I just don't know when to stop sometimes ?. Lifetime of designing RPG scenarios, I suspect, coupled with a desire to explore many avenues. All the time...

Been a very long time since I did any spacecraft designs. General principles still apply though, remembering this is a self-contained, self-reliant unit, so essentially you need everything you'd have on a normal ship with a sizeable crew - they need to eat, sleep, stay clean (clothes and person; toilets as well), exercise, medical facilities, a means of controlling each system on the vessel, a means of communicating with other vessels and shore/planetary/orbital bases, a means of carrying out the vessel's primary and subsidiary functions, emergency escape facilities, emergency handling facilities (e.g. fire, flood, general damage control), a means of observing whatever is around them outside the vessel, and as you obviously already have, propulsive engines and fuel sources. This list is not exhaustive! And almost all this has to fit within the outer hull somehow.

Spherical and rounded hull shapes are a nightmare to design for. About 40 years ago, I drew out by hand a spherical free-moving spacecraft intended as a planetary defence vessel, one of a fleet, and that was horrendous, as (well, if you're me anyway) I had to keep checking how the outer circumference affected the internal space for different parts of every vertical level, and having to keep changing things because they'd no longer fit at the size intended, and so forth.

Unless there are strong reasons not to do so that make sense in-game, there's no physical necessity from our reality to have streamlined forms for spacecraft at all. Doesn't look so "Hollywood movie pretty", I grant you, but...

Looking a lot better now!

Yes, I think the walls would work very nicely for ruins too.

If the stepped outer surface was full regulated, it would also work for buildings such as ancient Mesopotamian temples, which had deliberately constructed outside walls that had this kind of "vertical recesses" patterning all round them. I've had to draw these before, both by hand and on computer, and it can be pretty tedious for a larger building plan!

I'm not sure such a sheet would have much utility for all mappers. I've never had any need for such, but then I plan or sketch all my maps out on paper roughly before-hand, and simply use a bitmap scan of the hand-drawn version as the template in CC3+. If I need construction lines while mapping, as does happen sometimes, it's very easy to simply draw and then delete them once I'm finished with them. If I think I might need them again later, I save a separate copy of the FCW map file for that purpose before deleting them.

If you do find these are important, it's easy enough to create a Sheet on its own Layer (you can only freeze Layers, not Sheets, in CC3+) for use in the way you've described. If you're likely to be doing a lot of similar maps the same way, you can always save that as a personal set-up for the future having done it once. That way you can set the name and placement in the Sheets list as best-suits yourself.

You'd have to hide the Sheet before exporting, but you'd likely be doing that anyway to check the map without the construction lines getting in the way prior to that stage.

I doubt it would ever be possible to set up any single Sheet in CC that would somehow automatically "know" what colour you might expect different kinds of drawing entity to have. There are just so many variables involved - all of which you can adjust to whatever you require in CC3+ now, as Jim noted. If you might regularly require specific items of particular line thicknesses, styles and colours, it would be very easy to keep a sample of each on your "Construction Sheet" (or another Sheet set aside for such samples) that you could readily access using the "Draw like..." or "Extract properties" commands.

For the crystal city concept, it may depend exactly how you envisage it. For a large-area map such as the Dungeon Worlds Annual will let you create, you could perhaps repurpose some of the standard CC3+ overland map symbols, like glaciers or icebergs (though you may have to get creative about hiding what are intended as water lines for the latter!), and making use of the varicolor options to recolour other features - and also with CD3 house symbols, for instance, if you wanted to map the city itself, or parts of it, in more detail.

It's definitely worthwhile to take some time to look through all the symbol catalogues you have available, and make a note of any symbols that might work in such map creation, even if that's a long way from what the symbol was originally meant to be! As you can resize any symbol in CC3+, imagine too how it might look if a given symbol were larger or smaller, or a different colour (which you can set and see while you're browsing through each symbol catalogue that includes varicolor symbols).

Just as well Wyverns can fly 😎🐲

So, stand-by to repel borders, then? 😉

As for alignment issues and other minor mistakes, this is all very familiar territory! The worst ones are those you find only after you've submitted something, of course, usually after the map's been published somewhere...

This is the Annual issue 92 Quenten referred in his Oct 22 note above (only obvious if you can convert the month and year into a number correctly for the Annuals, however, so no blame attaches!).

The issue covers importing and converting real-world vector data from the free-access Natural Earth website (there's a link from the Aug 2014 Annual page) into CC3, and comes with a group of so-converted FCW sample maps of the world. It especially concentrates on converting the continent of South America into a standard CC3-look overland map as its worked example, albeit with just the coastline and rivers illustrated (you get three FCW maps showing the process). There are also files with the 1:10 million vector data that were used to create the various CC3 maps with the issue.

Can't really say much more, as although I've had it for some time, I've never used this particular issue of the Annual, and it could be a while before Ralf gets round to demonstrating it in his weekly YouTube live-streams, unfortunately, as last week's covered issue 15!

It does seem as if it should be possible to prepare the sort of map @serious77 was wanting using it though.

As you might tell from my frequent use of random options in my Community Atlas maps, I've been a long-time fan of such random design systems, for all they can need a bit of nudging sometimes to get things to work out OK. I've not used the 5E system as yet, though almost exactly 20 years ago (July-August 2001), I created a classic 12-level dungeon using the random system in the original (1979) AD&D DMs Guide, each level filling an A4 page of graph paper. All done by-hand then, however. I did make a start converting it to CC3 not long after I got the program, around 2014 or 2015, I think, but that was very slow going, as I hadn't the option then to scan the hand-drawn maps to trace in CC3.

Have to say that your map looks a lot more elegant and less cluttered than any of my old ones from that dungeon set, so the 5E system may be something I should experiment with in future, perhaps...

Can't really do more than reiterate what Sue's said already re you and your mother's ongoing situation, and to hope things settle for you very soon.

With CC3+, I think we all feel for you too. Even a short spell away, and I find I've forgotten something critical... If time and circumstances allow, it might be worth checking-in on one or two of the live PF mapping sessions on YouTube - or checking them later as VOD - as Ralf usually goes through all the basics of setting up a new map, as well as whatever the session's about, for instance, which might help get you back in the swing of things a bit quicker.