I added shadows to the bridges. How do they look? Should I cover up some parts of the shadow? I am going to assume that if the bridge looks floating that isn't going to be an issue because it is a bridge.
I'd love to play with this. I don't suppose you'd attach the .FCW file so I could do so. It's getting loud in my head with so many ideas bouncing off the walls. (It's the echoes you see.) I look forward to seeing what you do with this.
The bridge shadows look fine on the ground, but not on the mesa tops, where they look like they're floating again, instead of the bridges attaching to the tops properly
Try moving the bridges Sheet just below the mesa tops one, and then copy the bridges onto a new Sheet above the mesa tops, but which doesn't have any Effects on it. That should still give you the bridge-shaped shadows on the cliffs and ground surface, yet still leaving the bridges looking like they're attached to the mesa tops.
And well done on finally chasing-away those irritating grey patches!
I calibrated my monitor. I see the gray areas on the computer I am doing it on, so I hope I won't have any issues with future maps.
Thanks for the suggestion @Wyvern I copied them. It still created some shadow issues on the very end, but I just deleted a couple of blanks. Hopefully the shadows all look correct now.
@DaltonSpence I am working on learning to do cliff cities for publication. This will likely be the base city. But I see no reason not to share the file. I have other things on the map that has not been scene yet. Here is the blank map with just the cliffs and bridges. You will also need a couple of custom image files to avoid the red X in a few spots.
There are still problematic shadows with the three eastern, smaller mesas from the bridges, and the eastern cliffs. Looking at your FCW file, I'd assumed you'd already drawn white polygons for the cliff tops, but I see that's not the case, so my advice in my previous posting will only partly work. Those pesky grey areas, which I discovered are on your "Cliff Cover" Sheet, have obviously helped where they are, but equally not where they aren't!
As this is the template for your drawing style, I'd suggest using that Cliff Cover Sheet as the place to draw white (colour 15) polygons for ALL the clifftop areas. This should mean you can use the technique I'd proposed for things like bridges anywhere you like without it causing problems with the shadows in future drawings. Such polygons will need to be drawn carefully to avoid losing the cliff-edge line on the cliff symbols, because the polygons must fill the whole clifftop area, and lie above the cliff lines themselves so the bridges can cast shadows on the cliffs, but not on the clifftops. This will also let you place bridges anywhere you wish, of course.
If I am understanding what you are saying, it is that the shadow effect is showing through the tops of some cliff areas. This is because the area is hollow. I would need to cover those area with white to prevent the bleed through.
I am not 100% sure of all of the areas you are talking about. So either I will try to cover evertyhing, or just make sure that in areas with the bridges there is cover.
Basically, to prevent the bridges looking like they're hovering above the surface because of their shadows being cast upon what should be the tops of the cliffs (which is where the bridges are also supposed to be), you'll need to add a white polygon to simulate the land surface at the top of the highest part of EVERY cliff area - so all those areas of cliffs that extend off the map, and all the separate mesas in the middle of the map as well.
If you do that, you should be able to put a bridge anywhere you wish, following what I suggested previously, with two bridge symbols superimposed on one another, one on a lower Sheet which can cast the shadow Effects onto the ground and the faces of the cliffs, the other above the new cliff-top polygons with no shadow effects on its Sheet, so the bridge will look as if it's on the cliff-top too, and casting its shadow to the lower areas, just as the cliffs now are.
I've suggested putting the polygons on ALL the cliff-tops because this is your template map. What you do here determines what happens on any other maps you make using this template. Even if you don't need the cliff-top polygons everywhere on THIS map, you might do on future ones. So getting into the habit of drawing these now will make things easier later on, because you'll have an established pattern to work with.
The idea would work too with only partial polygons drawn to hide the unwanted parts of the shadows every time, and everywhere, you need them, providing you remember the polygons MUST have the same colour as whatever the map background colour is. Here, it's white, colour 15 on the palette being used, so any such patches need to be colour 15 as well.
The problem with the grey patches you've used is they're colour 239, so show-up as obvious oddities. It's a simple operation to change those to colour 15 using the normal Change Properties command. However, the nature of the numerous patches currently is confusing, and some are hiding fragments of the cliff symbols in places, and are not hiding parts of the shadows in others.
In addition, you'd need to make sure you drew patches over every area of unwanted shadow on every map you make after this, whereas with the whole cliff-top polygons, all you need remember is to add one to the whole of every cliff-top on the map. This is partly why I don't think the patch method is such an ideal one to follow as a general rule, because it's easier to make mistakes with it overall.
