Well.... still no good news on the dunes front, but I think I have the relative scaling sorted out now. At least the Pasture and the Salt marsh cons (consolidated salt marsh) no longer stand out like sore thumbs
That's Tangerine. It will be included with the annual. I love it, and have been using it in maps for a couple of years now. It does need to be fairly large to be readable, but I think its loveliness outweighs any concerns over having to have slightly larger labels.
It also matches quite closely some of the more florid labels on the original map.
Thanks for letting me know the font name. A long time, in a galaxy not so far far away, when my hands were actually steady, I used to dabble in calligraphy, so fonts have their appeal to me.
Here's another one. My first attempt at one of the tree fills.
The heath and heath scrub textures appear in many places on the Ferraris map. Sometimes the trees are featureless blobs, while others they have more character and may be tall and thin or short and squat. The grassy marks and colours of the heath are also very variable. I chose the most interesting parts I could find and combined them into one.
The textures I've made share the same basic grass ink marks. This will help when using them in combination, since they should line up quite nicely.
I will be making separate tree group symbols from those in the fill, because there are places on the Ferraris map where similar groups of trees appear in the middle of arable fields.
I know it doesn't fit with the Ferraris concept, but I'm tempted to suggest a varicolor option for the lines of bushes from the Heath Scrub fill, because they'd be very useful for lines of standing stones with an alternative colouring. If the map had been for Brittany, there'd probably have been a host of standing stone features on it already, of course...
LOL! Yes, they do look a bit like stones don't they.
We'll see how much time is left when I've done what's officially there. I have to say that I've been thinking of all the things that are missing for more general mapping myself. Things like a full set of forest types, and of course railways and such things that weren't around 250 years ago.
I've done another couple of fills today. The coniferous forest and the peat bog. They aren't related to each other, but they contain a lot of the elements I've already drawn for other fills, so it just seemed logical to do them next.
Loopysue commented:LOL! Yes, they do look a bit like stones don't they.
We'll see how much time is left when I've done what's officially there. I have to say that I've been thinking of all the things that are missing for more general mapping myself. Things like a full set of forest types, and of course railways and such things that weren't around 250 years ago.
Might be worth seeing if PF would consider an additional Annual issue for such extra items, perhaps? Given how many people use CC3+ for fantasy mapping, it would be good to have access to suitable extras like standing stones, stone circles, magical sites, burial mounds, etc., maybe also things like resource types (minerals and wild game animals, say), in a matching style.
Posted By: WyvernMight be worth seeing if PF would consider an additional Annual issue for such extra items, perhaps? Given how many people use CC3+ for fantasy mapping, it would be good to have access to suitable extras like standing stones, stone circles, magical sites, burial mounds, etc., maybe also things like resource types (minerals and wild game animals, say), in a matching style.
I think that is probably some way into the future right now, but it's always a possibility
This is going to be a seriously long post. Not because I'm going to say very much, but because it has the entire first column of the CC3 Ferraris key in it.
I've done 30 fills so far, with another 6 to go, (and then there's all the symbols, but I'll sort out the fills first) 4 of these are not yet done, as indicated in red. Some of them still need improvement, but that will happen gradually as I get fed up with the imperfections one by one and have to do something about them. Most imperfect of all are the new woodland textures. There's something wrong with the deciduous trees, but I can't quite put my finger on it. Maybe tomorrow it will leap out of the screen at me.
I like them. I think the problem with deciduous trees is that they are smooth and regular and they should be a little "curly" on the outside so they appear more irregular.
The gardens/parkland look more structured than the others. How do you they think they will be drawn by the user? The paths and surrounding trees and houses might appear in an odd way if one describes an irregular polygon for it....
This is going to be a very short comment. I'm having difficulty with the server vanishing when I hit Add your comments, and my comment completely vanishes!
The red labels aren't done yet. When they are there won't be any paths or other non-fill details in them.
Agree the trees are wrong, but I will look at them again in the morning.
Where forests exist I will provide blank backgrounds to lay out the extent, then use the forest fill for the interior and symbols identical to the fill trees to tidy the edges up where an Edge Fade Inner has erased half a tree.
I really love these. I play CGI’s Harn and while I find their regional map style quit functional for the detail in them. I, and many others, find the local maps usable but lacking in style. This is even more apparent in their interior styles.
Sue, the only things I can see about the deciduous trees compared to the original maps are very marginal shape differences - some have slightly more pointed tips or fractionally more rounded bases (so giving less of the impression of a "trunk-stalk," if you follow me). These are VERY minor points though.
What did strike me is the deciduous trees and floor cover are slightly more blue in shade than on the Ferraris maps (or at least those random ones I did a quick comparison check with just now). The originals seem to trend more on the mid-yellow green shades, but it isn't always so clear-cut, even on different areas of the same maps.
I'm just going through a major redesign of the whole tree thing, Wyvern. Great minds think alike. I'm looking at the isolated trees on the map and thinking... they look much better than the ones hurriedly scrawled to fill a vast forest. And then I'm thinking... how close does this have to be to the original? Surely there is room to make the forest fills a little less like lollipops, as long as I don't make it too obvious!
