PDA

View Full Version : CWBP 2: World Map construction thread



Falconius
07-24-2014, 06:49 PM
Since the project seems to have ground to a halt, and since I'm interested in seeing it continue (hopefully I'm not the only one) I have a new approach:

Our first step here is to make the world map.

Here is the continent mask I suggest we use:
65958


This was constructed from pieces of the previous submitted maps from every author, they have been manipulated pretty heavily I suppose, but still they are there. I used my proposal map as a basis for it's construction keeping the elements of the overall world that I liked.

So first things first let us first discuss and address any problems seen with this map. After that I suggest we figure out the tectonics and lay in the mountain ranges, then after running it through Wilbur a couple of erosions cycles, we can work our the climate. Once that is all done we shall have our world map and we can move forwards.

Note: I measured the pixels with a proportionally representative projection and it works out to about 70% water, but I may have done it wrong. To me it seems ideal.

waldronate
07-24-2014, 09:05 PM
Those are continents at each pole? Assuming equirectangular as your projection, the poles appear as shown below:

Azelor
07-24-2014, 09:30 PM
I've just found another mapping trope.
I was thinking that it looked wrong until I got it upside down. It look much better in my opinion probably because we are so used to have the landmasses in the north. It's arbitrary but it's the same thing here : http://blog.lib.umn.edu/globerem/main/Publication2.jpg

The map could look better (but become less practical for reasons mentioned a long time ago) by using a different projection. (I like mollweide) This is especially true for the poles. They are really distorted.

Is linking the continent (or one of them) to the pole another trope ? I saw this in a couple of maps including one made by -Max- (probably a commission). I would prefer to have an ice bridge. If there is sufficient ice in the north, this is easy to achieve. With some islands, the ice get trapped, does not flow south and take longer to melt. It's just an idea.

I have no problem reworking the tectonics of my continent (the biggest blob) it was too simplistic anyway.

If it's possible it would be nice to also include some part of Thurlor second map.

Falconius
07-25-2014, 03:02 AM
waldonrate: Yeah a continent at each pole, it just seemed interesting to me is the only reason. Part of this is that I wanted to include a "lake" there in the Southern pole. My thinking is that it will actually be a lower than sea level basin due to sublimation and lack of any input of new water and just be an interesting feature with good story possibilities. Perhaps I'm wrong, though, snow melt in summer could fill it I suppose, not really too sure on the scientific aspect TBH.

Azelor: The only reason it's in equirectangular is because that's the input of the NASA Map Projector thing. I think it's easier to conceptualize and work with also. For the final presentation I think we should use an expanding grid, and split the poles off and grid them separately.

Personally one of the reasons I liked the concept was because it was South heavy but we can flip it around, it's not important to me. I'm still thinking of it in terms of Northern culture dominating so it's somewhat challenging even in this state. It just strikes me as a good way to counter our own preconceptions for creative possibilities.

As for the land bridge to the Southern pole it is largely superfluous due to the likelihood of ice forming, but I figured the North sea had the ice possibility for a bridge and was just interested in a narrative sense of having a pole connected by land to the mainland. We can eliminate it if you want, but I feel like it has some good story potential there.

(It was actually Thulor's second map which I ended up using, it forms those four big islands just off the South pole. I haven't however used any elements of his first map because I couldn't think of what to do with them, but now I'm thinking we can use them for inland lakes or seas or something of that nature.
I used your northern island continent just above the big one and when I was editing it melded with that southern portion of one of my islands very well so I left it and it got kind of mangled too :) )

This is the map with proposed changes:
65971

waldronate
07-25-2014, 09:22 AM
Interesting. Ice is likely to persist at the poles if there's something to attach to (even if there's not if it's cold enough). Antarctica has an ice cap about 2 miles thick, despite receiving effectively zero precipitation. Wikipedia suggests that the buildup at the actual pole is due largely to blown-in snow due to high winds.

My interest in the polar regions was mostly due to the continents being almost exactly centered on the poles. If that's land + ice, then it makes sense.

Here's a Wagner VII (equal-area) projection with a couple of stereographic endcaps.
65985

Falconius
07-25-2014, 09:33 AM
Ah I understand, yeah I see your point, I hadn't even considered that, so no I cant say I was thinking of ice :) . Part of the problem is that while editing them I couldn't think of a way to work on the world 'endcaps' in a reasonable way and then try and stretch them out like that. I'm doing this all in GIMP so far.

waldronate
07-25-2014, 09:45 AM
I figured it was likely a practical implementation detail rather than a design one.

Ghostman
07-25-2014, 12:48 PM
I prefer the original map orientation with the south-heavy landmasses. Just looks more aestethically pleasing to me.

As for the poles, one of the polar islands looks really tiny now. My suggestion is to either remove it or make it bigger (very easy to do, just move the coastline some distance away from the map's edge and whitefill the empty space). I don't really care whether either of them is connected to one of the continents.

Falconius
07-26-2014, 01:47 PM
I prefer the original map orientation with the south-heavy landmasses. Just looks more aestethically pleasing to me.I agree.


As for the poles, one of the polar islands looks really tiny now. My suggestion is to either remove it or make it bigger (very easy to do, just move the coastline some distance away from the map's edge and whitefill the empty space). I don't really care whether either of them is connected to one of the continents.I think I've thought of a way to edit the poles in a more reasonable manner in conjunction with G. Projector. In which case the two polar continents will become more interesting. It this fails I think I'll just ring one of the poles around with islands (the Southern pole in the original proposal).

Azelor
08-01-2014, 03:42 PM
The reason why I like the map that way is probably because I was the one working on that continent so I grew found of it's shape.
but I guess I can always flip the map to admire her true beauty...


I got something to ask.
Before I wanted as many as people as possible in the project. Around 20 regular participants. It's been a while and not much as been done because I was waiting. I was afraid that if I started why too few people, the future part of the project would be less likely to interest new members. Maybe people will still want to participate in the future.

We need to decide if we want to move forward even if we have only 3, or 4 members giving their opinions on the map. Or not.
I would say, let people debate but do not expect a burst of activity. Especially not at this stage. Maybe it's just because people aren't good to design good looking world map and things might get easier once we sort this out. After all, a lot of members have a lot of imagination.

So we do this part the best we can, even if we are only 3. Otherwise nothing will move.


I'll make some suggestions to improve the map later today.

jkat718
08-02-2014, 01:01 AM
I'm willing to help, but I will warn you that I have little-to-no practical experience with actual mapping; I've only given critique so far.

Ghostman
08-02-2014, 05:58 AM
This is probably going to be a unpopular opinion, but I feel like I should voice it anyway:

I think we've been doing it wrong from the beginning. By focusing so much on the global scale stuff, things like planetary configurations which, while interesting, are going to have no bearing whatsoever on most of the maps to be made. I mean, the project is mostly about making regional, overland and city maps for a shared world. Celestial bodies aren't going to show up on such maps.

I know I have been waiting for the time we'd finally have a world map sectioned to a number of overland areas ready to be picked up and worked into maps by users. That is the point where IMO the whole project actually starts; everything up to it being merely preliminary work, a kind of necessary evil. But we've never reached that point because we're so bogged down on details. And too concerned about securing the approval of a large number of people for every detail, apparently with the assumption that most of the people who might be interested in mapping for CWBP2 would also be interested in participating in the preliminary design. I think that may be a false assumption.

What if we'd instead taken a quick and dirty, fast and loose approach to this? Just whipped up a barebones global map divided into appropriately sized pieces and declared, Here's a world, grab yourself a plot of land and map away!? The project surely wouldn't be aiming at a high degree of internal consistency then, but it'd be ready to go and easy for new members to just jump in and contribute.

Azelor
08-02-2014, 12:11 PM
This is probably going to be a unpopular opinion, but I feel like I should voice it anyway:

I think we've been doing it wrong from the beginning. By focusing so much on the global scale stuff, things like planetary configurations which, while interesting, are going to have no bearing whatsoever on most of the maps to be made. I mean, the project is mostly about making regional, overland and city maps for a shared world. Celestial bodies aren't going to show up on such maps.

I know I have been waiting for the time we'd finally have a world map sectioned to a number of overland areas ready to be picked up and worked into maps by users. That is the point where IMO the whole project actually starts; everything up to it being merely preliminary work, a kind of necessary evil. But we've never reached that point because we're so bogged down on details. And too concerned about securing the approval of a large number of people for every detail, apparently with the assumption that most of the people who might be interested in mapping for CWBP2 would also be interested in participating in the preliminary design. I think that may be a false assumption.

What if we'd instead taken a quick and dirty, fast and loose approach to this? Just whipped up a barebones global map divided into appropriately sized pieces and declared, Here's a world, grab yourself a plot of land and map away!? The project surely wouldn't be aiming at a high degree of internal consistency then, but it'd be ready to go and easy for new members to just jump in and contribute.

We were not focusing on stuff like planets. It was just meant to be something we could do while deciding on the world map. Anyway, we do share the idea that trying to please too many slow down the project. Even if we try to please, it's hard to know the real impact.


Falconius: Do you have the map in PSD or something better than JPEG ?

Azelor
08-02-2014, 02:55 PM
I made some modifications. Some were mostly aesthetic (but I think it's important too:)) others are more drastic like the merging of land to create a larger continent in the south. It is more or less an accident.
In general, I still think the land placement could be better...

At first I did not liked the long islands of the north east. But, from a geologic standpoint, it's a really interesting formation. This could mean that there is a lot of tectonic activity in the region. And that activity could extend far to the east, where is become the west:compass:.

It is possible to make some landmasses larger/smaller but I haven't played with that much.

feel free to flip it around. (90 degree could be a compromise)

jkat718
08-02-2014, 05:01 PM
@Azelor

Invalid attachment error. Not sure if it's in an invalid file format or if it's just too big.

Azelor
08-02-2014, 05:05 PM
I don't know what went wrong. It happens almost half of the time.

the map is 10 000 by 5 000 pixels, 50 megapixels is over the limit but apparently it's ok because it's only 72 DPI...

Falconius
08-02-2014, 05:22 PM
I think we should just work away at it regardless of how many active participants at the time. They will join and leave as it suits them. if they weren't here or didn't participate in the initial set up, tough cookies. Also I agree with Ghostman to an extent, which is why I just wanted to get this map done enough so we could just divide it into plots and get moving. It simply is not going to be a super focused project such as those done for a specific purpose. Quite frankly I think the variety we will get without working top down will simply not compare with the immense diversity and variety of everything we get on Earth. A fantasy world in which the variables are even greater then those of realities would undoubtedly be even more diverse. That is why I'm not to concerned with getting all our pegs in order before we start. Merely to get enough data that people can make reasonable assertions of what belongs where.

As for the map it was uploaded in PNG, which I thought would be adequate for the purposes of just working on a B/W mask, I have it in the GIMP format or whatever else Gimp exports as well. I would be editing it tonight but I went swimming and my eyes are messed up. I need to start wearing goggles. I should have more time later this week though.

