Annual 126 (city generator) with metric template
Gathar
Traveler
Hello,
I've been playing a little with the automatic city generation tool, but the city I was able to get felt a little bit strange, with very large roads and many empty blocks. I wanted to have an old city, quite cramped, but it failed. So I took a step away, and I had an intuition: I started over again, but this time, I did not use a metric template, but an imperial one. And suddenly, it started to look much better. I think this is because the parameters are in the unit of the map, but their minimum/maximum values are not adjusted accordingly. For instance, having a minimal distance from the house to the street of 5' might be reasonable (even though in many medieval cities the distance was more likely 0, or even negative), but having a minimum distance of 5 meters is huge.
Here is a picture of what I got with both templates:
[Image_8793]
So, unless you want to draw a modern US suburb area, with huge gardens in front of each house, I suggest that to use this tool, you have to restrict yourself to an imperial template, and maybe afterwards copy the result to a metric map while adjusting the scale.
And just for the pleasure, I wanted to share with you this magnificent map of Paris I found while looking at references
I've been playing a little with the automatic city generation tool, but the city I was able to get felt a little bit strange, with very large roads and many empty blocks. I wanted to have an old city, quite cramped, but it failed. So I took a step away, and I had an intuition: I started over again, but this time, I did not use a metric template, but an imperial one. And suddenly, it started to look much better. I think this is because the parameters are in the unit of the map, but their minimum/maximum values are not adjusted accordingly. For instance, having a minimal distance from the house to the street of 5' might be reasonable (even though in many medieval cities the distance was more likely 0, or even negative), but having a minimum distance of 5 meters is huge.
Here is a picture of what I got with both templates:
[Image_8793]
So, unless you want to draw a modern US suburb area, with huge gardens in front of each house, I suggest that to use this tool, you have to restrict yourself to an imperial template, and maybe afterwards copy the result to a metric map while adjusting the scale.
And just for the pleasure, I wanted to share with you this magnificent map of Paris I found while looking at references
Comments
Thanks for sharing it with us, Gathar
I have also noticed something about the automatic city tool. I can see it also affects your map as well, in that some of the buildings appear to sit nearly on top of the road, despite the distance from road setting. Do you think it is something we are doing wrong?
I'm guessing the Random City command uses the "distance" value to position the building in relation to a single reference road so if there's a nearby road then the building may end up drawn on top of that, even when it's drawn correctly to the reference road. Just a guess.
But it still beats drawing a city by hand, and the one or two that are out of place can easily be moved
Having learned everything in feet and yards, I find them much easier to work with.
Our spedos are also still in miles, not kilometres - as are all our road speed limit signs.
Sue, you must be my age, but as we went metric while I was only 16 (in 1966) I have grown up thinking metric. Also the fact I was in the medical profession where it has been metric for yonks also helps. Took a while to get used to the fact I was only 183 cms, and not a whopping 6' though!
My wife and I are going on a 3 month holiday from end July to end October to England, Wales, Scotland and both Irelands. If there is any chance we can meet up, it would be terrific (we have all accommodation booked and paid for, so not looking for a free bed). Just be lovely to put a face to the cartographer Mouse Goddess.
I am sorry to be such a strange little thing, but that's just the way that I am.
I do hope you thoroughly enjoy your holiday, and would recommend a visit to Corfe Castle and its associated village down on the South Coast of Dorset if you are in the south of the country. You will probably find England very crowded and noisy compared to the wide open spaces you are used to. We have one of the highest population densities in Europe, but most of the people are a whole lot more gregarious and sociable than I am
If you are going to Wales, I remember from childhood holidays that Aberystwyth on the west coast is a very beautiful place to be - complete with its own narrow gauge railway dating back to the days of 19th century slate mining in the area, It goes up the valley to Tall-y-llyn, where there is a very picturesque lake at the foot of Cader Idris - the second highest mountain in Wales after Snowdon. Snowdon itself I found rather bleak in comparison. The summit, in fact, is a bit of a disappointment other than for the view. Too commercialised, even back in the 80s. There's a mountain railway for those too lazy to climb there, and so consequently there's a station and a café at the top, instead of the expected glorious and lonely isolation.
My favourite memory of Scotland is of visiting the Islands of Arran, Rum, and Skye. Rum being my favourite, as it is so wild. I hear you can still spot sea otters and ospreys there. Further north than that if you are into moody moorland and mountain scenery the entire West Coast of Scotland is a good tour to take.
Thank you so much for your comments and personal sharing. I think you're a wiz (and a Mouse Goddess) :0
I will look forward to seeing them
And sorry to so completely hijack your thread, Gathar!
Now, if you don't mind, I will hijack your hijack back to its first trajectory ;p
This is not the first time I'm hitting issues while working with metric. Some effects are not correctly converted in some annuals, some draw tools neither (http://forum.profantasy.com/comments.php?DiscussionID=6445&page=1#Item_4). I think we have to live with the unfortunate fact that profantasy products are first designed with imperial units in mind, then adapted to metric units.
Well, I don't think it's any more silly than the countless other systems that existed before the metric system. It's just that the metric system, while being as arbitrary as the imperial system, has some internal consistency and regularity that make it so much simpler to use, and less error-prone.
What is the value in the Scale field in the middle of the resulting dialog box? For a city map, it should probably be 0.3048. That's the conversion for meters to feet. I think some templates may not be set to that conversion for some reason, for example if they do not use any symbols they may not bother with a conversion factor (yes, there are some map styles that use no symbols). If the value is 1.00000 , what happens if you change it to 0.3048?
I've been wondering if the Scale value has any effect on, er, effects.
However, I've opened a Bitmap B one and that's fine.
This is the test file (imperial) with a random city on it
[Image_8801]
And this is the very SAME file with a new city on it (same variables) once the scale has been changed from feet to metres, and the file converted.
But it looks like your second map (which you said was converted to metric?) seems to look fine as far as spacing. I can't see any effects, though.
Also, weird that the same settings resulted in so many more streets and buildings, though I guess 200 ft diameter holds a lot less than 200 m diameter.
Yes, in my city map with metric settings, the scale 0.3048, as expected.
And I've checked, even if the city generator is labelled in feet, it really is in meters. So for instance, the thinnest city wall possible is 10m, while an imperial template allows a city wall 3 times thinner.
I've played a little bit more with the tool, and I've been able to get better looking images than the one I've posted here, but I still get the feeling that everything is too large for an old city, even though I tuned all dimensions as small as I could.