Might be worth tweaking the text on the Aglacacian Empire map though, as some of it's getting a bit lost where it passes over the denser types of terrain.
For the Khunjerab Pass, the scalebar would benefit from moving off the hills, as it's too difficult to read there right now.
@Ricko Hasche - The map image you've reposted for Khunjerab Pass seems to have the effects turned off now, and the scalebar is where it was originally, I think. Might be the wrong image?
For the Aglacacian Empire map, try adjusting either the text colours, or their sizes, and/or the colour and/or extent of their glow effects. It's difficult to advise precisely, as there's always a degree of subjectivity about this, especially as it only really affects the smaller labels that are crossing the denser terrain areas currently, particularly, though not exclusively, where the text's italicised.
@Wyvern Khunjerab Pass photo effects its turn off yes. about the grid in this same image, grid are above all except symbols and text layer as you can see in ftw.
The only way you could improve that last one is if you take the shadow off the outcrops and draw one. At the moment the shadow is appearing on the wrong side of the cliffs.
@Loopysue on the cliffs, visually the shadow appears to me in the same direction as the buildings, stones and vegetation. I didn't understand about it.
As for plantations, I don't understand the concept and I don't know how to draw shadows other than using the sheet effects (drop shadow, outter glow etc)
Ah, yes, the shadows are in the right direction, but being automatic they are peeping out where they shouldn't on the flat top of the outcrop like here.
That is the flat top part of the outcrop and shouldn't really be casting a shadow. In the original style there were sheets designed to draw the shadows as black polygons.
To set one up for yourself, leave the shadow effect on whichever sheet the cliffs are one so you have a pattern to draw from, then make a new sheet underneath that one with a blur effect, followed by a Blend Mode effect. Set the blend mode to about 20% opacity. You will have to adjust the blur once you can see what looks right and what doesn't. On this new sheet pick the smooth polygon tool on the right, solid fill and black, then draw roughly the shape of the shadow, excluding the bits you don't want. Tuck the polygon well underneath the outcrops so that the blur doesn't separate the shadow from the outcrops. When you have done that you can switch off the shadow effect on the outcrop sheet.
If there are other things on the same sheet you may need to create a separate sheet for the cliffs that has no effects on it.
The sheet effects in CC3 are pretty good, but there are times when hand drawn is better.
...about the grid in this same image, grid are above all except symbols and text layer as you can see in ftw.
Actually, I wasn't talking about the grid at all, but the scalebar, which is still more or less unreadable, because it's set on top of the mountains. If it was placed on the plain-texture open land, it would be easier to read, to see how it relates to the grid size.
When you're using a grid like this, it's really important that the scalebar shows what size the grid is, especially because the grid isn't covering the whole map. This is difficult to tell currently also on both the Zaras Lake and Jibarut maps.
And on the same topic still, the As Sutat map needs some sort of scale adding!
On this As Sutat map as well, there seem to be several flat animals in the NE quarter, towards the lower left of the "Al Diqaq" label. They probably need some shadows adding, I think. Unless of course they really are meant to be flat to the surface - the carpet sheep of As Sutat, perhaps? 😉
They're good looking maps, don't get me wrong; they just need a little tweaking here and there 😊
I understand your point of view and thank you very much for the suggestions.
I also consider that distances on maps, especially "medieval" ones, are anything but accurate, since at that time there was no geolocation. :D
Having a scale that indicates approximately how many kilometers are from one point to another is valid, but disregards the distance variables such as the number of curves, ups and downs that demand the relief and that directly influence the final distance. that is, one way or another the distance will never be exact. an example of this are mountain scales, it shows the physical distance from point A to B, but the complexity of the relief will directly influence the final distance, since more zigzag will be needed to cross the mountain.
since I was little I use these rpg story maps as references that don't influence my story much if city A or B is 53.7 kilometers or 64.9. This difference of approximately 10km represents approximately 1.5 hours of walking and does not change the total context of the story. normally I would take a ruler and measure the scale, then measure point A to B and convert to distance. added 15% more distance (through the curves) and divided by 30km/day = so many travel days.
not using the grid above all, and only below the cartoons and text is a matter of personal aesthetic choice.
for example where I live, it is 800 meters above sea level and the top of the mountains is 2200 meters. by the scale of a medieval map it would be only 1.4 kilometers of ascent, but the path to the top is 18 kilometers only to climb on one side, on the other side of the mountains there are approximately 60 kilometers of lowland and on the google earth scale they represent only 12 km.
I understand your point regarding old maps and the variations of scale, as well as the Z-axis issues (which of course are more significant on pictorial maps that don't have contour lines).
These though are maps for the Atlas, so are intended for general gaming use (mostly, but not necessarily just, for RPGs), where you can't assume everyone will have the same casual view about such things (they really don't, judging by some of the online discussions I've seen over the years!). Consequently, accurate, easily-accessible and visible scales are important, especially as not everyone who uses/views the Atlas maps will be able to access the FCW files and measure things there for themselves, should they want to.
Yes, absolute precision isn't significant for larger area maps, but people still need to be able to tell easily what 10 or 20 miles or kilometres is on such a map - and 1½ hours walking time is plenty of time and distance to slip in an unexpected ambush 😉
Ricko Hasche
🖼️ 111 images Mapmaker
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/c75d9a245b74d9c59be0999ea81ca541/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F92add7f8c954488718110edc4896ad39_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
Comments
Lovely maps appearing here, Ricko :)
Indeed, all looking good.