Azelor
08-02-2014, 10:33 PM
Ok but I think it could be a good idea to remake the world with detailed coastlines with a good resolution. I could do that when we are satisfied with the base map.

About the size of the base map: it's size is 10 000 by 5 000, is it enough?
We can share the file elsewhere if the size becomes problematic. Or we could also have a relatively small and detailed map of the world and make larger map for continent with more details.

So before we start to map, here are the things I think we must do:


1- base map: the one we are working on right now. When we are happy with the map I will remake it in high resolution (300 DPI)
I think it could be done in less than a week from now

2- a relief map: to show where are the important geologic formation like rivers, mountain ranges and plateaus.
For that, i think we need the tectonic map. It doesn’t need to be fancy, just plausible enough. We have a couple of expert on this topic so it shouldn’t take too long.

3- biome map: no, I'm not talking about something as complicated as the Koppen classification. I just want something loose to indicate if it’s desert, steppe, forest (jungle, deciduous, mixed, boreal) but it does not tell where to put the forest. Assuming one place is considered forest could be entirely covered with forest or not depending mostly on the artist choice. (But I admit that it doesn't make sense to have a densely populate area covered with forests)
Unfortunately, in order to make that map, ideally we also need


1-Temperature map = hot at the equator, it cools off the closer you get to the poles. Altitude also makes it colder but that is only important if we have plateaus. Also affect by the distance from a large body of water and ocean currents. Not too complicated and also not subject to debate.

2-Major winds map/ocean currents: ocean is rather easy, Pixie made a good guide and we can also look at the works of other members. For the winds it’s more complicated because we have to figure the high/low pressure. (See Pixie’s tutorial)

3-Precipitation map: ok well that seems like a lot but in order to be able to start the project, we just need a rough version. We can still make a polished version of it later. Assuming it's a rough version, I expect everything of this could be done in a week or two maximum. And we could start mapping after that. I know it might seems a lot be there are a bunch of good members that can give us counsels on this.

Falconius
08-03-2014, 10:38 AM
Yeah that is pretty much my thinking. Most of these steps are largely just procedural and shouldn't take long, I don't want too much detail just enough for people to get a basic idea and then map on.

For instance instead of getting exact course of a major river we can can simply indicate it with a line of direction, same thing with mountain ranges. Then should someone choose a plot they can decide how to implement the details of these features as they wish.

Azelor
08-03-2014, 08:25 PM
The attachment is valid now ?

Azelor
08-05-2014, 11:51 AM
The map after the modifications I made.


Equirectangular projection
66320

Mollweide projection
66321

thoughts?

Falconius
08-05-2014, 02:24 PM
6632666320

Just so's I can see what's happening...

To me the new land mass is too large and too samey, in effect it duplicates what is already covered in the Western (your map) large land mass. In addition it severly lessens the amount of coast line. With this proposal I count like 4 or so usable continents. With the previous one I count like 6. I think we should be looking to increase the amount of mapping opportunities which I think have been limited in the new version.

66327
The areas circled in red are the ones I really like. I flipped the map horizontally to see what it looked like and that really long north south coast really bugs me. The long islands look really out of place having lost their continent. They need to be moved or deleted. Let me see what I can hack together tonight.

I'm looking to get this stuff done by the end of the week, and will pretty much approve whatever it is we have by then whether I think its good or bad. I suggest we all adopt this attitude in the interests of moving forward.

Azelor
08-05-2014, 02:39 PM
I think I understand your point. Your saying that mapping opportunities arise only along the coasts?

Maybe we could include more bays deeper inland or split the continent. Maybe it was a large super continent but now it's drifting ?

I liked the idea of the long islands but your right, now they are just popping out of nowhere. Maybe we could put them next to their sister continent and move the other one a bit.

Falconius
08-05-2014, 03:52 PM
Coasts aren't the only mapping opportunities, but they are more superficially compelling and perhaps will help make entry into the project easier. For this project I think they are worthwhile to maximize a little.

I also like the long islands and would be happy to include them. Here is where I am at right now:
66328

Azelor
08-05-2014, 09:58 PM
It look pretty good. Maybe some minor corrections here and there but I'm mostly satisfied with that.

Maybe id move the continent in the north closer to the center to balance the east-west landmasses.

I tried to play around with the tectonic plates but I have no idea on how to place them. It depend where we want to have mountains I guess.

Falconius
08-06-2014, 05:27 AM
Alright I'll try and clean it up a little and then find somewhere to share it uncompressed.

Azelor
08-06-2014, 11:57 AM
These islands look good but we just need to place them at a place that make sense. Probably near the limit of a plate?

I placed the southernmost islands in the east near the south and central continent to what I suspect could be a transform boundaries : Plate tectonics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics)
The fault line goes into the water and create steep canyons on both sides... As we move westward, the southern part breaks into smaller and smaller islands, making it possible for boats to navigate.

I also compressed the south part to make it look less crappy when changing projection.


Here's the proposition:
66347


To share it, I think it's best to use either dropbox or google drive. The best would be something that multiple people can modify.

Falconius
08-06-2014, 01:59 PM
I like that.

According to my poor understanding of the histogram on a sinusoidal projection of that we have 75 % water which seems good to me. I was actually going to suggest we increase the sea area between the two "halves" of the world but given that we are already 75% I don't think it's a good idea. My concern was exploration, but according to my calculations the closest piece of lands between the half's is like 3000 km apart, which is more than acceptable in terms of difficulty.

Yes I was thinking dropbox but have never used it and so am unfamiliar with the specifics of how we would share with it.

Edit: There are also a hell of a lot of islands as a result of my messy editing. Should we remove them or leave them?
Edit2: Given your image is at the top resolution I think we can just use that and clean up the land edges do you have one without the notes?

Falconius
08-06-2014, 02:14 PM
Just a really quick scribble for tectonics suggestion: blue lines are faults red arrows direction of moment on edge.66348

Azelor
08-06-2014, 04:05 PM
According to my poor understanding of the histogram on a sinusoidal projection of that we have 75 % water which seems good to me. I was actually going to suggest we increase the sea area between the two "halves" of the world but given that we are already 75% I don't think it's a good idea. My concern was exploration, but according to my calculations the closest piece of lands between the half's is like 3000 km apart, which is more than acceptable in terms of difficulty.


75% Is lower than what we have on Earth so maybe we could increase it a little. It used to be higher but some islands got deleted and moving landmasses closer to the poles also lower it.

3000 KM and the closest islands are easy to miss without sufficient knowledge of the area.

About the archipelagos, one of them appear 2 times. Do you prefer 1 or 2? They can be modified to match with the rest. We can keep both but one of them will have to be modified.

Edit: There are also a hell of a lot of islands as a result of my messy editing. Should we remove them or leave them?
I wasn't sure what was the purpose. I guess we need islands but I'm not sure where to put them. Maybe small islands should be left for later, or for the individual mappers to decide. For sure, putting islands everywhere is not realistic. We need deep waters not just shallow oceans. But as weird as it sounds, making good islands is not always easy. Especially if you need a lot. We could keep them on a separate layer.

Edit2: Given your image is at the top resolution I think we can just use that and clean up the land edges do you have one without the notes?
No, right now my image is the same you used at first. It's in 72 DPI. To make it at 300 dpi you either need to make the map smaller by 4.16 times and then change resolution to 300 (that will stretch back to original pixel dimension with a huge loss in quality) or do another one from scratch (it's what I intended to do anyway). Also, I'm surprised that the map appear normally here since 50 megapixels exceed the limit. I guess that the resolution is also considered.
At 300 DPI, we could go up to 7700 by 3850.

Azelor
08-06-2014, 04:41 PM
and apparently, considering that we need to delete some island but also add others that have holes inside, we have around 25% of land (24,8 exactly ). It's a difference of 8,3% form earth, and roughly the size of North America. Sorry, I'm just surprised that we should add a whole continent while it's seems fine. It's the size of the central eastern continent, excluding surrounding islands but including that most gaps are filled. look it's the size of the orange spot:

66351

There is enough room for a new continent if you are interested.

Falconius
08-06-2014, 04:59 PM
I really like that Northern sea actually, I'd like to keep it as is personally. Perhaps we could find room for something half the size of that orange circle somewhere else? Maybe put in a small continent and the long islands back in the SE corner? As far as I'm concerned we don't need to bring it up to Earth standard, I'm fine with having comparably less land than we do on earth Earth, but not more. TBH I like the map as is though. Maybe we can keep a lost or wandering continent for later?

As for the islands we can leave them or separate them to a new layer for now and then when we get the tectonics down edit them according to what seems reasonably geographicly reasonable. Except for the moon island you moved to the direct centre of the map, that needs to stay.

I think Thurlor's South pole island needs to move north a bit or get squished a bit as it gets too elongated on the orthographic projection.

I really don't understand the resolution stuff so much clearly, so whatever is reasonable is what we should do. I don't understand what difference the dpi has to do with what is on screen (ie the pixel count), I thought it only had an effect regarding printing.

Are you really planning on doing one from scratch? Seems like a greater amount of work than necessary for a map only intended to give very general details.

Azelor
08-06-2014, 05:36 PM
Right, I don't need the HD map now. I need to wait after the tectonic map, because it's possible that we need to adapt the map. But I would like to do it before the mapping frenzy.

It's possible to gain some land here and there. For example, I filled some gaps in the north pole (covered by ice anyway) and some holes in the east central continent. I don't know if they were intended or not.
66355

Or I could let some gap one to create some passages like we can see here :
66356

We still have a smaller continent in the east almost touching the other one.

Falconius
08-06-2014, 07:24 PM
I tried to avoid filling things that I thought interesting because we do need some significant inland bodies of water. Earth has the Great Lakes, lake Victoria, the Black Sea, the Caspian Sea. Just look at the Canadian shield its riddled with very large lakes.

Perhaps we can modify your original suggestion and put stuff in the blue blob and put those super long islands next to it?
66358

Azelor
08-06-2014, 08:47 PM
I know we need lakes, it just looked better without them.

66363

and no I think it's better to left that spot empty for now at least.

some Islands in the south are probably too small and do not match well with the rest.
Thurlor is still too close from the pole.

Falconius
08-07-2014, 06:40 AM
Hmm I thought it looked good with them. They resulted from mashing around landmasses not too dissimilar from tectonic activity if it's any comfort :P I found that trying to put them in afterwards they never looked right, so when they occurred "naturally" I decided to leave em.

Yeah I think you are right about that blue spot, for some reason I find that empty area in the North sea really compelling.

You've done a lot of work cleaning it up, thank you.

