I think this may be Remy's blog article you mentioned, Sue. It includes notes on the RGB Matrix Process, at least.

Given the blog article uses an overland example as its RGB Matrix Process test, I'm guessing it will work with that at least (can't be sure if the tree symbols have been affected or not in the blog sample images, however).

A quick test, slapping a greyscale RGB Matrix Process Effect onto one of my own overland maps (whole map setting) suggests it does indeed convert all the symbols to greyscale, while adding a few random choices of dungeon symbols to it, suitably enlarged, shows they too convert to greyscale without problems. Obviously, this is hardly definitive for all possible symbol sets, but it doesn't suggest there's a problem with what I've checked so far.

Which is pretty much where almost everyone else is too! The snag is ocean currents seem to behave much like air currents in the atmosphere - so as with the prevailing wind diagrams, the charts you see are huge simplifications of the real situation. However, they're much harder to get accurate information on at the same level of detail as is possible for air currents/winds because of being undersea. The deeper you go in the ocean, the less data there is, because it becomes increasingly difficult to get equipment there with any useful regularity.

When you consider new animal species are found on pretty well every deep-dive into the unlit parts of the oceans (everything below roughly 200 metres/660 feet, so that's pretty well all of the oceans!), it's very obvious how appallingly little we know about what goes on there at all. Like the Coelacanth, believed extinct for 66 million years, yet still happily getting on with things and thriving today in Earth's oceans!

@Loopysue - "Shadowlands" and "Borderlands" come with additional baggage from other fantasy-related sources, and which don't really relate to the style of symbols in this style, unfortunately. "Dark Ages" has very time-specific connotations, which don't fit these symbols at all.

"Edge of the Wilds" or "Twilight Realms" seem to work rather well though, assuming the images you've shown in your most recent illustrated posting cover the range of symbols and terrain-looks included in the style.

I'd agree with your later comment that a personal name wouldn't really work here, because your own style clearly isn't limited to just one or other of the PF style-packs you've constructed.

You could just copy the edge of the necessary floors to a new Sheet above the floors one, and make them into very thin (but not-zero thickness - that can make its presence felt at different view resolutions sometimes) lines at the edge of the floors. Make the lines a suitable colour - a mid brown might work in this case - to help disguise them, set an appropriate Outer Glow on their Sheet and see how that looks. You might need to try other Effects too, but it's worth experimenting. You don't need anything very solid to cast shadows, for instance, because all CC3+ looks at is edges.

You might also find it works better if you only have the lines in some places and not others for shadows, but once you have the concept, you can play around with it as much as you need. I find it's helpful for making stairs look differently shadowed sometimes - as if they're partly below a floor level. I used some of this technique in my ongoing Wyvern Citadel castle maps, for instance.

This is a fine-looking map!

The doors could maybe use some kind of shadow or glow effect, as the doorways all look open currently.

Maybe add some heavier shadows, or an Inner Glow to the floors in the Training Arena (7) and its connected areas, as they seem meant to be lower than the rest of the layout.

Perhaps label the stairs down in this section too, and move the "S" secret door symbols off their walls for better clarity?

Mind you, for a lost temple, those beds seem awfully neatly made...

Hi @Nevermet!

The intuitiveness of CC3+ is directly proportional to your familiarity with CAD software. Most folks coming to the program afresh are more used to image manipulation software, and that works in a very different way. But we all started from the same point of knowing nothing. Now we know how much we didn't know then and how much we still don't know... ?

I'd recommend working through the CC3+ manual and the tutorials (especially the video tutorials - see the links in the Forum sidebar, any page, for these) before going too deeply into the Tome. The Tome's intended more for people who are already moderately familiar with the program, but want to get more involved with it, and improve their mapping strategies and abilities still further.

Isn't this the wrong way "up" to match with Level 1? I'm assuming the stairs down are those that link with the secret passage off the northeast side of the Training Arena in saying this, mind you.

I agree it would be helpful to know what the original purpose was for the "trident" room, and also why it links with one of the caves, as this would likely give you a better feeling for what you want to do with the map overall.

Just a quick follow-up here to highlight the brand new Cartographer's Annual issue, freshly issued (CA172), Ship Deckplans, which does indeed update the original Sailing Ships pack, much as hoped! Especially happy to see the sample FCW file for the Drakkar, personally. Thanks very much @Ralf !

Always liked this style; it was what persuaded me to buy my first-ever Cartographer's Annual! Plus of course it was updated more recently as well.

The "seeing them always float" problem is quite common, unfortunately. I often find this looking at crater images from other planets, where they seem to be domes above the surface, not holes sunken into it. Sometimes if I concentrate enough, the "up" and "down" will simply flip to look correct again.

When I'm struggling to get a Sheet Effect, or combination of Effects, to look right, I turn them all off and identify why that makes things look worse, and then try adding the Effects again one at a time, adjusting each one to see exactly what it's doing. This may mean adding different Effects, and deleting the ones that don't help.

Something that might be worth considering is to stop trying to get the shadow Effects to work at all, and simply try drawing some grey polygons for where the shadows should be, on a separate Sheet of their own, above the cliff lines (so they'll shadow the cliffs correctly), but below the cliff top polygons (so you'll get a sharp cutoff at the top of the cliff edge). This has the disadvantage that if you want to change the lighting angle, you'll have to redraw the lot again, however, and you'll need to keep track of exactly what the lighting angle will be, with some construction lines across the map.

I suggest this because what I'm seeing on your most recent drawing is that the shadows aren't coming from the cliff edges in the right places. Many seem to be coming from a point much higher up the cliffs, so are looking too much like a drop shadow, even when they aren't. I think this is because you're relying on the clifftop polygons to produce the shadow, but because the lower cliffs aren't in the same place as that (further away from its line), they're looking wrong and "floaty".