Does Size Ratio Matter or Absolute Size?
JulianDracos
Mapmaker
Suppose you are making a large map like 10000 x 6000. When you do that, most styles will increase the symbol size to adjust. If not, then you will likely need to adjust the size of the symbols to compensate.
What I am wonder is what if you made it 1000 x 600 instead. The symbol size would scale down. If you were not going to put a grid on the map, is there going to be any difference between a map that is the same ratio by only 10% of the landmass size?
Tagged:
Comments
Oh man... just yesterday I read Remy's article "Scale Matters" in the World Builder's Compendium.
If you own it (it's included in the ongoing Humble bundle) it's very much worth reading!
None of the measuring tools would give the correct result. You can't rely on the coordinates. If you add effects with absolute sizes their size wouldn't be right. If you make detail maps from it they inherit the wrong scale. And more....
And if course, you gain absolutely nothing by making it in one tenth scale. This isn' t a bitmap editor where you would save memory or disk space by doing this.
I am trying to resolve an issue of symbol size scale. Playing around it it, this does not seem to change the bitmap issue with either symbols not being that viewable because they are too small or with them being visable, but then get int he way of other objects on the map.
However, there are also hatch sizes. Using hatch sizes from the landform make most symbols just a spot of black. I have tried making the hatch icons bigger by opening them up. It has mixed results. For example, I change the palm trees and they get bigger up to a point. Still not as big as I want. If I try with mesas, it seems to partly work. But it looks like a jumbled mess. However, if I just use 1/10 of the size (close to the default scale for the landform style) and use the original hatch files, then the hatches render correctly and I can see the different icons.