Azelor
08-07-2014, 01:04 PM
I did some tests with the tectonic and relief based on the maps submitted. It's possible to split some plates and change direction. Also, feel free to comment about the elevation or relief map. I'm not too sure what it is, but when it's done we could do a proper elevation map with 5 to 10 levels or a bit more if we also include ocean depths. 3 would be enough for the ocean. By elevation map, I mean something between this and this http://www.cartographersguild.com/attachments/regional-world-mapping/66256d1407103577-wip-atlas-style-map-palamb-palamb_pastelcolored.png
so something like the fractal terrain map : http://www.cartographersguild.com/attachments/regional-world-mapping/66277d1407173747-my-new-terra-helium_tectonc_plates.png

Plate 1 ? could be on plate 1,2 or on it's own plate. Keeping it on plate 1 is the worst option I think.
? is because I'm not sure if they deserve their own plates. Your continent (closest to the center) share similarities with the rest of plate 2 and Thurlor (by default) do not have any particular land features (no mountains).
2 ? probably deserve it's own plate, mostly an oceanic plate covering the north sea and much of the pole. The drifting direction could change.
Should plate 1 direction change toward the south?


66383

Falconius
08-07-2014, 01:50 PM
Don't know about the elevations just yet. I'm curious why you filled the inlet in the north pole?

Here is a tectonic suggestion based off of yours:
66384
Plate 5, 7, and 11 are moving in a bit of a spin, 5 is in a heavy spin.

Also I moved the Thurlor Spray islands in the SE corner a bit farther north as they suffer greatly in projection compression. As an approach to the plates I think if we do too many and then fuse those we deem unnecessary it might be a more workable option?

Azelor
08-07-2014, 05:49 PM
I think we need to try to do elevation and tectonic at the same time. We do have some room for decisions to place mountains.

Between 7 and 9 : high plateaus and some mountains. It might look similar to my original proposition for the contest unless you have something better. The continent (our biggest but excluding surrounding islands) is about the size of Eurasia without their islands.

Plate 8: something similar to my contest entry.

4: I just tried to remake your continent.

I suppose that 6/12 will have huge mountains. Possibly the highest, rendering the landscape inhospitable. Like Patagonia but bigger and possibly worst. But the southern part should be temperate.

5: outside the south west mountains, I have no idea. It depend how the lakes formed it the first place. From my readings, at the equator large lakes form with the drifting of the plates. In the north, it can be the result of ice melting but not that far south. If they receive large amount of rain, it can accumulate providing they have an endorheic bassin. Are they freshwater lakes or inland sea like the Black Sea or completely closed sea like the Caspian sea ?

South pole: no idea either

North pole: sorry, do you want me to revert the change? I was trying to get more land. It's still a depression covered by ice. Or is it possibler to have land under the ocean level in that region since precipitations are so low ?



And I'm not sure 7 should spin. 5 could spin clockwise


note: names would be useful

Falconius
08-07-2014, 06:22 PM
For 7 and 9 I like your original elevation proposition. We could knock the tip off of Azelorland in the north part and have it be like India alone on its own plate, which wuold allow us to divide it with your original proposition lines. It would be sandwiched between 11, 2, 1, and 7. And very likely also be an area of extreme activity.

I see ocean trenches forming between 11 and 12, as well as 6 and 8. Was thinking 8 might be better off moving in a more NW direction. Which would put another trench between 8 and 3.

6 and 12 I was just kind of thinking with a pen your plate division through the sea may make more sense. I'm not sure in my plan they are really reasonable.

5 just made the most sense to me spinning with a deep trench forming between the two land masses but also packing land along the same edge in the NW direction. For the lakes and things I have no idea, perhaps that side of the plate is getting pushed under 11? Doesn't seem likely though. Perhaps its as a result of a fused plate? Can that happen? In my head I was imagining it as a bunch of fjords mixed with the Canadian shield type thing. As far as precipitation based freshwater/ small lakes I was thinking we figure that out more once we get a precipitation map idea going.

North Pole: No it was my suspicion that was the reason, but I can't imagine it was very effective at balancing the numbers, it is a very small patch of sea. The reason it's there is I was imagining it as a usable navigable seaway in some manner with a port in the deep protection, maybe for some forlorn kingdom. But you are right, within any realistic reason it would be packed deep with ice. It's up to you if you want to revert it or not. For more land we could consider more in the 10 plate or along the edge where it meets 9, and 11. Or we could add some on plate 2 where 1 is smashing into it (and presumably (did you know "assumingly" wasn't a word? Why not?) going under it).

Falconius
08-07-2014, 06:31 PM
66392
Here's some names for ya, :p

Azelor
08-07-2014, 07:36 PM
I'M sure Thurlor is ok having a continent with his name.
Falconia is not bad but the rest is not very....

let's just pretend I never asked.

well I'm glad that : View Profile: masturben - Cartographers' Guild (http://www.cartographersguild.com/members/masturben.html)
is not part of the project.

Azelor
08-07-2014, 09:21 PM
7/9 Ok

11/12 and 6/8 ok it make sense. 8 should move toward NW. 5 IS MOVING MORE TO THE SOUTH AND GRINDING WITH 8, CREATING THE MOUNTAINS. (SORRY FOR THE CAPS)

6/12 look at my new map, is it better that way ?

5: the eastern coast of North America was formed by successive plate collisions, creating several rift over time. That is where the Great Lakes are today.

North pole: Ok we will keep it then. We should have enough land for now. Maybe when I will redraw the map, I will try to put more land here and there, subtly. And moving some continents closer to the equator. One pixel at a time: 6 250 000 pixels left. (at the equator because this number increases as you get closer to the poles)



Update: I splited the north pole from 6: but I admit that I'm just making it spin around.
South pole is moving toward 9/7 and aways from 4
3 can move in any direction, im ok with SW, maybe we can unite 3 and Thurlor ? or not
I'm not too sure about the plausibility of plate 2. Should I split the eastern part ?
added Plate 13 to make it look more like Japan


that's about all for now, am I forgetting something ? If it's good I could do a final revision tomorrow and ask people what they think here: Regional/World Mapping (http://www.cartographersguild.com/regional-world-mapping/)

66395

Azelor
08-07-2014, 09:30 PM
And without wasting time, I made some basic oceanic current map

66396

BlackChakram
08-07-2014, 09:33 PM
I think the tectonics look pretty good. Definitely creates a lot of possibilities.

Falconius
08-08-2014, 03:51 AM
The currents plan looks fine to me. I'd of thought the channel between Cyrus and Dearmash flows the other way though.

66399
On the Earth tectonic map there seem to be dedicated ocean plates so I increased the size of 3, and put in the one on the north sea again but think I may have made it too big or not the right shape.
I think the Thurlor Islands should be moved north more and spun which ever way makes sense to align them properly, maybe increased in size slightly, that should give a fair amount of land gain. They look like a cousin (well they are since Thurlor's map was also the source) for the happening on the east coast of Falconia so maybe should be put in some sort of relation to that?

For plate 13 you might want to naggle it a little more north and reduce the size a little so the island are closer to the fault on the right edge. Perhaps think about reshaping plate 1 so that Blap makes more sense in that interaction there.

On the south pole I've noticed you keep increasing the land area but I liked what you first had down there where it was really lopsided and more island like. ever since Waldonrate mentioned it the centred South pole has been nagging me. I would suggest we do a bunch of islands rather than a land massed pole but getting them right in this projection is also remarkably difficult. I removed the fault between Thurloria and the SP but was just tinkering and seeing how it looked. No idea if it makes sense or not.

As for the final revision go for it. I'm pretty happy with what we got and as I said earlier I'm taking whatever it is at the end of the week which is now.

Edit: Another solution to increasing the land size is to just slightly scale up some of the continents a bit, that way they don't have to be moved around all that much.

Azelor
08-08-2014, 12:55 PM
I just realized that the colors are very different in our two images.

I'm not 100% sure about the water currents in that area.

plate 3: ok
thurlor island ok and changed direction of plate 10
13 ok ?
south pole: Im not sure what you have in mind

66412

Falconius
08-10-2014, 02:05 PM
Yeah looks good except for the plates in the North sea. The reason I arranged it this way is that it looks more right to me. I moved the North Pole fault line down to give reason for those Islands in the middle of nowhere, we might as well call the Iceland at this point, they are in about the right place and the cause of their formation might as well be the same too.

Plate 8, 12, and ten I suggested an alteration to their movement directions a little, but not enough to effect any big changes.

With Plate 9 I was toying with the idea of having a small plate at the end there. Not too sure about it though. Perhaps if it was actually also part of 13?

I tried moving the Thurlor Islands a bit but liked them more where you had them, only they looked too close to Falconis to me but they also look interesting so I think we ought to leave 'em in the position you had 'em.
66446

I'm happy enough with our progress to go with whatever you revise for the plates at this point, so we can start detailing the currents and elevations if you provide a clean copy of the map mask. No need for high res yet though, not until the end.

Azelor
08-10-2014, 02:43 PM
If you change the direction of plate 8 you might also want to move the 8/5 fault line to the west, into the ocean unless you want to split the continent apart.

I'm not sure if islands should be located only near the fault lines. But I'm ok with it. Geologically, yes it look like Iceland but the climate and social aspects are going to be very different. Just getting there looks complicated. The main currents are several hundred kilometers away. And I don't know about the winds yet but I think it could be colder.

12: ok, it doesn't change much anyway.

9: no i think we are fine without a new plate

Thurlor: I was thinking the same thing


By a clean copy, you mean a map without false islands and with just the landmasses? Yes I could do that.

Falconius
08-10-2014, 02:49 PM
No I meant a map without a bunch of lines scribbled all over it :) We might as well have one as this is what we are going to be working with from now on. I'm still not sure about erasing all the little false islands since the fact is they are much harder to put in later. Maybe separate them out and we can drop them in the final copy where they look reasonable.

8/5 yeah I think it makes more sense farther to the west in any case.

BlackChakram
08-10-2014, 02:52 PM
Don't forget that you can have island chains anywhere on a plate if there's a hotspot underneath. If you push the left edge of plate 2 a bit farther left, you could explain those islands nicely with a hotspot under the SE island.

Azelor
08-11-2014, 08:13 PM
Good to know and don't worry as I'm almost done with the climatic interlude.

Azelor
08-11-2014, 11:58 PM
Ok, so we have our tectonic plates and I cleaned the map

66479
66480

and the oceanic currents :

66481

I'd like to hear if some currents are wrong.
Next step is to finish oceanic current and finish the elevation map. I already started but it's not really an elevation map. I need to have a good elevation scale and ideally, a good color scheme.

low quality elevation map, some parts are outdated since tectonic changed. I think the challenge is to make a good elevation map that will make our world look immense (especially the southwestern continent).
66482

BlackChakram
08-12-2014, 01:10 AM
If you want it to look immense, the contour lines will need to be intricate down to a very small scale. I'm guessing there's probably a filter for GIMP or another program that can take simple lines and fractally twist them.

I did a quick mock up of the mountains on the SW continent. Ran a fractilize line script for gimp on one section. Spat out this.

66484

This make it look more immense?

Falconius
08-12-2014, 07:02 AM
I'm not too sure as to how much clarity we should be going for in the height map. We are not actually making a complete world map, we are making a foundation for the maps of the plots. In fact I think it would be better to avoid too much information as that would impede, unnecessarily, the creativity of our cartographers. You guys both said it your self on another thread where regional mapping is more engaging than world mapping due to the unknown.

No time for the elevation myself yet, here is the one thing I would change with the currents:
66486
It doesn't make sense to me that that one channel of water would just go against all the other currents around there and the general trend of current at that latitude.