Wait, are there still gray patches? I thought all of those had been changed.
As for the bridges, I did double up on them. There is a bridge with shadows that is just below the top layer of the cliff. Then there is the bridge layer without shadows on top on the cliffs.
I make the changes, and then save the file. Yet, it keeps coming back. I think it has to do with the color pallet stuff. I really do not like or really understand how it works. If I use a custom color, it seems to take a spot. However, when I load it up again, it seems to revert to the default. I think this file may have the issue fixed.
The new FCW file shows one small grey patch still, on the northern edge of the map; it's Tag # is 248272, which should let you change its properties without having to find it first.
The latest update map image is looking good now. Just one bridge with odd shadows still, that between mesas 1 and 2, coming off the main eastern cliff-line.
So yes, with luck you can start adding actual map details next!
As I said a week ago, I think there should be two more bridges, one from the north-west mesa to western cliff edge and one from the south-most mesa to the southern cliff edge. You might also bridge the gorges around edge forming a "rim road" but if some of the gaps serve as political boundaries there may be strategic reasons not to. A road junction would give the city an economic reason to exist and adventurers a reason to visit. If each outer bridge led to a different political unit the city itself could be neutral territory giving it a political reason to exist. If you want the city to have an independent asset a mine would be good, either on one of the mesas or the plateau below. People do not live somewhere that is difficult to get to unless there is a reason.
They live at the top of the mesas for protection. It is a small town, so they want to control access, hence only one easy way in or out. This town is between two large trading areas. The shortest direction between the two is to walk the valley. Given that it is far enough away from other areas, those needing to hide often end up hiding out here.
A single access point means no back door. If it is between two trade areas it should have links to both. Also just because the mesas exist doesn't explain why people would want to live there. If it's for protection who do they need protection from? The town can control access from its side of the bridge but they are at the mercy of who controls the other side too. I would be nervous about living in a town where the options for leaving are a single bridge that can be blockaded, rickety elevators to the valley floor or throwing myself off a cliff. (A sanctuary can easily become a trap.)
Why not settle on the cliffs surrounding the mesas if the valley is so dangerous? Constructing anything on their tops would be a major undertaking unless there was a serious reason for it. Bridging the whole valley from one side to the other would be a good reason and doing so on three sides would be an even better one. I'm inspired here by an old GURPS supplement about the city of Tredroy which was sited on the junction of two rivers separating three nations, each which has a bridge to an island in the center that serves as neutral ground for trade and diplomacy.
Comments
Of course, now you have the new problem of those bridges needing shadows too...?
I added shadows to the bridges. How do they look? Should I cover up some parts of the shadow? I am going to assume that if the bridge looks floating that isn't going to be an issue because it is a bridge.
Looks like the Shattered Plains form Brandon Sanderson's Stormlight Archive series. I really like your map.
Thanks. Not familiar with the Shattered Plains. I will need to look it up.
I did notice the gray back. Not sure why. I hope this fixes it.
The bridge shadows look fine on the ground, but not on the mesa tops, where they look like they're floating again, instead of the bridges attaching to the tops properly
Try moving the bridges Sheet just below the mesa tops one, and then copy the bridges onto a new Sheet above the mesa tops, but which doesn't have any Effects on it. That should still give you the bridge-shaped shadows on the cliffs and ground surface, yet still leaving the bridges looking like they're attached to the mesa tops.
And well done on finally chasing-away those irritating grey patches!
I calibrated my monitor. I see the gray areas on the computer I am doing it on, so I hope I won't have any issues with future maps.
Thanks for the suggestion @Wyvern I copied them. It still created some shadow issues on the very end, but I just deleted a couple of blanks. Hopefully the shadows all look correct now.
@DaltonSpence I am working on learning to do cliff cities for publication. This will likely be the base city. But I see no reason not to share the file. I have other things on the map that has not been scene yet. Here is the blank map with just the cliffs and bridges. You will also need a couple of custom image files to avoid the red X in a few spots.
Getting there, I think!
There are still problematic shadows with the three eastern, smaller mesas from the bridges, and the eastern cliffs. Looking at your FCW file, I'd assumed you'd already drawn white polygons for the cliff tops, but I see that's not the case, so my advice in my previous posting will only partly work. Those pesky grey areas, which I discovered are on your "Cliff Cover" Sheet, have obviously helped where they are, but equally not where they aren't!
