I was more concerned about the number of sheets involved.
One of the traps that can be fallen into when developing a style is to make it too complicated.
I have many, many terrain sheets to ensure that all the terrain textures can have their own sheet and never end up sharing a sheet, However, these all start with "TERRAIN...", so once you grasp the meaning of the first terrain sheet you encounter, it's easy enough to understand what all the rest are for.
However, if I start adding too many specialised sheets from that point on, it may cause more confusion than anything else.
Unfortunately, Quenten, I have already added the mountain and hill symbols sheets together as one "SYMBOLS RELIEF". It shouldn't be too confusing because there are only 2 actual hills in all of this, and both of those are volcanic hills. These are the symbols in the map so far.
So you see that most of the bumpy bits are actually polygons maskquerading as hills.
There will of course be many more ridge components and other features, like outcrops and fissures, but they will mostly all go on a very short list of "SYMBOLS..." sheets.
As you can see, if you take all the TERRAIN sheets out of the mix, the rest of the sheet list is surprisingly short, and the whole list would easily fit in a single dialog window - if not for the TERRAIN sheets. I'm a bit concerned by the psychological effect of such a lengthy list when they are all put together. If you can think back to when you began mapping with CC, would this have seemed quite a daunting wall of sheets?
I think it's helpful to have all of those named terrain sheets (TERRAIN PLAINS, TERRAIN DESERT, etc.). Allows for different sheet effects, and to allow things to render in the correct order.
Sometimes on smaller dungeon-scale maps, I just do TERRAIN 1, TERRAIN 2, etc., which gives me flexibility (I might have a couple of layers of dirt in one area, dirt and grass in another, etc.). Of course, that doesn't work if you need different sheet effects for different types of terrains. For large overland maps, I think it's helpful to have them named separately. Spectrum does it that way and it was very helpful when I was doing an area for the Atlas.
Naming them all independently also allows me to create drawing tools that put terrain fills on the right sheet first time. No messing around trying to move things between numbered terrain sheets.
I wouldn't worry about the length of the list of sheets here, Sue. You can't really design systems on the basis they might trip-up people fresh to the program, as it's more important they do the job well. If there's a concern their number could be intimidating, that's something which could be addressed usefully with a note or two in the PDF mapping guide for this issue.
Work on the ridges continues, but I took a break from that to consider how not everyone will like the bright red and gold tundra, so I added two HSL sheet effects to those sheets so you could take your pick between bright and natural.
Yes, but having both is good - the Spring/summer 'flowering' vs the more autumn/winter version (though i suspect the tundra is mainly snow in winter). Personally, i am likely to use the greener version, but I still feel you should keep both. I also have to say I like the fill for Tundra in the Spectrum style, which was designed by someone really good.
It's not too difficult to add a third of your own, though I'm going to stop at 2 for the template or it just gets a bit too heavy to explain everything in what is supposed to be a brief mapping guide.
Comments
Do as you will. But for what it's worth, keep hills and mountains sheets separated.
Being from a northern country I feel they are fine. Snow usually gets jagged around other land features. Drifts are generally pretty smooth.
Just like the mountain, certain areas are swept clear, forming drifts on the lee sides.
I agree with the above comment - I don't actually see what is wrong with them.
Thanks guys :)
I was more concerned about the number of sheets involved.
One of the traps that can be fallen into when developing a style is to make it too complicated.
I have many, many terrain sheets to ensure that all the terrain textures can have their own sheet and never end up sharing a sheet, However, these all start with "TERRAIN...", so once you grasp the meaning of the first terrain sheet you encounter, it's easy enough to understand what all the rest are for.
However, if I start adding too many specialised sheets from that point on, it may cause more confusion than anything else.
Unfortunately, Quenten, I have already added the mountain and hill symbols sheets together as one "SYMBOLS RELIEF". It shouldn't be too confusing because there are only 2 actual hills in all of this, and both of those are volcanic hills. These are the symbols in the map so far.
So you see that most of the bumpy bits are actually polygons maskquerading as hills.
There will of course be many more ridge components and other features, like outcrops and fissures, but they will mostly all go on a very short list of "SYMBOLS..." sheets.
As you can see, if you take all the TERRAIN sheets out of the mix, the rest of the sheet list is surprisingly short, and the whole list would easily fit in a single dialog window - if not for the TERRAIN sheets. I'm a bit concerned by the psychological effect of such a lengthy list when they are all put together. If you can think back to when you began mapping with CC, would this have seemed quite a daunting wall of sheets?
I think it's helpful to have all of those named terrain sheets (TERRAIN PLAINS, TERRAIN DESERT, etc.). Allows for different sheet effects, and to allow things to render in the correct order.
Sometimes on smaller dungeon-scale maps, I just do TERRAIN 1, TERRAIN 2, etc., which gives me flexibility (I might have a couple of layers of dirt in one area, dirt and grass in another, etc.). Of course, that doesn't work if you need different sheet effects for different types of terrains. For large overland maps, I think it's helpful to have them named separately. Spectrum does it that way and it was very helpful when I was doing an area for the Atlas.
Naming them all independently also allows me to create drawing tools that put terrain fills on the right sheet first time. No messing around trying to move things between numbered terrain sheets.
I always have specific Terrain sheets for different biomes on all my overland maps - i add them myself. So I applaud what you have done here.
I wouldn't worry about the length of the list of sheets here, Sue. You can't really design systems on the basis they might trip-up people fresh to the program, as it's more important they do the job well. If there's a concern their number could be intimidating, that's something which could be addressed usefully with a note or two in the PDF mapping guide for this issue.
I guess they're ok, for now.
Now I just have to get on with the ridges and so on.
Work on the ridges continues, but I took a break from that to consider how not everyone will like the bright red and gold tundra, so I added two HSL sheet effects to those sheets so you could take your pick between bright and natural.
Is tundra red anyway? I thought a more olive green. regardless, i prefer the second one
It depends what season you see it in.
The second one is growing on me too. Maybe I will add a second HSL effect on both of those to turn it kind of greenish.
Love that idea.
Something more like this?
Yes, but having both is good - the Spring/summer 'flowering' vs the more autumn/winter version (though i suspect the tundra is mainly snow in winter). Personally, i am likely to use the greener version, but I still feel you should keep both. I also have to say I like the fill for Tundra in the Spectrum style, which was designed by someone really good.
They're just sheet effects.
It's not too difficult to add a third of your own, though I'm going to stop at 2 for the template or it just gets a bit too heavy to explain everything in what is supposed to be a brief mapping guide.
Yes, that is true.