Elyden map

[vorropohaiah]

Fantastic map! A few names askew and difficult to read

you mean the curved text? I'm thinking of what i can do to fix those (apart from the change in font i already applied to the new version of the map), any tips? Also i wish i could make thicker underlines on some places without having to manually stroke them (that sounds bad...)

I did notice a few names of places taken from Egyptian mythology. Not sure if this was intentional, or perhaps the civilization in question simply came up with the name without prior knowledge of said god(s) because it sounded right.

theres some mesapotamian names (eg. baalbec), greek (eg. parthia) and other obscure places (well, obscure to me at least). some i might change

Personally, I like the heavy paper approach. It reminds me of some of the archived paper work in the Tower of London.

thanks, though i think as this is meant ot be more of a contemporary altas-type map, i'll probably reduce the texture on the paper. I'll certainly use this paper-textur e for other documents and maps i create.

As far as climate goes... that is your call. It is your world after all. We can argue physics, river flow, and weather all we want, but it comes down to what you want. Perhaps there are physics at play that we don't know about. Maybe the star your planet orbits around has a slightly slow rotation, or the star gives off a pulse of solar radiation that causes the weather to be wacky and the climates to be different than our own. That's the beauty of creating your own FANTASY world. The operative word here is fantasy, imagination unrestricted by reality.

this is one of my biggest problems when it comes to the worldbuilding. im obsessed withd etails and trying to make things as realistic as i can, but the world itself is inherently non-realtistic - with the dreams of grotesque maddened gods warping the land; seas slowly drying up and cankers and deformities affecting everything from flora to fauna and the unliving world alike. AARRGH! lol though its decisions like those that i love about worldbuilding

[Hai-Etlik]

The scales, graticules, rhumb lines, and compasses all conflict with each other or otherwise just don't make sense. The one thing that does work is that the large and small scale maps do seem to have corresponding scales. The middle map though doesn't match up. You also have a compass rose and a set of rhumb lines on the small scale map, and then several other rosettes of rhumb lines in other parts of the map, that don't line up with the first set. The large and small scale maps also have rhumb lines and a compass rose in the case of the small scale map, which all means they are bearing preserving, the middle map seems to be using a graticule from an equatorial aspect of an azimuthal projection or a derived projection like Aitoff or Hammer, which are decidedly not bearing preserving. Notice that the meridians aren't parallel lines, that means that north and south are varying. (A note, even if they are parallel lines, that just means north-south is preserved, some projections preserve that while still distorting directions like "northeast").

Even ignoring the mismatch between the maps, the graticule doesn't make sense. As I said, I'm not entirely sure what projection it is, but it's not a projection that would be used for that map. It's hard to say where exactly the map is on the globe or what its true extent or orientation are given the inconsistencies, but it would probably make most sense to use a conic projection, or, if you were going to use an azimuthal projection, one which is actually centred on the map.

Also, if the small scale map really is bearing preserving over such a large extent, then it has to be in Normal Mercator projection, which significantly distorts scale, and so shouldn't have a scale bar.

You seem to be doing curved text using Envelope Deformation. This gives the text a sort of squashed or smeared look. "Text on Path" is a better way to do this. It will shift and rotate each glyph to fit on the curve without distorting it.

old_map_2011.png

Otherwise very pretty, and I like that the different maps show a degree of error between them rather than computer precise replication.

[vorropohaiah]

The scales, graticules, rhumb lines, and compasses all conflict with each other or otherwise just don't make sense. The one thing that does work is that the large and small scale maps do seem to have corresponding scales. The middle map though doesn't match up. You also have a compass rose and a set of rhumb lines on the small scale map, and then several other rosettes of rhumb lines in other parts of the map, that don't line up with the first set. The large and small scale maps also have rhumb lines and a compass rose in the case of the small scale map, which all means they are bearing preserving, the middle map seems to be using a graticule from an equatorial aspect of an azimuthal projection or a derived projection like Aitoff or Hammer, which are decidedly not bearing preserving. Notice that the meridians aren't parallel lines, that means that north and south are varying. (A note, even if they are parallel lines, that just means north-south is preserved, some projections preserve that while still distorting directions like "northeast").

Even ignoring the mismatch between the maps, the graticule doesn't make sense. As I said, I'm not entirely sure what projection it is, but it's not a projection that would be used for that map. It's hard to say where exactly the map is on the globe or what its true extent or orientation are given the inconsistencies, but it would probably make most sense to use a conic projection, or, if you were going to use an azimuthal projection, one which is actually centred on the map.