EDIT: Actually looking at it now, I might also be tempted to change the currents south of Falconis and Thurlor Islands to the other direction as there is an immense volume of water all being pushed into that ocean there.

BlackChakram
08-12-2014, 08:48 AM
I'm not too sure as to how much clarity we should be going for in the height map. We are not actually making a complete world map, we are making a foundation for the maps of the plots. In fact I think it would be better to avoid too much information as that would impede, unnecessarily, the creativity of our cartographers. You guys both said it your self on another thread where regional mapping is more engaging than world mapping due to the unknown.

That is a very valid point. But you still have to make sure there's at least enough info for things to be consistent from map to map. Like if one person does the northern half of a range and another person does the southern half, you'd want to make sure either both put volcanoes or none put volcanoes. (Although thinking about it, this is probably info that doesn't have to get created until a little later.)

So how detailed do we want to make the topography at this point? What gives enough guidance but leaves room for each cartographer to get creative?

Falconius
08-12-2014, 11:55 AM
I'm thinking of an arrangement where if two mappers have plots bordering one another, they will have to coordinate the various aspects between themselves. People will also have the option to reserve or block the plots bordering their working plot to either avoid having to coordinate with another person or to continue their work themselves. Blocked plots can block for two mappers (in the case where each person has a plot to either side of the blocked area), where as reserves can block for only the mapper who reserved it. People will be able to work on whatever they choose within their plot (so they don't necessarily have to map the whole thing, they can map an odd sized chunk if they wish). Upon release the unmapped part will go back to the plots available and someone else can pick it up if they wish. This means over time the plots will slowly change their shape. The purpose of all this is to ensure that the maps will make sense in a continuem, as the plots will either have a finished map bordering them, or untouched territory bordering them, or a person who they know they have to coordinate with boarding them.

Azelor
08-12-2014, 01:04 PM
I'm not found of blocking plots. If someone in the middle decide to lock the surroundings the project will slow down a lot.

Also, while it is ok not to finish a map, it should be considered unfinished. It is not something I would recommend to do because it make things more complicated. The resulting map will have an odd shape so the mapper will either have to export the map in PNG or provide the original files so that the other mappers can finish the work. I'm not against this but it should only be used as a last resort, if the mappers for some reason can't finish the map. If he run out of ideas, the Guild can provide help.

Changing the plot shape is something that could become hard to manage. Squares are so much simpler. But how big should they be? Ansium used 600x600 miles plots. That's almost 1000 km by 1000 km. At the equator, it's almost 1 000 000 km2 but less as you move poleward...


They aren't 'quite' 600x600. Remeber, because of the 'flattening' of a sphere, the north/south distance is the same but the 'top' of the image 1350 miles east west, bottom is 2616 miles east west, so the top's total east/west is almost 50% of the same distance as on the bottom.

We might as well start with a small islands/continent to serve as a test for this. To see what is the best way to proceed. Plot do not have to be as big as the normal ones for this case.

Azelor
08-12-2014, 03:06 PM
I would like to have a good topographic map but I don't want it to be to precise. I agree with Falconius that is might hurt creativity because people could try to follow the elevation map too closely. Every styles are different so we need some level of information. For example, a mountains range (or a mountainous area that could have more than one range) is represented by a brown thick line . Or, use colors for elevation and use a black line to show mountain ranges, where the top of the mountains are.


If it's a high altitude plateau like Tibet, it's more like a large blob.

BlackChakram
08-12-2014, 03:21 PM
I think that's a pretty good idea for detail. Enough that things can match up, but still room for creativity.

As for plots, if we just do isolated plots, you'll get some very large differences in tone, style, flavor. Crossing a border will almost literally be like walking into another world because there will be little globalization. Real civilizations start in isolation, but eventually connect through trade, wars, etc. Nothing new here to you guys, I'm sure.

So what about letting users add content to areas by seeding? A person picks a location on the map to be the start of their civilization or whatnot and they slowly expand out from there. As new users come in, they can pick new locations to seed depending on what they're thinking (seed locations should probably pend approval so someone doesn't troll). This way, people that want closely linked areas can seed nearby while people that want isolation can seed in a very distant region.

Since fantasy often roughly maps to medieval, I use countries like France and Germany as rough size indicators. You could easily fit 50 or more plots that size on a map like this.

If people wanted to make wild regions, ruins, etc etc, this could be done much the same way. They expand out their area, but then make it die.

Now, I often lack common sense, so I'm sure there's an excellent reason why this won't work. If so, by all means lay it on me ;)

Also, this may be totally out of line / unfair / whatever, but I'd like to express my interest in the region highlighted pink here on the eastern continent. Can I claim dibs?
66487

Falconius
08-12-2014, 04:49 PM
I think you guys expect a volume of people to be involved that is far greater than is actually going to be involved.

I was thinking of plots 500 km x 500 km with an allowance for people to claim multiple plots. France was something of an anomaly in terms of size in the medieval period, most countries were much smaller, think of the Untied Kingdom, and then break it off in to Scotland, Wales, England, and Ireland. Even France was carved up pretty significantly, you had Burgundy, England, Savoy, I think Brittany and all sorts of holdings to the East. Generally though what I use to base my conception of country size in such time periods is Italy.

As for the grid to use for plots I think we should do an expanding grid. Given our equirectangular projection this would mean plots stay the same height through out but that they expand horizontally as we move up the latitudes. Here is my example:
66489
The size of the lateral expansion is set to 500 km at that latitude from the middle of the height. This means the edge closer to the equator will be bigger than 500 km, and the edge farther from the equator will be smaller. So all plots here are roughly 500x500 km. Above 60 degrees of latitude we should have pole end world maps and we will divide them accordingly.

600 miles by 600 miles is truly immense, way bigger than I was envisioning. I think that it was geared to "fill in" the entire world quickly, the way I'm approaching this project is that we have a world and setting that people can come in and fiddle around with and then take a break or whatever. The aim isn't really to "complete" the world for me.

Also in this example is how an active plot would block plots from other people, any of the white plots bordering those areas would be available to work. If the person was unconcerned about working with others than he could leave the red areas open for mapping as well. I think though the default should be set to blocking out those areas. This allows people to come in comfortably map what they feel like and not have to worry about coordinating with others etc. It's far more relaxed. It also allows us to be very vague with the world map.

Falconius
08-12-2014, 04:56 PM
As for plots, if we just do isolated plots, you'll get some very large differences in tone, style, flavor. Crossing a border will almost literally be like walking into another world because there will be little globalization.I'm not sure why that is a problem. In any case a created world is going to have difficulty matching the diversity and regional differences of the real world, so much so that I think any possibility of encouraging such diversity should be pursued.



Also, this may be totally out of line / unfair / whatever, but I'd like to express my interest in the region highlighted pink here on the eastern continent. Can I claim dibs?
66487I see no reason why not. Early investors get some perks, just the way of the game. Within the context of whatever we are deciding for plots.

This brings up another way to handle plots. If people just splotch a claim on the map like this and call dibs. Indeed thinking about it I think if may be the best method...

Azelor
08-12-2014, 05:29 PM
I was also thinking about 500x500 km. it's about the size of a relatively large kingdom.
I'm not sure about your proposal for land division yet. Maps at high latitudes will represent a large amount of work.

On another note, I worked a bit on oceanic currents. By using bigger lines, I get a better idea of how water would flow. Because water movement is something massive and not just one little stream out of nowhere.
So far, no important changes but:

- the current above and under the equatorial counter current are too close. On Earth, they are more spread out. The also generate turbulence...
- the counter current also enters the strait between the two continents but doing so generate turbulence not of him.
- the middle ocean is probably the largest if we take the distortion of the projection in account. It has a lot of water and 2 strong current that are close. I expect that this will generate huge turbulence north of the broken archipelago in the center.
these two current are now closer
- And also, the water flow has changed in the strait between the northern and central continents. It's not east-weest because the flow of water form the central ocean is more important. It just seems more logical.
- the same turbulences occur in the far west and is also very strong in the far east.
- the current running east-west in the south: I'm not sure if it's supposed to be there.

Outside of that, I see no major change. Of course I added a lot of arrow but most don't have any real impact. The number of arrow is kinda useful to see where the current is weaker. Outside the main current I expect to see smaller current swirling here and there so getting to these islands far from the main current should be difficult.

Falconius
08-12-2014, 05:56 PM
Cool, sounds good.

For the plots I think we should just use what BlackChakram accidentally stumbled into. Mark the world map where you want to map and just go for it. This method is many cases far simpler and less work. And one gets to map exactly what they want to. It might require some certain guidelines, such that 500 x 500 km is the size of a generally large kingdom and to use that as a size guideline. As well as if bordering another player to coordinate your efforts to what they done so far (based on seniority of plot if it comes down to an impasse). Maybe with a suggestion that if you choose an irregular area to leave those areas outside of your "borders" blank for others to come in after.

BlackChakram
08-12-2014, 06:05 PM
That probably is the best way to go about plots. There's enough space that I imagine people wouldn't want adjacent ones unless they plan on connecting them. If you want something isolated, it's not like it's going to be hard to come by.

Azelor
08-12-2014, 07:59 PM
so final rough version of the water currents. we are good to move on. Most of the small arrows do not have any impact on climates but are useful if someone plans to make a seafaring civilization. More details for later...

66548

and here. that's the one:
66549
If you wonder, the lines are for the equator and the 45th latitudes.

Ok but we still need some grid no ?

500x500 mean :

40 000/500=80

it's 80x40= 3200 but we have more than 70% water and 2 relatively big and possibly boring poles.

I don't have time to finish my message. I'll be back on this later.

Falconius
08-13-2014, 04:12 AM
Those currents make sense to me. There might be a few vortexes here and there that we didn't think of but shouldn't really matter for our purposes just yet.

Yeah but it's not strictly 80 x 40, in any case if we do the blob method we can avoid such issues entirely. A scaling grid would help people with their projection and make the final stitched together world copy work better but those couple of advantages are not worth it imo. People should just plug the elevation map into G. Projector, flip on the orthographic projection and hunt for a land they like, blob that up with a colour back in the equirectangular black and white mask, and then post it it to the "Mapping Plots thread" and we'll take that add it to the overall map and it will be clear what's open and what's not.

Ghostman
08-13-2014, 09:18 AM
As for the grid to use for plots I think we should do an expanding grid. Given our equirectangular projection this would mean plots stay the same height through out but that they expand horizontally as we move up the latitudes. Here is my example:
66489
The size of the lateral expansion is set to 500 km at that latitude from the middle of the height. This means the edge closer to the equator will be bigger than 500 km, and the edge farther from the equator will be smaller. So all plots here are roughly 500x500 km. Above 60 degrees of latitude we should have pole end world maps and we will divide them accordingly.


This seems like the best way to allocate plots, although I'd rather see the individual blocks being smaller in size and allow each user to assemble their plot from multiple adjacent blocks. Eg. make the blocks be 100x100 km, and set plot size to 1-9 blocks. That way people won't have to use much more land than they need (in case you only want to map a fairly small area) nor will they be restricted to a square shaped plot (in case the area being mapped is long and narrow.)

