Second attempt... need help with oceans, borders, etc.

[sheldonl]

Hello,

This is my second attempt at a map for a personal RPG campaign setting. At this point I'd like to do something nice with the ocean parts but I'm not quite sure what to do. Also, map borders, etc. Any suggestions for improvement are also welcome.

Khardan v4.png

[Chick]

Search around the web for some "water surface textures" and try blending some of them into the water area of your map.

[Ascension]

Only 1 thing that you can really do with the ocean and that's to add those greenish-teal shallow areas you see around islands and atolls and bays and such. I'd avoid a texture as it is needless business and will pollute an otherwise nice image.

[Chick]

I was thinking of something like this:

Khardan%20v4.jpg

[jbgibson]

Okay, I really like the overall look - it's beautiful. But this has geographic issues.

First - in general, you've created an intricately fractal coastline - uniformly so. How can irregularity be uniform? It's all a similar degree of fractal - think "amount of intricateness". Usually when I see an intricate coastline I figure the terrain is quite rough. But surely you also have some coastal plains, sandy sweeps of beaches, marshy expanses -- other than rough, SOMEwhere? As a minor quibble some places you align the nice mountain texture with peninsulas, but other places the coast is either independent of the mountain shapes, or is actively opposed to the apparent terrain.

Then some specific examples of trouble.

KhardanAskew1.jpg

A and B are both ocean, hence the exact same level. C though is what, a thousand miles upstream from a coast, hence is a lot higher altitude. Now you *could* have a narrow dividing bit of terrain there, but one would expect a sharp ridge or the like. Which you don't show.

KhardanAskew4.jpg

This has a similar issue - A and B are both sea level, yet C right adjacent is what - 2000 miles of river as the crow flies, maybe 3000 miles of flow? higher than sea level. Here not only is there no sharp dividing ridge, it looks like you could have had a whole range doing that but it got cut away by your chosen coast alignment.

Heights that don't compute, again:
KhardanAskew2.jpg

The two circled bits of lake shore have to be the same altitude, yet color & shaded-relief indicate one is nearly mountaintop vs. the other is lowland plains. Too, it looks like the lake outline got chopped into place, interrupting a range where the dotted line goes.

Speaking of lake interrupting something, :
KhardanAskew3.jpg

There's suspiciously aligned entry and exit rivers that look like they should connect via the dotted lines. The outflow wouldn't behave that way, by the way - you won't see two major outlets of a lake - one would be ever so slightly lower, and would soon 'capture 'all the flow by erosion, even if 'initially' there happened to be two lowest points. I would only buy the eastern extension of my lower dotted line if it were a coincidental arm of the lake, not a river channel - one can't get any flow from same-height to same-height.

Then for a double whammy, both interruption and confusing altitudes:
KhardanAskew5.jpg

The rivers seeming to 'cross' the lake with the same implausible multiple outflows makes your lake shape look dropped into place instead of organically grown due to topography. And if A/B is a river flowing downhill from say treeline heights to lowland plain, how can C/D be both a similar mountainous altitude as A, at the same time as being a lakeshore matching B?

All those lakes are pleasing/believable shapes, by the way - just not integrated well with the landforms around them.

I'll list a beef i have with this style of satellite view, that has nothing to do with how well you executed it (which is great - the look is wonderful!) -- what is supposed to stand for a whole mountain range is depicted as a single ridge, where a real range would have multiple ridgelines, all kinds of branching indentations and protruberences, and whatnot. If one were drawing a range, the eye wouldn't demand a match with what NASA and National Geographic say a range looks like from orbit - a string of mountain symbols just *indicates* a range. But the closer one gets to photorealism, the stricter the standard one's mind insists on.

If you want something nice to do with the ocean, try continuing the photorealistic theme - show some depth difference like coastal shallows, continental shelf, and abyssal depths - even seamounts where continuation of an above-surface range might suggest seafloor roughness. Being underwater, the detail level doesn't have to match the shaded-relief landforms. On a real photograph from orbit oceans are often quite dark, which would (like your present plain black) set off the pretty land texture nicely.

Thinking not 'photo' but 'map' maybe you can think in terms of what the user needs to get - if there's lots of oceangoing commerce and naval action, then detailing the seas becomes important. If it's a reference map showing land holdings, the current focus on just the land may remain appropriate.

[sheldonl]

Thank you for the in-depth review and critique. I'll have a hard look and revisit all of the issues you illustrated. Some questions from a newbie:
You mention points that should be at the same elevation (like the last example, D/C, or the second of B and C) would it not be possible for there to be a steep drop-off? If so, how should that be shown?

All excellent points, btw. I'll fix the river issues and have another go at it and create some smoother coastlines in areas which are farther away from mountains. (I'm assuming that is the correct rule? Mountainous areas have rough coast lines and desert areas have smooth coast lines?) Also, on this style of map, should I have more intricate mountain ranges with the multiple ridgelines and branching? (or is that not terribly applicable to this style of map?)

Thank you for the comments on the look, btw.

[sheldonl]

Thanks Chick! How did you do that?

[Chick]

Thanks Chick! How did you do that?

I copied your image, opened it with Photoshop, used the Wand tool to select and delete the ocean area. Then I added a water texture beneath the remaining land of your image and darkened it to approximately what you had. Next I added a Blending Option Outer Glow with the lighter blue color onto the land layer to give the look of shallow water near the land.

If you have Photoshop, and want to email me (my email is in my profile), I'll send you the .psd file.

[Wingshaw]

Just one little point, re. jbgibson's comments: the first point, about altitude for the sea and inland sea being incorrect--I may be wrong, but I think the situation in Australia, which has periodically had a large inland sea, demonstrates that you can have large bodies of water separated by narrow, and relatively flat, bits of land. All that is needed is a slight depression in altitude.

THW

[sheldonl]

Ok. So I've had a go at fixing at least some of the issues mentioned before *and* at adding some ocean texture. Please let me know what you think and if you still see issues occurring.

Lycadican 7 7-compressed.png

Thanks!