I would go with the first or the second one. The last is too "flat" and the third a bit "in-between", imho. I think it also depends of the general style you want for your map (antique? middle-ages? 16th century?, etc.) and of the informations you need to put on those forests.
I echo what Ilanthar says... first or second. I prefer first on what you show. You are showing some shading on the mountains, so I think it would be worth to show a hint of shading on the trees as well.
I also vote for first or second version... and here I would decide based on how you are going to do your labeling.
If you were to do simple text, I would go for the first version. But this style lends itself to some kind of elaborate, parchment scroll type labels... in which case I would use the second style.
Second looks amazing with the mountains!
Otherwise, as others said, would go with 1.
What is it that you don't like?
I definitely like number 1 the best, but you might consider doing that sparser forest using the tree icons of number 2, either entirely or mixed with the pines.
Thanks for all the input. Not sure why but this tree issue was like a mental block and you folks helped me push through it. I decided to go with the 1st example doing what Chick suggested. Wish me luck!
Good luck!Originally Posted by Ome
I'm looking forward to seeing how it comes out
Finally got some work in on this one although it is very unfinished still. Looking for input of any kind. I do have a question as to the scale in miles. I would imagine such a landmass should be a bit larger then my scale would indicate? Also is there a way to change the thread topic away from Need Help / Suggestions to WIP Sorantyr.
Sorantyr.jpg
Last edited by Ome; 08-21-2015 at 03:27 AM.
I think your scale looks reasonable relative to the size of the mountains and other terrain features. I guess I tend to get the scale first based on the intended use (story, game, etc), and then size the mountains and etc to fit that.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