Falconius
08-13-2014, 10:10 AM
110 x 110 km blocks would basically be a plot for every degree of both latitude and longitude (until the angles get wonky). With 500 x 500 you'd end up with a couple of thousand plots, at 100 you'd get thousands and thousands. Really it is easer to do as BlackChakram has done and just put a colour on the map and say "I'm mapping this, B----es!"

Azelor
08-13-2014, 11:34 AM
66568

we could do a blob method like that. Everyone can take more than one plot (they are even encouraged to do so) with a certain limit. It allows some freedom to map a whole archipelago or a long coastline. People can take several plots as long as the shape stays rectangular. I have the grid in the PSD file only.

I also take that opportunity to lay a claim over the northern island.

Falconius
08-13-2014, 11:42 AM
I really don't understand the point of using a grid at all?

Edit: Also we ought to decide how we are handling the small islands we took out. Should we include some or so we give an open season on the oceans for islands less than 20 or 30 pixels (80 to 100 km on the equator) big? My preference is open season.

Speaking of claims, I'm going to claim the moon island in the direct centre of the map.

Azelor
08-13-2014, 11:46 AM
Because it makes things easier. No ?

It could avoid to have a small enclaved plot.
And after the mapping, we will have to place the maps together.

Falconius
08-13-2014, 11:51 AM
It seems to make things harder though.

Where it comes in handy is stitching everything together at the end easily, but it can be done without a grid easy enough in any case, and it will be an immensely long time before we even get that far.

Falconius
08-13-2014, 12:06 PM
Plots so far:

Azelor on the north island.

Falconius on the island in the direct center.

BlackChakram near the inland water on the continent to the east.

66573

A problem with keeping them square is also the implication that one has to map everything in that square, but of one only wants to map a specific country it is very unlikely its boarders would match, meaning he'll end up mapping a corner of something he doesn't know/care about necessarily.

Azelor
08-13-2014, 01:45 PM
Maybe but I'm still concerned how we will patch it together.

Falconius
08-13-2014, 04:07 PM
Uploading a clean mask with no feathered edges:
66576

I'm about to start with the elevations in the east continents.

Azelor
08-13-2014, 04:54 PM
Falconius, to make file modification easier, I think it's best to upload only the elevation layer in PNG if possible (not the whole map). Also, it will help positioning the layer if you put something in the corners (it can be anything).

Ok and I got some numbers for you, I know you love numbers ;)

according to this map, calculating the area is tricky because the total is 1/5 greater than for Earth. for some reason even if it's the same dimensions
66577

Total in pixels: 3 533 588
Total land : 888 600 (25,14%)
SW: 320 000 (36% of land/9% of the world)
EC: 135 000 (15,2)
ES: 94 000 (10,1)
CN: 70 000 (7,9) (60 000 without islands)
EN: 58 000 (...)
CC: 43 000
NP: 34 000
CW: 26 000
SWE: 24 000
Broken thurlor: 23 000
EE: 21 000
Crescent: 13 000
Thurlor: 9000
SI: 2900
SP: 2100
NI: 800

to find the ares in square kilometers, we need to :
40 000/3000 (size of the map)
=13,33*13,33
=177,8

multiply with map size in pixels:
177,8*3 533 588= 628 271 946 sq km (510 067 00 for Earth)
I used the mollweide projection, don't know if I did something wrong

ok so the map is 1,23 time larger than Earth (but the planet is supposed to be about the same size)
to find the area in sq km of a continent = (177,8* area)/1,23

(177,8 * 320 000)/1,23 = 46 257 000 sq km for the biggest continent.
right ?

edit: I just noticed that Gprojector is adding a black border by default.

Falconius
08-13-2014, 06:09 PM
Why is the map 1/5 larger than Earth? Was that what we decided? It's been so long I forgot now...

I'm uploading png's for this stuff. Here's where I am at the elevations. Keep in mind the resolution was kept deliberately low (those mountain ranges are 40 pix brushes which is like 100 km or so.): Also its the whole map: P
66596

Here's the elevations only:
66597

Azelor
08-13-2014, 06:29 PM
sorry, that's not what I meant. I mean I should have all the numbers right.

the original map was 10 000 by 5 000. Meaning that every pixel represent 4 km since Earth is more or less 40 000 km at the equator.
the file from G projection is 3 000 by 1500 because that is as high as I could get. Otherwise it crashes.
so it's 13,33 times smaller or 13,33*13,33 ...
but when I calculated the area I got 628 million sq km instead of 510, that's what I was saying. And I don't understand if it's normal since it's supposed to be more or less about the same size. It's either the fault of the projection and I need to divide it by 1,23 (but Hammer projection gives the same results) or I made a mistake somewhere.



EDIT: I started the elevation map and I realized that I might have too much highlands. If you play around with this you might bet a good idea for the 1 or 2 first levels of elevation : http://www.floodmap.net/
The way I see it, the elevations are:

Low=0-500m
Medium= 500-1000m
Med high= 1000-2000m
High=2000-4000m
Very high= 4000+

Falconius
08-14-2014, 11:57 AM
I'm really unsure as to what your letter abbreviations refer to, so Ill just take your word for it :) .
Also I think we should possibly add in some of the islands.

For the plots I think we should just number them sequentially and give their coordinates. This maintains their seniority in an easy manner, and also identifies them.

So it be BlackChakram in plot 1 at gX.
Azelor in plot 2 at bM.
and Falconius in plot 3 at kN.

66614

Azelor
08-14-2014, 01:30 PM
What letters?
The ones from post 77 refers to the continents
S=SOUTH N=NORTH ... C=CENTER P=POLE I=ISLAND

The other letters from post 70 have no signification. 1 to 80 and A-Z and then add something after. Using just numbers is confusing.
this is considering that we keep the grid with the 500x500 km for each area.



I worked on the elevation:

66615

Some areas are without colors, they are yours if you want.

Falconius
08-14-2014, 01:48 PM
I'm trusting precipitation, climates, and biomes are right up your alley right? Once complete this should be sufficient to serve as enough info for a general working on those, correct?

Azelor
08-14-2014, 02:35 PM
Yes but i intend to keep the climates for later. Biomes are similar but more related to vegetation. I consider them simpler to do. For example, Western Europe and the American north east coast have similar vegetation but their climates are different. Many part of places like China also have similar vegetation but again with a different climate. Biomes could include:

Rainforest (jungle or dense forest)
Decidious forest
Mixed forest
Boreal forest
Tundra/steppe
Savanna
desert
Alpine?
Wetland
Mangrove ? (very limited)
Mediterranean (chaparral)

and that is pretty much it. Just so that people know how the wildlife looks like. So we don't have a forest in the middle of the desert;)

Azelor
08-14-2014, 04:52 PM
My temperature spectrum for the temp map:

66616

Mean monthly temperature (estimated average)

Severely hot: 35 °C or more
Very hot: 28 to 35 °C (31,5)
Hot: 22 to 28 °C (25)
Warm: 18 to 22 °C (20)
Mild: 10 to 18 °C (14)
Cool: 0 to 10 °C (5)
Cold: −10 to 0 °C (-5)
Very cold: −25 to −10 °C (17,5)
Severely cold: −38 to −25 °C (31,5)
Deadly cold: −38 °C or below (38)

Maritime influence: cold, hot and just the normal influence of the sea. It might go a bit too far at some places.
Near the ocean the temperatures are less extreme. Green current is mild and tend to lower the temperature more than the red one but less than the cold blue current (in the hot season).

66617

to follow Pixie tutorial we just lack winds (step 3) and step 4,5 and 6.
We will assume that the large continent is only slightly larger than Asia since we don't have the exact numbers.

Falconius
08-14-2014, 05:25 PM
OK here's what I got for elevation:
66618
Thurlors continent is a bit screwed up though. The North pole actually seems to work. Also I added back in the inlet :p

Here's the png:
66619

Falconius
08-14-2014, 05:48 PM
The world is at an axial tilt the same as earth's I assume? Would that not require winter and summer maps rather than an average?

Pixie's tutorial is incredibly dense, so it's taking a while to sink in but it appears he (she?) tackles the winds before temperature? Or did I miss a step?

Azelor
08-14-2014, 06:11 PM
Yea, same axial tilt. And these temperatures can bu used for the year or just January and July. It does not make any difference.
Yes Pixie did the wind before the temperature. Winds influences the rain pattern and humidity. This in turn influences the temperature according to the tutorial. Make sense because those equatorial forest have less sunlight than the hot desert because it's is very cloudy. And doping a lot of water helps to cool down.

So next is the wind. ITCZ, Horses and Polar front are all influenced by air pressure. and move during the year.

BlackChakram
08-14-2014, 06:38 PM
wind takes a while. its a little easier to do if you do the air pressure first. and when i was doing it for my own world, i discovered that you can be fairly rough with this. after all, its not like climates and biomes follow the rules 100%. :)

And I would split it into two seasonal maps. Some areas that get high rainfall one season may get very little the other.

For reference, here's the pressure maps I made for my own world I'm developing.

winter
66621


summer
66622

(green is high pressure, yellow low)

Azelor
08-14-2014, 11:44 PM
Air pressure for January and July

I'm not sure if they are at the right place. The Polar front is moving. During the coldest season, he is around 30 and at 60 during the hot season. I'm not sure if it's supposed to bend or not.
The ITCZ also moves but the landmasses seems to have a bigger impact. Over a large ocean, he is almost static.
The main problem I'm having is that I get the polar front and some high air pressure at the same places.

66687
66688

Red is high pressure and blue for low pressure. High pressure when it's cold and low pressure when it's hot.

Azelor
08-15-2014, 01:12 PM
My comments on the elevation map:

-The mountains on Thurlor islands look way too high considering the surroundings (the white part)
- And I would say the same thing about the westernmost continent. Mountains should be lower because they are older.
-Some spot are without color , does it mean it's very close to sea level?
- Some spots are left empty because the magic wand could not select them
- South pole: these two hilly parts are almost at the opposite one from the other. The pole is pretty small so I think we should link them. The rest can stay empty because it's not so empty, it's just really stretched.
- North pole: I would suggest to increase the overall altitude. After all it's covered by ice like Antarctica. Well it depend if the consider the total altitude or just the land altitude.

66640


Once we say it's ok, it will be hard to turn back. If anyone disagree with the elevation map, may he speak now ore get mad and organize a revolution later !

Azelor
08-15-2014, 02:31 PM
Some pictures for fun (mostly)
each line represent 15 degrees.

South pole compared to Earth's. I inverted Earth's poles in order to have the coldest pole (Antarctica) in the north.
So the population of Thurlor is probably just a couple thousands people living on the ''northern'' part. 10 000 maybe...