Also, if the small scale map really is bearing preserving over such a large extent, then it has to be in Normal Mercator projection, which significantly distorts scale, and so shouldn't have a scale bar.

you caught me! i didnt mention that i changed some things from one map to the next, so it wasnt just a case of updating it, but i actually changed the orientation of the map, so the large and middle maps do not line up at all (N does not line up between one and the other), and the incorrect scale in the middle map is also something i had fixed after posting this version. the rhumb lines, i realised a long time after making the original large map, were incorrect for something of that scale, though my knowledge of them remains quite limited, though i never realsied that rhumb lines from different maps had to be consistent

regarding the graticules... the degrees of lat/long should be visible on the edges of the border. The closest thing i can think of is an Pseudoazimuthal (Hammer?) projection, though i didnt really want to base it off of a real-world projection. there's always going to be some amount of distortion on a map, though to be honest i didnt realise this was so off. Im hardly an expert on the subject (as im sure youve noticed ), though any other pointers you can give would be greatly appreceated. also can i just go on record saying that i hate projections! especially when trying to create a skin for a 3D globe, the distortions around the poles are a nightmare to iron out when switching between a distorted projection like mercatorto a skin for a 3D map and while i really wanted to create a globe for this world im close to giving up!

You seem to be doing curved text using Envelope Deformation. This gives the text a sort of squashed or smeared look. "Text on Path" is a better way to do this. It will shift and rotate each glyph to fit on the curve without distorting it.

i actually am writing the text on a path, though after the many comments saying the paths are too curved I've decided to tone them down.


thanks for the crit, any other feedback would be much appreceated

[Hai-Etlik]

you caught me! i didnt mention that i changed some things from one map to the next, so it wasnt just a case of updating it, but i actually changed the orientation of the map, so the large and middle maps do not line up at all (N does not line up between one and the other), and the incorrect scale in the middle map is also something i had fixed after posting this version. the rhumb lines, i realised a long time after making the original large map, were incorrect for something of that scale, though my knowledge of them remains quite limited, though i never realsied that rhumb lines from different maps had to be consistent

Well, if you have one map that really is bearing preserving, and another that is also bearing preserving, and they have extents that overlap, then the bearings should be the same between them, unless something screwy has happened like the axis of the planet shifting dramatically. But if you're throwing out the old map then it's not a problem.

regarding the graticules... the degrees of lat/long should be visible on the edges of the border. The closest thing i can think of is an Pseudoazimuthal (Hammer?) projection, though i didnt really want to base it off of a real-world projection. there's always going to be some amount of distortion on a map, though to be honest i didnt realise this was so off. Im hardly an expert on the subject (as im sure youve noticed ), though any other pointers you can give would be greatly appreceated. also can i just go on record saying that i hate projections! especially when trying to create a skin for a 3D globe, the distortions around the poles are a nightmare to iron out when switching between a distorted projection like mercatorto a skin for a 3D map and while i really wanted to create a globe for this world im close to giving up!

Yes, there's always going to be distortion, and it's good that you know that as it's one of the things a lot of fantasy map makers with a background in graphics rather than geography have trouble understanding. That doesn't mean that they are all equally good for all situations. If you have a restricted extent, you want a projection that minimizes distortion within that particular extent. In this case, I'd probably go with a Conic. Equidistant Conic is simple and was known as far back as Ancient Greece, and I happen to have an Equidistant Conic Graticule Generator.

image3158.png

Here's an SVG version so you can mess around with it. The two green parallels are the standard parallels where distortion is minimized. grat.svg

i actually am writing the text on a path, though after the many comments saying the paths are too curved I've decided to tone them down.

Well, the typeface isn't particularly readable, and it looks really squashed or stretched out. Though it's more an issue on the big map than on the new one. It's not the degree of curvature that's the problem. I've run text along a path through a sharp right angle and it's worked out fine.

columbia_river.png

I've also noticed that your planet seems a bit big. Based on the scale and spacing of parallels on the new map, I get a radius of 12,356 km compared to Earth's radius of only 6,371 km. If it has a similar density to Earth, it should have close to twice Earth's surface gravity, 19.02 m/s². Assuming I didn't make any mistakes in my math.

[vorropohaiah]

Yes, there's always going to be distortion, and it's good that you know that as it's one of the things a lot of fantasy map makers with a background in graphics rather than geography have trouble understanding. That doesn't mean that they are all equally good for all situations. If you have a restricted extent, you want a projection that minimizes distortion within that particular extent. In this case, I'd probably go with a Conic. Equidistant Conic is simple and was known as far back as Ancient Greece, and I happen to have an Equidistant Conic Graticule Generator.

thanks for that. If you don't mind my asking, what would make a conic projection better than others with this map? is it scale or the area that the map occupies on the globe (closer to poles as opposed to equator?)? also, the repost of my map with the red graticules seems too curved to my eyes, especially round the bottom, where they move south of the equator near the corners. also, the curve of the latitudes towards the north mean that I'll have to reshape the map as climate bands have changed considerably from what i had envisaged - the skin i have created for the globe is equirectangular and this portion of the map is currently fixed on it. is there an easy way of finding the projection best-suited to this region, or for calculating a conical projection based on the equirectangular projection i have created for the world map? also, Im just assuming that equirectangular is the best projection for a map designed as a skin for a 3d globe - using the 3d sphere command in photoshop. is this correct?

