Introduction Post and a few maps

[jfrazierjr]

The problem is that realistic satellite images at that scale don't have discernible mountains. In google earth or maps at that scale mountains look kile stretched out snowflakes, and not like mountains.

This begs the point of the map - is it there for information or to be realistic...

-Rob A>

I agree. For all the playing I have been doing with this style, I have tended to split the difference with being equal parts realistic, artistic, and informative. The more you slant one way or the other, in most cases the other points "suffer", which is why I have spent SOOO much time (perhaps to much???) trying to come up with a mountain technique I like, even if it's not 100% realistic. The way I see it is that a map is meant to be informational first. Then the realistic and artistic components come into play in equal measure depending on the style of map you are going for.

Joe

[Karro]

I agree. For all the playing I have been doing with this style, I have tended to split the difference with being equal parts realistic, artistic, and informative. The more you slant one way or the other, in most cases the other points "suffer", which is why I have spent SOOO much time (perhaps to much???) trying to come up with a mountain technique I like, even if it's not 100% realistic. The way I see it is that a map is meant to be informational first. Then the realistic and artistic components come into play in equal measure depending on the style of map you are going for.

Joe

Ditto.

I think it's possible to get noticeably larger peaks without their looking like, as you say, Finis, looking like they're reaching into low orbit... Admittedly, though, I haven't perfected it, yet.

[Ascension]

I'm with JFJ on the representational realism. I like the big mountains since they look like mountains.