66642

North:
66643

and:
66644

Falconius
08-16-2014, 04:49 PM
Once we say it's ok, it will be hard to turn back. If anyone disagree with the elevation map, may he speak now ore get mad and organize a revolution later !I think we can pretty much say that an individual will have immense leeway regarding all the landforms involved with their map. They want a mountain that their narrative justifies where none would be on our map they can throw that in, they need to change a coastline to suit their needs, or as islands or whatever I say go for it. The elevation map, and indeed the landmasses are suggestions merely to give people a foundation to work on and not actually reflective or determinative of what is there.

Azelor
08-17-2014, 01:37 AM
Yea I know we have to let some leeway but it's was a joke ;)

And the climates are coming. I still need to check if I haven't mixed the info on January and July again.

Falconius
08-17-2014, 09:49 AM
I've got to say I surprised at how closely the world aligns with Earth. I was expecting some similarity as we have two halves and a big continent like Asia, but there is far more than what I thought.

Azelor
08-17-2014, 02:08 PM
It took a while to do it but I like it. Need some revision here and there probably but it's not so bad. I was going to do the poles separately, so don't bother with them.


January wind and pressure: similar as before but I combined the two maps. It took me 3 times to get the winds right. I think they are for the most part.
Arrows at the poles might not be right but they are ok for now.
66706

July wind and pressure
66707


January precipitation:
66708

no color= dry
dark blue= low
mid blue= moderate
the rest is either wet
or very wet (Pixie is not too clear about that) and everything above fall into the very wet.

July precipitation:
66709

Precipitation maps might need some corrections is some places. It look messy but you can see where the continents are.


And finally:
July temperature map (I still have the January map to do, but I need at least a full hour to do it with that level of precision if I don't mix the layers like last time)
66710


So tell me if you find something wrong with these maps. If it's alright I will do the January temp map. Make the corrections to the temperature and precipitation maps to make them more ''consistent'' (patching holes, things like that). Then it's on with the climates. I will try my method to determine climates based on a CMYK classification. I just need to take the rain and temperature layers in a new CMYK file. Change the 10 temperature colors in Cyan/Magenta. Change the 5 precipitation categories into yellow and black. Put the layers in multiply and look at the results. This is an experiment so I have no idea what I will get but it could save us some time. If it doesn't make sense, we will do it another way.

Azelor
08-17-2014, 11:17 PM
January temperature

66719

There is something wrong with the mountains. They are too hot to my taste. Very high mountains should stay at least cold (under 0 Celsius) even during the summer. The Himalaya is almost at the 30th latitude and some of our mountains are also at these latitudes.

Based on our elevation map :

Low: 0-500m
Moderate:500-1000m
no changes in temperature

1000-2000m : -1 temperature category (like in the tutorial)
2000-4000: -1 (a full category)
4000+ :-2 ( 2 full categories)
6000+ for very high summits, lower the temperature by another 2 categories

If the altitude is Severely hot at 0m
it become Very hot at 1000m
hot at 2000m
mild at 4000m
cold at 6000m...

but when the temperature is at cold or very cold at the base of the mountain, there are no differences because the summit is already at the coldest temperature possible.
I just wonder how cold is our mountains range in the north east. Considering that the temperature is -25 at the base and that the temperature lower by almost 5.5 Celsius for each 1000m. At 6000m = -58 (on average)

Azelor
08-18-2014, 12:46 AM
These are the areas that receive less than 240mm off precipitation a year. Poles excluded. The reason why I ignore the poles is because they are going to be classified as Ice caps, both of them. It's just easier that way unless someone disapprove.

Most of these areas seems logic places for desert and arid climates but the north east continent.. you really need to look at the rain and precipitation map to understand.

66720

In January, the mountains forces the Polar front to go south. This creates offshore winds from the mountains.

66721

In July, the Polar front goes north again blocked by mountains and the ITCZ is too far south so it kinda fall into the Horses latitudes with almost no winds.

66722

Does it make sense ?

I understand that the center of the largest continent is dry. It does seems to make sense. And some of the northern parts are probably not desert. It's possible to have a humid climate if the temperature is low enough.
But that is not taking in account the surrounding areas that only have slightly more rain. They could also turn into deserts or steppes.

Falconius
08-18-2014, 04:51 AM
Does the size of the continents come into play at all? Also I'm assuming that the areas of 240mm precipitation will all be deserts or tundra or the like, does this preclude other areas from being similarly arid in practice? As it seems that there is relatively little "desert" areas if that is the case. Which is fine obviously, it can be a wetter world than Earth and likely is. Also I remember you said the second star didn't have much effect on temperature but was there some? A stabilising effect maybe leading to milder winters warmer summers or none at all?

Falconius
08-18-2014, 09:02 AM
Incidently I think that laying in major rivers, or perhaps just indicating major watersheds is the last step before opening up the map for public claims. I'll start work on that tonight. Or perhaps we should wait till after the climates and biomes are done? Although with all the ground work laid I'd also expect people to be able to figure that out on their own as needed...

Azelor
08-18-2014, 12:06 PM
The second star increases the temperature by 9 Kelvins according to BlackChakram.

I'm not sure if the number is right but I that 's what the formula said and he know more than me on that topic. This could be mitigated by several things including that our planet contain more water, reflect more energy into space (larger ice sheets), the main star is smaller than the Sun...
The second star is so far compared to the main star that the influence is always 9 Kelvins unless it is aligned behind the main star. Then, we might have a solar eclipse but it does not last for very long.


Yes the size on the continent in the south west explain why it is the driest. But some of the regions there are also some of the wettest on the planet. It's a land of contrast. And having low precipitations does not always mean it's a desert... And desert can also span elsewhere. Close to the equator, the annual rain requirement is much higher. The hottest spots could need around 1000mm of rain to stay at least humid. A good thing that we don't have much of these.

If you are talking about the other continents, particularly the one in the North east , then the answer is no; the size is not the major factor. Mountains and the differences in pressure are the most important factors.

BlackChakram
08-18-2014, 12:25 PM
The math for the second star should be right. And it pretty much should just be a constant 9 K increase for the whole planet. Doing some sketches, sometimes the second star would cause seasons to be more mild, sometimes more extreme. It would go on a very slow cycle though. Hundreds of years if not longer for it to change from extreme to mild (per hemisphere). Given how minor the change is, it's probably best to just ignore it except for "cool second star in the sky" kind of stuff.

Azelor
08-18-2014, 12:52 PM
I'm going to do some analysis for the precipitation map to verify that it's not so bad. Combined with the temperature
By continent:


North east:

The south shore:
January: very wet
cool to cold
July: moderate
very hot to hot (it is at 30 degrees latitude after all)
the climate is classified Csa (more or less) (nice, the climate falls into an area that I considered impossible in terms of precipitations)
But the localization make sense

West shore:
Jan: moderate (due to the orographic lift effect)
cold to very cold (mountains are colder)
Jul: wet (polar front)
warm to mild
Dwb/Dwc (even if these climates are usual found in the west ?)

East shore
Jan: moderate/wet
very cold to severely cold
Jul: low
mild to cool
Dsc (again it should be the opposite, maybe it's because of the mountains ?)

Bay
Jan: dry/low depending on the area
cold
Jul: dry
warm
cold desert Bwk (hum, I guess)

Interior
Jan: dry
under -25
Jul: dry (very wet in the west)
mild to cool at lower altitudes, always under 0 at higher altitudes
Dfc/Dfd at lower altitude, Ice cap elsewhere

Azelor
08-18-2014, 01:56 PM
Considering that the orbit of the second star is a prefect circle the minimum distance between the star and the planet is 75 AU and the maximum is at 77 AU. I don't expect a large variation of temperature out of this.
But it is most likely not a circle and the variation should be greater but i agree that it's better to just don't get too much into details.



Some more info on climates:

Central north continent:

South shore:
January: wet
cool
July: moderate
hot
Probably Cfa

North shore:
January: moderate
Very cold-severly cold
July: wet
Mild
Dfc

West shore
Dfb

East:
Moderate low
Cold warm
Dfb ? very similar to the west coast

Interior:
Dry/ dry and low
Very cold hot
Bwk Cold desert (for the most part)


Westernmost continent:
Always moderate to wet
January: mild
July: very hot
Cfa (it’s overly simplified)
The east receives less rain and could become a steppe


Central continent:

North:
winter: hot/ dry
summer: warm hot/ very wet
Am/Aw

South
summer: very hot/ wet
winter: mild/ low dry
Cwa

The closer we get to the center of the continent the lower are the precipitations. The center could be a hot desert with some hot steppes surrounding it.


East south continent (Falconia?)

South coast:
Summer:warm/hot
moderate
Winter: cold/very cold
Wet
Dfa/Dfb (southern part)

Archipelago: Dfa/Cfa (north east)

North coast:
Summer:very hot/hot
Winter: hot/warm
Always relatively wet
Af tropical rainforest

West coast
Summer:very hot
Winter: mild
Always wet
Cfa

Interior:
Summer:very hot/severely hot moderate/wet
Winter: mild dry
Bsh hot steppe

Azelor
08-19-2014, 12:40 AM
Ok I can confirm that the temperature table is working well but the precipitation table is still awful.

About the water I had a idea for some time. It a possible series of natural/human made canals for navigation. Some are more plausible than others
66748

I finished cleaning up the map (Some parts where blurry, not anymore). And added some details.
66749

Png version:
66750

I also did some map for the ice sheets (really rough just for fun)

January
66751
July
66752

Next I will clean up the elevation map and improved it at the same time. i dont plan adding more elements, just make it look more pleasant.
66753

Falconius
08-19-2014, 06:02 AM
Next I will clean up the elevation map and improved it at the same time. i dont plan adding more elements, just make it look more pleasant.
66753
Go for it if you enjoy doing so, but it seem labourious for something not really necessary.

Falconius
08-19-2014, 08:36 AM
Alright here's the watersheds and rivers. The watershed is indicated by the light blue line, water flows away from this and eventually towards the ocean. The thick deep blue line indicate expected major rivers. Again these represent areas a hundred kilometres across at least, so while the rivers can be found within these areas, they do not conform to the area. Nor does it represent a limitation on rivers, just expected major ones, there could easily be major rivers not indicated, and doubtless will be many regular rivers all over the damn place.
66761

The clean PNG:
66762

Edit: I relize I forgot to account for Wilbur's tendancy to keep everything seperate, some rivers might have joined up earlier. I'll look at it when I get home.

Azelor
08-20-2014, 12:50 AM
Alright here's the watersheds and rivers. The watershed is indicated by the light blue line, water flows away from this and eventually towards the ocean. The thick deep blue line indicate expected major rivers. Again these represent areas a hundred kilometres across at least, so while the rivers can be found within these areas, they do not conform to the area. Nor does it represent a limitation on rivers, just expected major ones, there could easily be major rivers not indicated, and doubtless will be many regular rivers all over the damn place.
66761

The clean PNG:
66762

Edit: I relize I forgot to account for Wilbur's tendancy to keep everything seperate, some rivers might have joined up earlier. I'll look at it when I get home.

Not bad, it's pretty close to my expectations.