Might be worth tweaking the text on the Aglacacian Empire map though, as some of it's getting a bit lost where it passes over the denser types of terrain.
For the Khunjerab Pass, the scalebar would benefit from moving off the hills, as it's too difficult to read there right now.
@Ricko Hasche - The map image you've reposted for Khunjerab Pass seems to have the effects turned off now, and the scalebar is where it was originally, I think. Might be the wrong image?
For the Aglacacian Empire map, try adjusting either the text colours, or their sizes, and/or the colour and/or extent of their glow effects. It's difficult to advise precisely, as there's always a degree of subjectivity about this, especially as it only really affects the smaller labels that are crossing the denser terrain areas currently, particularly, though not exclusively, where the text's italicised.
@Wyvern Khunjerab Pass photo effects its turn off yes. about the grid in this same image, grid are above all except symbols and text layer as you can see in ftw.
personally i dont like grid over town symbols
Cheers
with effects on :)
The only way you could improve that last one is if you take the shadow off the outcrops and draw one. At the moment the shadow is appearing on the wrong side of the cliffs.
@Loopysue on the cliffs, visually the shadow appears to me in the same direction as the buildings, stones and vegetation. I didn't understand about it.
As for plantations, I don't understand the concept and I don't know how to draw shadows other than using the sheet effects (drop shadow, outter glow etc)
Ah, yes, the shadows are in the right direction, but being automatic they are peeping out where they shouldn't on the flat top of the outcrop like here.
That is the flat top part of the outcrop and shouldn't really be casting a shadow. In the original style there were sheets designed to draw the shadows as black polygons.
To set one up for yourself, leave the shadow effect on whichever sheet the cliffs are one so you have a pattern to draw from, then make a new sheet underneath that one with a blur effect, followed by a Blend Mode effect. Set the blend mode to about 20% opacity. You will have to adjust the blur once you can see what looks right and what doesn't. On this new sheet pick the smooth polygon tool on the right, solid fill and black, then draw roughly the shape of the shadow, excluding the bits you don't want. Tuck the polygon well underneath the outcrops so that the blur doesn't separate the shadow from the outcrops. When you have done that you can switch off the shadow effect on the outcrop sheet.
If there are other things on the same sheet you may need to create a separate sheet for the cliffs that has no effects on it.
The sheet effects in CC3 are pretty good, but there are times when hand drawn is better.
...about the grid in this same image, grid are above all except symbols and text layer as you can see in ftw.
Actually, I wasn't talking about the grid at all, but the scalebar, which is still more or less unreadable, because it's set on top of the mountains. If it was placed on the plain-texture open land, it would be easier to read, to see how it relates to the grid size.
When you're using a grid like this, it's really important that the scalebar shows what size the grid is, especially because the grid isn't covering the whole map. This is difficult to tell currently also on both the Zaras Lake and Jibarut maps.
And on the same topic still, the As Sutat map needs some sort of scale adding!
On this As Sutat map as well, there seem to be several flat animals in the NE quarter, towards the lower left of the "Al Diqaq" label. They probably need some shadows adding, I think. Unless of course they really are meant to be flat to the surface - the carpet sheep of As Sutat, perhaps? 😉
They're good looking maps, don't get me wrong; they just need a little tweaking here and there 😊
I understand your point of view and thank you very much for the suggestions.
I also consider that distances on maps, especially "medieval" ones, are anything but accurate, since at that time there was no geolocation. :D
Having a scale that indicates approximately how many kilometers are from one point to another is valid, but disregards the distance variables such as the number of curves, ups and downs that demand the relief and that directly influence the final distance. that is, one way or another the distance will never be exact. an example of this are mountain scales, it shows the physical distance from point A to B, but the complexity of the relief will directly influence the final distance, since more zigzag will be needed to cross the mountain.
since I was little I use these rpg story maps as references that don't influence my story much if city A or B is 53.7 kilometers or 64.9. This difference of approximately 10km represents approximately 1.5 hours of walking and does not change the total context of the story. normally I would take a ruler and measure the scale, then measure point A to B and convert to distance. added 15% more distance (through the curves) and divided by 30km/day = so many travel days.
not using the grid above all, and only below the cartoons and text is a matter of personal aesthetic choice.
for example where I live, it is 800 meters above sea level and the top of the mountains is 2200 meters. by the scale of a medieval map it would be only 1.4 kilometers of ascent, but the path to the top is 18 kilometers only to climb on one side, on the other side of the mountains there are approximately 60 kilometers of lowland and on the google earth scale they represent only 12 km.
As Sutat now have sheeps with shadows 🤣
I understand your point regarding old maps and the variations of scale, as well as the Z-axis issues (which of course are more significant on pictorial maps that don't have contour lines).
These though are maps for the Atlas, so are intended for general gaming use (mostly, but not necessarily just, for RPGs), where you can't assume everyone will have the same casual view about such things (they really don't, judging by some of the online discussions I've seen over the years!). Consequently, accurate, easily-accessible and visible scales are important, especially as not everyone who uses/views the Atlas maps will be able to access the FCW files and measure things there for themselves, should they want to.
Yes, absolute precision isn't significant for larger area maps, but people still need to be able to tell easily what 10 or 20 miles or kilometres is on such a map - and 1½ hours walking time is plenty of time and distance to slip in an unexpected ambush 😉
Love the cliffs in the last one, @Ricko Hasche Where did you get them from?
@Loopysue darklands <3