I've also noticed that your planet seems a bit big. Based on the scale and spacing of parallels on the new map, I get a radius of 12,356 km compared to Earth's radius of only 6,371 km. If it has a similar density to Earth, it should have close to twice Earth's surface gravity, 19.02 m/s². Assuming I didn't make any mistakes in my math.

I'm still in the process of reviewing scale (things like mass and density aside, inconsistencies of which i will unapologetically waive due to the reality of the worlds' mythology). in a nutshell i want a large distance between cities and settlements (a means of fomenting corruption and a 'frontier' character) of course the world was not always like this, ending up like this after a diminishing of civilisation and culture, with many ruins peppering the hinterlands between settled areas. anyway, i digress. basically i wanted this region of the map to range from subtropical in the south, to arctic circle in the north, which covers around 10 deg - 65 deg lat, which plays a large role in determining the scale. any thoughts?

thanks again for the interest and any feedback

[Gidde]

or for calculating a conical projection based on the equirectangular projection i have created for the world map?

G.Projector (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/gproj...nload_win.html) is a piece of free software that I've found to be really helpful for this purpose. It will project a map from equirectangular to several other projections (including equidistant conic iirc), and has some nice customizations of the projection output.

[vorropohaiah]

G.Projector (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/gproj...nload_win.html) is a piece of free software that I've found to be really helpful for this purpose. It will project a map from equirectangular to several other projections (including equidistant conic iirc), and has some nice customizations of the projection output.

that deserves some rep thanks, ill have to try that once i get home from work. what formats can it save as?

[Gidde]

It'll save as a flat image file (I always save as .png, so I'm not sure what other formats it offers).

[vorropohaiah]

anything that works on PS is fine.

EDIT: just got this from the website:

G.Projector is a cross-platform application which can transform an equirectangular map image into one of over 90 global and regional map projections. Longitude-latitude gridlines and continental outlines may be drawn on the map, and the resulting image may be saved to disk in GIF, JPEG, PDF, PNG, PS or TIFF form.

thanks again

[Hai-Etlik]

thanks for that. If you don't mind my asking, what would make a conic projection better than others with this map? is it scale or the area that the map occupies on the globe (closer to poles as opposed to equator?)? also, the repost of my map with the red graticules seems too curved to my eyes, especially round the bottom, where they move south of the equator near the corners. also, the curve of the latitudes towards the north mean that I'll have to reshape the map as climate bands have changed considerably from what i had envisaged - the skin i have created for the globe is equirectangular and this portion of the map is currently fixed on it. is there an easy way of finding the projection best-suited to this region, or for calculating a conical projection based on the equirectangular projection i have created for the world map? also, Im just assuming that equirectangular is the best projection for a map designed as a skin for a 3d globe - using the 3d sphere command in photoshop. is this correct?

Conic projections eliminate distortion along one or two parallels (Called "Standard Parallels"). The distortion is usually fairly low between those parallels (But is worse the further apart they are), and rises steeply outside them. This makes conics good for mid latitude maps over a fairly large extent, particularly if it spans a lot of longitude.

The rule of thumb is to make the standard parallels of a conic projection 1/7 of the way in from the top and bottom of the area you are interested in.

Parallels are curved, and that curvature increases as you approach the poles. Any projection that straightens them necessarily introduces a lot of distortion in the process. Think about looking at the graticule on a globe, the parallels near a pole are relatively small circles compared to the equator.

Equidistant Cylindrical (aka. Equirectangular) is what you want to run through 3D graphics software, but only as a final step. If you were to try to design a map that way, the symbols and text would be distorted, and you would have to draw the projection distortion into your features. I think you'd be better off making a set of overlapping maps in region specific projections (Pseudocylindrical or Transverse cylindrical projections would probably be the most efficient way to carve up the surface), and then projecting them all into Equidistant Cylindrical, and then merging them is probably your best bet for making a 3D globe. This is a fair bit of work and will probably require using proper GIS software.

Also, I realised I made a mistake in scaling the conic graticule to the map, and the resulting planetary radius.

image3158.png

I'm still in the process of reviewing scale (things like mass and density aside, inconsistencies of which i will unapologetically waive due to the reality of the worlds' mythology). in a nutshell i want a large distance between cities and settlements (a means of fomenting corruption and a 'frontier' character) of course the world was not always like this, ending up like this after a diminishing of civilisation and culture, with many ruins peppering the hinterlands between settled areas. anyway, i digress. basically i wanted this region of the map to range from subtropical in the south, to arctic circle in the north, which covers around 10 deg - 65 deg lat, which plays a large role in determining the scale. any thoughts?

How far apart things need to be would depend a lot on the transportation/communication technology and infrastructure available, and even on non-obvious things like social structures which hinder or promote travel and communication. That large inland sea with loads of spindly arms is actually a severe hindrance to breaking things up as it provides an excellent transport corridor.