Naryour

[Poseptune]

Quick map I put together, simply to ask a question. I like how it is coming along, so I'll continue to work on it.

How do you guys determine scale? For example the larger river in the bottom left is about 5 pixels wide and 453 pixels long. If I make the widest point of the landmass approximately equal to the US (Boston to Oregon) that makes the scale approximately 1 pixel = 2.6 miles.

Making the river approximately 1178 miles long and 13 miles wide. Is this a good scale? How do you determine the scale for your maps?

[Jykke]

Well here's something I googled about Nile, as it "varies between 350 meters and 7.5 kilometers with an average of 2.8 kilometers". That + my eye ( ) hints that your river might be just a few pixels too wide if you aim for realistic end result. If you look at any of my maps, you will notice that the proportions are way off.. but, the key in my opinnion is that proportions aren't that important (if they are tolarable) as long as it looks good and supports the style you are using. You just have to know where that line goes.

[Steel General]

As far as scale goes, unless I'm doing an interior map, it's probably one of the last things I concern myself with. I rarely make anything that needs to be 'all that accurate' so an approximation is good enough for me usually.

As it relates to your map I think I would have to agree with Jykke that your river's are probably to wide for the scale you stated.

[Poseptune]

I'm not looking for it to be super realistic, but something closer enough to be passable.

As it relates to your map I think I would have to agree with Jykke that your river's are probably to wide for the scale you stated.

I used wilbur to make the rivers, and it is their width that got me thinking about scale.

[RobA]

well, they have to be at least a pixel in wilbur or it can't register as a terrain feature.

so.... to be "realistic" take the smallest feature you want to depict and call it 1 pixel, then work up from there.

But really, maps are maps, not photos. They are meant to represent. Many, many rivers can't be seen from altitude equal to the map shown. The river valley/erosion usually can be, but often not the water itself.

-Rob A>

[waldronate]

The reason that the river is so wide from Wilbur is that you did the Blur + Amount thing. If you don't apply a blur and leave Amount at 1 then the rivers will be exactly one pixel wide. In the original tutorial the idea was to use Blur>0,Amount>1,Effect<1 to get a river valley, then add a bit of noise and do rivers again with Blur=0 and Amount=1 to get the result of a river channel wandering down a wider valley.

[Poseptune]

The reason that the river is so wide from Wilbur is that you did the Blur + Amount thing. If you don't apply a blur and leave Amount at 1 then the rivers will be exactly one pixel wide. In the original tutorial the idea was to use Blur>0,Amount>1,Effect<1 to get a river valley, then add a bit of noise and do rivers again with Blur=0 and Amount=1 to get the result of a river channel wandering down a wider valley.

I'll try that, thanks. I'm still getting use to wiblur. I've read your three "Fun with wilbur" threads, but I haven't read the full documentation.

[waldronate]

I'll try that, thanks. I'm still getting use to wiblur. I've read your three "Fun with wilbur" threads, but I haven't read the full documentation.

The documentation is rather out of date so I'm sure it would help much. One of these years when I get a lot of free time again I might do something about it.

[altasilvapuer]

I have to agree that the rivers look a smidge too large, but overall I love the map so far. The colours are soft enough to be easy on the eyes, but not so bright that I have to look away after a few seconds of exploring it. You have a fine touch for subtlety, Poseptune.

-asp