Symbol size vs Landmass size
So I am working on a continent its 2400 miles by 1700 miles. The issue is getting the symbols the right size to match the world for a world map view. I see maps that look amazing and the scale shows 200 miles and matches the symbols. When I try it looks all wanky, any tips for drawing a world map with dimension of 2400 x 1700 for symbol size and export information? Any help would be great. Thank you in advance.
Comments
Something to bear in mind is that overland symbols are symbolic and not intended to be realistic in scale. This is because on a world map a tree would be nothing more than a dot and unrecognizable as a tree - but you still need to have the tree symbols to show where the rainforests are. Overland symbols are designed to be easily recognisable and aesthetically pleasing. So a tree symbol may well be many times too large compared to the mountain symbol beside it. The point is that it is recognisable as a tree - a symbol of a tree instead of a little black dot. Coupled with this is the concept that a single tree symbol on an overland map may represent a copse, or even a small woodland because of the area it covers on the map
On city and dungeon maps the default symbol scale of 1 is more closely linked with a realistic size for the object the symbol represents. So a city tree will be approximately 20-30 feet across the crown on the map, and in scale with the map scale. In dungeon maps in particular a table or a barrel will be the right size according to the map scale - as long as you leave the symbol scale set to the default value of 1.
When to break the rules and alter the symbol scale and set it at something other than 1...
This is a wonderfully vague area of discussion and very difficult to describe. In dungeon and city maps I would say hardly ever, since you wouldn't want a kitchen table that was 20 foot long (except in a very large castle perhaps). In overland maps, however, where the symbols are already an unrealistic size compared to the scale of the map, alterations in a few symbols here and there across the map might be used to emphasis important points, or to generate some kind of perspective effect. for example if the whole point of the map is to show the cities on a world map you might make the city symbols outrageously too large compared to the scale of the map (a city would only be a very small dot on such a map) just to make sure that the information was easily visible on the map. However, once you start playing around with the symbol size in a map it is very easy to lose control of the way it looks, so I would recommend sticking with the default symbol scale of 1 until you become more familiar with the whole concept of map symbols.
There is quite a difference of opinion on that particular setting however. The reason it is as it is is because it is intended to make a map that is readable when zoomed out. The thought is that if you make a map of a larger area, it will by it's very nature be less detailed than a map of a smaller area (just like real world atlas maps). The thinking here is also that the symbols represents a feature being there more than accurately depict it in detail.
Some people don't like this however, and prefer that the scale should be closer to 1 no matter the map scale, because they feel the symbols gets too big, a single mountain symbol may cover an entire mountain range for example, and they prefer to go in and provide more detail which is afforded by smaller scale symbol. This usually makes the map look better when zoomed in, but often have a cost in that the map looks more messy when you zoom out to view the entire map. This thinking does allow for many features to be more accurately depicted though.
Going on the scale of the textures (which don't appear to have been adjusted relative to one another) in relation to the size of the map and the thickness of the blue border line, the map appears to be the default size of 1000 x 800 map units. Symbol size, however, varies depending on what type of symbol is being used.
The mountains were nearly all the two small mountain collections and invariably scaled at about 0.5. So were the trees - scaled at 0.5.
The hills, however are much smaller. They are between 0.1 and 0.2 default size
The settlements vary hugely between 0.35 and 0.7 - the largest being the tinier symbols like the towers, and the smallest being the larger settlements like the cities. altering the settlement size between settlements isn't generally a great idea, but Loudwolf seems to make it work by having those different scale settlement symbols quite a long way apart from each other.
So to make a map like The Western Lands I would start with the default Mike Schley template (1000 x 800 map units) and set the default symbol size to 0.5 instead of 1 and get the mountains down first, then consider the hills, remembering that if you want it to look like that particular map you will have to reduce the symbol size down to about 0.2 for the hills (though I would do that by right clicking the cursor and setting it by hand rather than changing the default size, which will still need to be 0.5 when you do all those trees). Then see what you've got and kind of feel your way through the rest of the map once you have the basics in line.
The trees were all pasted individually. As far as I can tell he didn't use any of the copse options.
I hope that helps a bit
As for rendering, it doesn't really matter how big or small you want to render it. A few trial renders will show up any problems with label size (worth getting right before you do too many labels because you have to edit them individually). Don't forget that you can increase or decrease the size of the render using the Options button in the Save as dialogue. Set the height and width proportional to the map however large you do it in the end. For example, 2000 x 1600, 3000 x 2400, 4000 x 3200, etc. Check all the little boxes at the bottom of that Save as Options dialog (with the exception of the Launch image viewer) makes things a lot easier.
If you have any problems with it just say
The best approach when handling scale is always to start the map in the scale you need. Default symbol scale can easily be changed. If you think the symbol scale on a 1000x800 map looks good for your use, but your world is 2400x1700, then start the map in 2400x1700 and simply set the symbol scale to 2.4. That will give the exact same visual look as symbol scale 1 on 1000x800, but measurments will be correct, which is a big thing.
You can also read the article I wrote on the subject.
I'm afraid decent graphics are large, and that's all there is to it. So you might want to export at two resolutions - one for printing for yourself or screen display at home, and one for use in your games.
if it did what do yall think?
This is going to be quite a masterpiece when its done
Nice work
Nice work
Seeing it in another style will be really interesting.