It does look pretty. You where wondering why the north east was so dry. Heck, it's probably higher than the Himalaya. Let's call it the mountain continent. (But in another language ideally)
66791

Wooho, my 1000th post ! :D
:compass:

Corilliant
08-20-2014, 01:23 AM
You need development for names and details of races and cities? I'd love to help out somehow.

Falconius
08-20-2014, 08:08 AM
That is looking good, it may just be worth the extra effort you are putting in.

Corilliant, you are welcome to develop whatever you wish for the world in whatever capacity, be it stories, civilizations, or even a lists of names for a country. I might suggest that you start a new thread for each module you wish to develop with the tag "CWBP 2" in the beginning of the thread title. For example: "CWBP 2: The History of Heurvale and its Environs" or "CWBP 2: A Brief Summery of Plaje; A Guide Book" or "CWBP 2: The Fluara and Fauna of Gaster" etc. Also include the plot number in brackets eg. "CWBP 2: The History of Heurvale and its Environs (4)" The same will be done for mapping development threads eg "CWBP 2: Map of Gaster (6)" where "(6)" indicates the plot number.

Keep in mind the rough guidelines which still have not been collated into a brief, but which can be found in these threads: http://www.cartographersguild.com/cooperative-worldbuilding-project/26147-cwbp-2-magic-our-world.html, http://www.cartographersguild.com/cooperative-worldbuilding-project/26065-cwbp-2-era-technology.html, http://www.cartographersguild.com/cooperative-worldbuilding-project/25339-cwbp-2-determining-genre-era.html, http://www.cartographersguild.com/cooperative-worldbuilding-project/25647-cwbp-2-overview-outline-current-activity-regarding-new-co-op-project.html
Some of these (such as my neglected overview thread may be out of date so try and take note of the post date. Also keep in mind that if you want to apply your changes to a specific area of the map, you should claim that plot for development even if you are not making a map of it, and then when done it will be released for mapping with your information attached. ie if you claim plot 4 and write background for it but don't map it, the information will be tagged to plot 4 so if someone comes in to map it they use your information to form the country.

Also keep in mind that plot size ideally should be kept around 5oo km square give or take a few hundred (actually its the upper limit we'd like to maintain, people may develop plots as small as they wish). That too should be reflected in the information developed for plots, so information is geared specifically for a territory, as opposed to general continent or world wide information.

Speaking of plots I think its time that we should open up the map for the land grab, Azelor.

Azelor
08-20-2014, 11:27 AM
It's okay to post here in the Guild as long as it's related to mapping. But once we get into world description, I'm not sure we should continue to post it here. It might become inappropriate to post a large number of messages unrelated to cartography.

Luckily we have a wiki (kinda) CWBP2 Wiki (http://cwbp2.wikia.com/wiki/CWBP2_Wiki)

I'm not sure how reliable it is, so I suggest that we keep the mapping part here.

Azelor
08-20-2014, 01:50 PM
Climats, WIP, comments welcome: for mountains, I'll just put alpine biome, vegetation depends on altitude
66796
66797

Elevation, with only 1 missing continent. The gray line shows the maximum tundra extent, on low altitude.
66798
66799

Falconius
08-20-2014, 03:56 PM
A note regarding the north pole: The elevations there make it appear very warped. For work on the poles at this projection you need very long smooth horizontals for it to work. Also what you have essentially creates a mountain region right in the centre of the pole. Looks strange and contrived in G. Projector, which of course makes the south pole island seem even more contrived by comparison.

That said the rest of it is looking really good.

Azelor
08-20-2014, 04:44 PM
There is a black hole in the middle. I guess I will put back some straight lines. Not now unless someone was considering mapping the north pole today.

I think the south is ok. The poles are the only places that are very distorted.

Azelor
08-20-2014, 06:30 PM
Blackchakram: your spot is at the limit of humid and semi-arid climates. The south is a hot steppe BSh and the north is more humid Aw under the ITCZ. South west is probably a hot desert and south east is the rest of the steppe.
In your plot the difference in temperature between summer and winter is around 5-10 Celsius. A dry winter winter and Humid to very humid summer.

Falconius: The climate is probably Af, hot and humid all the time.

Ghost: I classified most of the area as Mediterranean climate but the western part is wetter. Some parts could be considered Cfa (south and west).

Azelor
08-25-2014, 11:55 PM
I'm almost done with the elevation map. I'm taking a break but I'll finish it today.

Azelor
08-26-2014, 02:43 PM
Finished !

Took me more time than expected:

66933
66934

Azelor
08-28-2014, 01:19 AM
I managed to get a basic climate map:

http://www.cartographersguild.com/attachments/regional-world-mapping/66968d1409202683-k%F6ppen%96geiger-climate-classification-made-simpler-i-hope-so-climat-1.jpg


And also a biome map to go with it:

66969

Falconius
08-28-2014, 05:33 AM
Impressive. The climate map is strangely beautiful. I'll add them to the plot post later today.

Falconius
08-28-2014, 09:07 AM
Hmm not too sure why but the forum software keeps telling me the climate map is not a valid image (possibly somthing is wrong with the file name?), so I just put a link to it instead.

Azelor
08-28-2014, 11:21 AM
I updated the other post.

Some climates are missing but they are probably all steppes. The map will definitely need adjustments.

Although the tree line go very far to the north, the forest are very scarce over there. Less than 1m tall.

The areas with the lower precipitation category are classified a bit strangely because it can be almost anything if it's cold enough. Some steppes could become deserts.

And some temperate climates are too rare.

Azelor
08-28-2014, 04:59 PM
I made the color scheme of desert large and it's better. But even with that 95% of the north est steppe remain a steppe. I guess there is not much I can do but accept reality. The cold deserts cover almost twice as much land in the large continent and the high plateau of the northern continent. Hot deserts now appear on some mid latitude island near the tropics , in the central continent and made the one large desert a little larger.

I moved the coldest Ca to the Cb: now we have a transition between Ca and Da. It's close to the 30th parallel at some places but I think it's ok. This has no impact on the biome.




Now unless someone spot something that doesn't make sense, I will consider my method acceptable (but I still need to find the missing colors).

Falconius
08-28-2014, 06:38 PM
Yeah I was thinking the other week how we seem to lack any Africa equivalent continent which is a shame because Africa is pretty interesting. It's OK I guess though since we got some new stuff to explore, also Earth is Earth and this is a different world. It's not so bad as I feel that deserts would likely only form a small part of the maps people want to make, but I could be wrong. I was curious about the abrupt line-like colour change from white to orange at the mountains on the eastern continents along the equator?

Do you have a colour key you could also post?

Perhaps we should try and come up with a name for this world? I wouldn't even know where to start... maybe just a simple vocalization of CWBP... Kwubap? lol.

Azelor
08-28-2014, 07:41 PM
Yeah I was thinking the other week how we seem to lack any Africa equivalent continent which is a shame because Africa is pretty interesting. It's OK I guess though since we got some new stuff to explore, also Earth is Earth and this is a different world. It's not so bad as I feel that deserts would likely only form a small part of the maps people want to make, but I could be wrong. I was curious about the abrupt line-like colour change from white to orange at the mountains on the eastern continents along the equator?

Do you have a colour key you could also post?

Perhaps we should try and come up with a name for this world? I wouldn't even know where to start... maybe just a simple vocalization of CWBP... Kwubap? lol.

Don't you think that the eastern continent look similar to Africa ? large desert surrounded by hot steppes and also a lot of Savannah (they have a particularly dry season). Similar but different since the continent is east-west while Africa is north-south.

The abrupt change is cause by the method I'm using for the precipitation layer. The equatorial climates have 3 colors. The most humid is a darker blue and the dry one is lighter. In fact the second one has 2 tincture of blue. 1 is supposed to symbolize a dry winter and the other is for dry summer. But since they are at the equator, the concept of winter and summer is meaningless. And it doesn't change the climate anyway.

The white area: apparently I don't have these colors in my scheme, maybe I missed them since there is 1000 combinations. But it's odd that they are all at the same place. The method is not to blame because i have found one that was not there.

Yea, I will use the proper colors next time.


I choose Falcazor (not really a good name for the world but interesting)
No, seriously I was considering Demorgos. It's a deformation of the word Demiurge, the world creator. We could add a suffixe or prefixe to include ''land of'' (or not because that part has been forgotten). The meaning would be land of the creator.
According to my friend Google: In Greek it's: γη του δημιουργού or gi̱ tou di̱miourgoú
the pronunciation is somewhere between Jitou and Yitou but we can also drop it or deform the thing even further.

Falconius
08-28-2014, 08:46 PM
Perhaps it's just the placement of the continents but I was considering that lower eastern continent more like the southern part of North America. Of course it also reminds me of the veldt in FF 6 which was like African savannah so maybe I'm just crazy.

Demorgos is fine, three syllables is kinda heavy but it could also be cool if it was elaborate, or perhaps if we corrupt it a bit more - Demgors - Dremgos - Morgos (I've definitely heard this one before) - Dromogos - Demrog -Emregos. Or more elaborate perhaps with the J/Yitou (although it sounds weird to my ear as a prefix) - Demrogos Jitous (I kinda like this one)- Demorgos Jiyou - Jiyou Demorgos...

Azelor
08-29-2014, 01:01 PM
66996

66997

still need some work but I think it's ok for now.

Azelor
08-30-2014, 01:41 AM
A question about scale:

for the world map it's 1km = 0,25 pixel
For regional maps, what scale should we use ?
If I make the map 10 times larger I get a file of 2700 x 2700 pixels when I take the red selected area. I admit it's a relatively large area so we could go with something bigger but we need to have a reasonable size.
with this we have 1 km = 2,5 pixel

10 times larger, does this sound OK, too small or too big ?


I was also wondering about the rivers. Does the new landscape influence the waterflow? What method do you use to decide where to put them ?

Falconius
08-30-2014, 01:38 PM
What regional maps?

The water flow is just a generalization as is everything else. I made a grey scale hight map imported it into Wilbur and ran some various erosion cycles. I don't see why the new landscape would particularly affect the water flow given its generality.

Azelor
08-30-2014, 05:17 PM
The colored areas of this map. I named them regional maps but they can also simply be called plots.

http://www.cartographersguild.com/attachments/cooperative-worldbuilding-project/66829d1408709169-cwbp-2-world-map-plot-listings-get-yours-now-cwbp2-landmasses-clean.png

Falconius
08-30-2014, 06:07 PM
People will use whatever scale that suits their purpose I imagine, there's no reason to standardize the scale of plot maps that I can think of. Why do you want to use a specific scale?

Azelor
08-30-2014, 10:21 PM
Because that's how they did with the other project. I think the maps will look less mismatched.

What do you think about the scale Redrobes ?

Falconius
08-31-2014, 04:58 AM
Part of the charm is that the maps will look mismatched. Their project was geared to specifically mapping the whole world one block at a time. I don't think that should be our aim. I think our aim should be to provide an interesting world with very many diverse developments from which people can choose to suit their purposes (I'm thinking gaming mostly). But the real reason I think it is fruitless to manage the scale like that is that projection distortion makes it a pointless task. No matter what convention is chosen it won't remain valid between the different maps.