As this is the template for your drawing style, I'd suggest using that Cliff Cover Sheet as the place to draw white (colour 15) polygons for ALL the clifftop areas. This should mean you can use the technique I'd proposed for things like bridges anywhere you like without it causing problems with the shadows in future drawings. Such polygons will need to be drawn carefully to avoid losing the cliff-edge line on the cliff symbols, because the polygons must fill the whole clifftop area, and lie above the cliff lines themselves so the bridges can cast shadows on the cliffs, but not on the clifftops. This will also let you place bridges anywhere you wish, of course.
If I am understanding what you are saying, it is that the shadow effect is showing through the tops of some cliff areas. This is because the area is hollow. I would need to cover those area with white to prevent the bleed through.
I am not 100% sure of all of the areas you are talking about. So either I will try to cover evertyhing, or just make sure that in areas with the bridges there is cover.
Basically, to prevent the bridges looking like they're hovering above the surface because of their shadows being cast upon what should be the tops of the cliffs (which is where the bridges are also supposed to be), you'll need to add a white polygon to simulate the land surface at the top of the highest part of EVERY cliff area - so all those areas of cliffs that extend off the map, and all the separate mesas in the middle of the map as well.
If you do that, you should be able to put a bridge anywhere you wish, following what I suggested previously, with two bridge symbols superimposed on one another, one on a lower Sheet which can cast the shadow Effects onto the ground and the faces of the cliffs, the other above the new cliff-top polygons with no shadow effects on its Sheet, so the bridge will look as if it's on the cliff-top too, and casting its shadow to the lower areas, just as the cliffs now are.
I've suggested putting the polygons on ALL the cliff-tops because this is your template map. What you do here determines what happens on any other maps you make using this template. Even if you don't need the cliff-top polygons everywhere on THIS map, you might do on future ones. So getting into the habit of drawing these now will make things easier later on, because you'll have an established pattern to work with.
The idea would work too with only partial polygons drawn to hide the unwanted parts of the shadows every time, and everywhere, you need them, providing you remember the polygons MUST have the same colour as whatever the map background colour is. Here, it's white, colour 15 on the palette being used, so any such patches need to be colour 15 as well.
The problem with the grey patches you've used is they're colour 239, so show-up as obvious oddities. It's a simple operation to change those to colour 15 using the normal Change Properties command. However, the nature of the numerous patches currently is confusing, and some are hiding fragments of the cliff symbols in places, and are not hiding parts of the shadows in others.
In addition, you'd need to make sure you drew patches over every area of unwanted shadow on every map you make after this, whereas with the whole cliff-top polygons, all you need remember is to add one to the whole of every cliff-top on the map. This is partly why I don't think the patch method is such an ideal one to follow as a general rule, because it's easier to make mistakes with it overall.
Wait, are there still gray patches? I thought all of those had been changed.
As for the bridges, I did double up on them. There is a bridge with shadows that is just below the top layer of the cliff. Then there is the bridge layer without shadows on top on the cliffs.
The grey patches are still present in the FCW file you uploaded here.
I make the changes, and then save the file. Yet, it keeps coming back. I think it has to do with the color pallet stuff. I really do not like or really understand how it works. If I use a custom color, it seems to take a spot. However, when I load it up again, it seems to revert to the default. I think this file may have the issue fixed.
With luck the shadows should be fixed with the bridges. I also added a couple of cranes to lift things off of one of the bridges as well.
If this looks OK, then I will need to decide on other decorations such as rocks, gravel, dirt, trees, etc. and where to put them.
Thanks Julian.
The new FCW file shows one small grey patch still, on the northern edge of the map; it's Tag # is 248272, which should let you change its properties without having to find it first.
The latest update map image is looking good now. Just one bridge with odd shadows still, that between mesas 1 and 2, coming off the main eastern cliff-line.
So yes, with luck you can start adding actual map details next!
I think I fixed the bridges you were talking about.
Once again I fixed something, saved, but didn't take. Hopefully this file does not have the gray spot up top.
Sorted!
They live at the top of the mesas for protection. It is a small town, so they want to control access, hence only one easy way in or out. This town is between two large trading areas. The shortest direction between the two is to walk the valley. Given that it is far enough away from other areas, those needing to hide often end up hiding out here.
There are cranes on one side to let things up and down. People can get down from there.
As for what they need protection from? How about the constant wandering monsters that come out at night on the valley floor.