater again.
I will come back to it, though ;)
OK, I understand. I will be interested to see what you think when you have done it.
Maybe this one can be the one that happened yesterday, and the irregular one could be the one that happened a million years ago.
Here's a preview of the form using just the shading.
The wireframe shows what I was seeing as symmetric edges is mostly just a trick of lighting and resolution. Nicely done on those angles!
In your copious free time, you could make the water that fills the crater as a few decal symbols that snap to the center point, which lets you have various levels of water for the single base geometry. That would be so very far down on the priority list as to be invisible at this point, though. And nearly impossible to explain to new users, of course.
I'm not sure even I know what you mean there, Joe, but I have a head full of trees, canyons, cliffs and map icons right now so that's hardly surprising.
I've started too many things all at once, it seems.
Do you mean different sized lakes as separate symbols to snap into position, or maybe to combine in the Symbol Catalogue from separate pngs?
And thank you! :)
I gave in to temptation and warped a copy of the inner crater to the new grid. Looks like I also still have craters on the brain.
Oh well, I might as well carry on...
Focus is difficult at the best of times. I was somewhat jokingly suggesting having water symbols to snap into the craters to allow reuse of the base crater symbol, but I doubt that the effort to create them and explain how to use them in the manual (and inevitable support requests) is worth that effort given the enormous pile of things on your list.
Like that SO much better.