Redrobes
08-31-2014, 01:21 PM
Well, I am taking a back seat in this CWBP so its all up to you but it would seem odd to me to have a world map that is broken up into chunks where the plots are then of different scales.

I thought the idea would generally be that you could walk off of one plot and onto your neighbors and that the roads and terrain would be at the same scale. Its as though the underlying world is there as one thing but you all go in a map it differently - not that the underlying world is different per plot.

Seems to me that if you had different scales per plot then you might as well have 50 random plots that don't butt up at all.I thought that the scale was 1 pixel is 4 km at the equator dropping to 0 at the poles in the usual Mercator style. The problem with mapping a globe is that you have curved space. If the plots are small enough then you can select the scale from the middle point of the plot and then make it that all over the bitmap and accept the slight distortion. Or as mentioned before, you can reproject it (gdal etc) to something of equal area and then transform it back again. Note, I wouldn't do this as its too much hassle but its an option. So choose small plots and the issue goes away. But yes, a house at the pole will stretch all the way across the world map since the pixels there map near to a point at the poles.

I think one of the big differences between the old and new coop discussions are that here it seems that people believe that once all the plots are taken its all done. I think what was understood more clearly - well ok maybe just discussed more frequently - is that other people would come along and take a plot regional map and then map something of larger scale within it, like a city for example. Maybe it would help if I pointed people at my vid I made of the last CWBP showing the state of play near to the end. You will see that its just not possible or sensible to map cities within the plots in the top most plot map and that you will necessarily have to go down a level and make more maps within it. So there are only going to be regional maps at the plot level since any city at the equator of a size less than 4Km will be mapped with one pixel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qELcbKXdRm8But
or
http://www.viewing.ltd.uk/Temp/CG/VD_Demo8/ViewingDale_x264.avi

I say again - you don't have to follow what happened before. I'll try to fit all the maps together with my app if they are supposed to fit together. And I would suggest to people to have a little think about what one pixel means at the world scale on their plot. If you took 200 pixels of world map plot size at the equator area and then made a 4000 pixel map from it then your 4000 pixels mean 200 * 4km or 800km or 1 pixel is 200m. So features should represent that kind of scale - so not really suitable for houses etc.

Do you know I have reread the thread again and got a different impression here about what is being asked. Ummm - the scale is changing as you go vertically up and down the world map but that they are the same scale at a border between neighbors. So its the same scale in a world projected map but since the world is global and curved its changing across the map vertically. And yes you should deal with that so my opinion is to choose small plots and pick the center pixel as the scaling. I'll so another post with the scaling math...

Falconius
08-31-2014, 01:33 PM
The way I'm looking at it is that this is a world, and we are merely mapping/developing portions of it. The same as if we were just mapping or recording history of places on earth. You don't make a map of China the same scale as a map of Jamaica, you don't even necessarily use the same projection. We are not trying to map every inch of the surface, just the places that interest us. If plots abut then they have to match borders but there is still no reason to match scale, if you know a road comes in 4 km from the bottom edge it doesn't matter that bordering map uses 1km:4pixels and you use 1km:6pixels, all that matters is that what is represented is a road at 4km above the bottom edge.

Redrobes
08-31-2014, 01:50 PM
Oh I see what you are saying now.

There are two types of scale being used here interchangeably. You have mapping scale which is 10000 pixels = 40,000 km from the original bitmap and also the bitmap scaling which is just resolution.

Ahh in that case, no I dont think it matters at all what resolution you make the images for the maps just that the scale of the maps is consistent. The resolution could be that you choose a 4000 pixel map for your plot region and then within that make a 4000 pixel map of the city within that plot. Now ignoring for a second this curved space stuff and just assume your at the equator then your map scale for the region is 200m per pixel, your city map is going to me something like 1m per pixel or maybe even less but the map scale is consistent in that the features on the two maps are the same size relative to the map scale.

The reason I am offering to do the world map is that I write ViewingDale which was an app to handle many bitmaps of maps at different resolutions and to adjust them all so that they make one seamless map at a given scale. Ok it doesnt handle curved space like say GIS packages or google earth might like to do but it has realtime pan and zoom and has lots of useful features to handle changes to a world map. That is most unlike most bitmapped based world mapping apps like say google earth where you would have to push the one giant bitmap through a script to break it all up into its tiles again. Most other GIS apps are vector based and so dont care about bitmap resolution. Unfortunately, very few people like to map in vector. The bitmap - vector argument rages ever on within these forums.... so lets not go there.

So my opinion and what happened last time is that people need to relate their chosen location to a map scale and then map it at that scale. But the image resolution was not important - as was the mapping style. They were up to the mapping individuals, computer capabilities, preference.To make one giant bitmap of the results would normally be a bit of a chore since one would normally have to rescale all the bitmaps and layer them up. But I have my app which does all of that in real time so thats why I offer to do it. Its hard for everyone but me.

Redrobes
08-31-2014, 02:12 PM
For info, with the image posted at the top of the thread and world size specified, then the scale of the map at Y pixel positions are as follows:

At north pole there is no scale.

Y=125, Scale=313 in m/pix
Y=250, Scale=625 in m/pix
Y=375, Scale=933 in m/pix
Y=500, Scale=1236 in m/pix
Y=625, Scale=1530 in m/pix
Y=750, Scale=1815 in m/pix
Y=875, Scale=2089 in m/pix
Y=1000, Scale=2351 in m/pix
Y=1125, Scale=2597 in m/pix
Y=1250, Scale=2828 in m/pix
Y=1375, Scale=3041 in m/pix
Y=1500, Scale=3236 in m/pix
Y=1625, Scale=3410 in m/pix
Y=1750, Scale=3564 in m/pix
Y=1875, Scale=3695 in m/pix
Y=2000, Scale=3804 in m/pix
Y=2125, Scale=3889 in m/pix
Y=2250, Scale=3950 in m/pix
Y=2375, Scale=3987 in m/pix
Y=2500, Scale=4000 in m/pix

And it reverses again down to the south pole. So treat Y as distance in pixel from the top or bottom of world image.

Falconius
08-31-2014, 02:38 PM
I was going to try and figure out a scale like that to put in the front post. Thank God you saved me the trouble.

Azelor
08-31-2014, 04:49 PM
The resolution in DPI is not important, only the number of pixels is?

I understand that with the equirectangular projection, things at the poles appear much bigger than what they are in reality.
If we decide that a plot should be X10 times larger than the world map for the specified area at the equator, does it mean that this multiplacator will need to change according to the latitude ?

Redrobes
09-01-2014, 07:11 AM
The DPI is irrelevant and is another kind of scale.

The map has a real world size and the images for it have a bitmap number of pixels we call resolution. For every image there is a scale from pixels to real world ratio and this changes from the equator to the poles as given in the table above because of the spherical shape of the globe and rectangular shape of the bitmap representing it.

DPI is used when you print an image to a piece of paper which also has a real world size of about 12 inches which is a lot less than 40,000km so there is a scale in pixels to inches which is DPI for paper and a scale of pixels to km, miles, leagues etc for the map. Once you print the map onto paper there is now a new scale of km, miles, leagues ratio to inches of paper length. This is the more normal miles per inch that you might see on a bought map.

So in order to get a scale you need TWO units and the scale is the ratio between the two. It doesnt matter what one of the values is alone, the scale only matters when you have two values. It matters what size your mountains and cities are on the bitmap as a ratio to the size of the landmass. That is fixed by the CWBP map world and that spherical adjustment that you need to make for it. But for every bitmap you can choose the resolution and map it at whatever pixels per km you want so long as the mapping is matched to the landmass sizes. You can print the final maps out onto whatever size paper you feed into your printer and then you must pick your DPI to make it fit.

This link might help explain scale, resolution and DPI.
http://www.cartographersguild.com/tutorials-how/2596-%5Baward-winner%5D-bitmapped-images-technical-side-things-explained.html

Azelor
09-01-2014, 12:25 PM
I already know about DPI. My point was that if you try to merge 2 files with a different DPI, you will need to adjust the size/DPI manually.

But does that mean that the same object will have a different size depending where it is on the map?


Here's an example, if I take two different latitudes:
y=875 (more or less the 60th parallel) and y=2500 (equator)

the second is twice as big as the first
if a mountain is 20 km wide at the equator (5 pixels), it is still 20 km at y=875 but it appear larger at 10 pixels since the map is stretched?




But I'm not sure if you answered my second question or maybe I was not clear.
I mean, regional maps or plots should show more details than the world map. In order to do that, they need to be bigger (more pixels). But how big should they be? 5, 10, 20 times bigger?
If we have two map at the equator, next to each other, is it important to use the same size (x5,x10,x20...) or not?

I was imagining that a desert could be mapped with a different multiplicator since it's less interesting but I'm not sure it's a good idea.

Redrobes
09-01-2014, 03:58 PM
Yes, to the degree that a house at the pole will take up all of the top row of pixels as the scale goes to 0 or infinity depending on how you measure it. Our normal Mercator style Earth map does significantly distort the areas of countries leading to a very false sense of land mass size.

I don't know if you have to have a fixed scaling multiplier for larger scale maps especially since it also depends on the latitude, but you could specify that as a requirement if you like. If you want to make a single map of all the plots then you do need to resample all the map images together. That's normally a nightmare which is why I wrote my app.

You will find that city maps will probably need to be more than 20x resolution on the original bitmap scaling. Its likely that you will need a bitmap scale of one pixel to about 20cm so that is more like 1 pixel on the original map is 20,000 pixels of city mapping at the equator ! Or to put it another way - one pixel of the original map is not likely to cover a whole city in a normal fantasy demographic. So you wont be able to make one bitmap to hold all the world showing anything with city like detail.

You are bound to have discreet mapping levels or to use a zoom style map browser.

Azelor
09-01-2014, 04:18 PM
Discreet mapping


I don't know if you have to have a fixed scaling multiplier for larger scale maps especially since it also depends on the latitude, but you could specify that as a requirement if you like. If you want to make a single map of all the plots then you do need to resample all the map images together. That's normally a nightmare which is why I wrote my app.

So it's not really a requirement and I guess the level of detail depend on the artist?

Azelor
09-02-2014, 01:29 PM
So do you (anyone) think we need a fixed scaling multiplier (that could be adjusted to the latitude or not) ?

Redrobes
09-02-2014, 04:08 PM
If that was directed at me then I am not bothered. It makes no difference to me whether its fixed or not so I abstain from that kind of decision or vote. If someone else is also planning on making an overall world map of the plots then let them decide. Personally I think it would be a good idea for someone else to additionally make another version of the combined world map in case I am not available for some reason.

Azelor
09-02-2014, 09:51 PM
I can collect the maps (in Jpeg or PNG) but I'm not sure I can put them together.

I will go with no scaling multiplier if Falconius agrees.

Falconius
09-03-2014, 03:21 AM
I don't care, I'm pretty sure I'm making my map in a slight perspective.... sooo.... it won't join up with anything, thankfully it's an island.

Azelor
09-03-2014, 12:37 PM
No scaling then. Now we just need to settle with the copyright topic.