I'm also looking at the colours of the several samples of forest I have taken over the last few weeks, and I can see what you mean about the precise shade of green. It might surprise you, though, that there are deciduous forests show much more blue than mine. I can ratchet it back towards a warmer green, though
Yeah, given I was typing a comment based on quickly checking half-a-dozen obvious woodlands on maybe three out of the 275 maps, I was sure you'd have a far better idea than me about the overall forest colours! The various tree shapes are a bit easier to examine so rapidly.
I've also been concerned that some of the colours have obviously changed/faded (sometimes in patches only) over time, from my previous Ferraris map examinations, which just adds an extra degree of complexity.
I don't think many people realise just how complex it is trying to find an average for every single fill symbol and colour since forests may be lime green or deep Veridian, but be clearly the same thing by the nature of the symbols. I am probably a long way out on some of them, but as long as it looks kind of similar it should look something like the Ferraris map.
Dynamic! Now I understand your post back to my comment. I didn't see the Red letters next to Park and Garden, partly because I'm color blind and partly because I was oriented on the drawings. I really like your modernization of the fill. It looks much more vibrant.
Thank you, Mike! That's very kind of you. However, I will try to get it to look more authentic before I'm done with it. The background is definitely too yellow, which was caused by having to change the colour to prevent transparency acne when the fill was placed on top of the standard background paper. That's when the top fill develops holes because the rendering engine gets a bit confused when you lay the same thing on top of itself. It's gone too yellow, though, so I will have to sort that out. Then there are the colour splodges - too big, and no greens in them yet. When I get those two right I'm hoping it will look reasonably good.
I've been lurking on this thread, just watching the progression. I have to say, it's super cool to watch you apply your talent to this project! Not only is the art great, but to be able to see the process is really fun. So I just wanted to say thanks not only for putting this style together but also for putting up this thread so we can watch it come to life.
Comments
[Image_13399]
[Image_13400]
Thank you!
That's Tangerine. It will be included with the annual. I love it, and have been using it in maps for a couple of years now. It does need to be fairly large to be readable, but I think its loveliness outweighs any concerns over having to have slightly larger labels.
It also matches quite closely some of the more florid labels on the original map.
I don't know anything about fonts at all. I just know I really liked this one
The heath and heath scrub textures appear in many places on the Ferraris map. Sometimes the trees are featureless blobs, while others they have more character and may be tall and thin or short and squat. The grassy marks and colours of the heath are also very variable. I chose the most interesting parts I could find and combined them into one.
The textures I've made share the same basic grass ink marks. This will help when using them in combination, since they should line up quite nicely.
I will be making separate tree group symbols from those in the fill, because there are places on the Ferraris map where similar groups of trees appear in the middle of arable fields.
[Image_13407]
We'll see how much time is left when I've done what's officially there. I have to say that I've been thinking of all the things that are missing for more general mapping myself. Things like a full set of forest types, and of course railways and such things that weren't around 250 years ago.
I've done another couple of fills today. The coniferous forest and the peat bog. They aren't related to each other, but they contain a lot of the elements I've already drawn for other fills, so it just seemed logical to do them next.
[Image_13408]
I've done 30 fills so far, with another 6 to go, (and then there's all the symbols, but I'll sort out the fills first) 4 of these are not yet done, as indicated in red. Some of them still need improvement, but that will happen gradually as I get fed up with the imperfections one by one and have to do something about them. Most imperfect of all are the new woodland textures. There's something wrong with the deciduous trees, but I can't quite put my finger on it. Maybe tomorrow it will leap out of the screen at me.
[Image_13410]
The gardens/parkland look more structured than the others. How do you they think they will be drawn by the user? The paths and surrounding trees and houses might appear in an odd way if one describes an irregular polygon for it....
I hope these comments make sense.
The red labels aren't done yet. When they are there won't be any paths or other non-fill details in them.
Agree the trees are wrong, but I will look at them again in the morning.
Where forests exist I will provide blank backgrounds to lay out the extent, then use the forest fill for the interior and symbols identical to the fill trees to tidy the edges up where an Edge Fade Inner has erased half a tree.
I like these fills.
I hope it doesn't disappoint when its done.
What did strike me is the deciduous trees and floor cover are slightly more blue in shade than on the Ferraris maps (or at least those random ones I did a quick comparison check with just now). The originals seem to trend more on the mid-yellow green shades, but it isn't always so clear-cut, even on different areas of the same maps.
It's looking good to me too though at this stage!
I'm also looking at the colours of the several samples of forest I have taken over the last few weeks, and I can see what you mean about the precise shade of green. It might surprise you, though, that there are deciduous forests show much more blue than mine. I can ratchet it back towards a warmer green, though
I've also been concerned that some of the colours have obviously changed/faded (sometimes in patches only) over time, from my previous Ferraris map examinations, which just adds an extra degree of complexity.
[Image_13422]
Mike