I'll probably keep using 45º 57.7% but I have to admit, the idea that the sides would be the same length also appeals to me on some deep, fundamental level Thank you for this post though, reading the links and my follow-up work has taught me a few new things, so that's ++good!

cheers,
Meshon
Originally Posted by Meshon
[...] what will I gain by using this transform?
I haven't a clue, to be honest.

For me, personally, the answer is 'peace of mind'.
Workmates accuse me of being obsessive compulsive, but I reckon that I just have some slightly over-developed perfectionism.

Oh, and I probably have less idea than you how the math works.
Wikipedia told me that 'true' isometric has to have 120° angles, for some reason or other. So I s'pose that's where the 30 and 120 degree bits came from?
The equations were completely opaque to my mind.
All I know is that I wanted Inkscape's grid to agree with the transform, so they could be happy together and harmonious and stuff.
Updated 04-15-2015 at 08:30 AM by Baile nam Fonn
Oooh, that's subtle! I had to run through the process myself to understand (the math gears in my brain are missing a couple teeth) but I see now that you end up with isometric grid "squares" with exactly the same side length as the original.

Now, I know I can make isometricky looking maps with the 45º 57.7% method, but what will I gain by using this transform? If it sounds like I'm being doubtful, I'm totally not. I'm interested, I just can't think of anything that this would help me to do better, so I'm hoping you can do the thinking for me

Also learning that InkScape has a snappable axonometric grid is a pretty big deal for me in itself. You know, since I pay for Illustrator I'm not allowed to have nice things... Adobe! *shakes fist

cheers,
Meshon
Originally Posted by Meshon
I'm not sure if this is the same thing but to get my top downs into an isometric shape I rotate 45º and then scale the vertical to 57.7% of original.

Aha! I went and read the page you linked. The more complex transform lets you do vertical faces! I am so bookmarking that. I think I haven't quite yet even realized how awesome this will be.

However, in case all you're doing is taking a standard top-down grided map and turning it into the base layer for an isometric map, the two-part transform I mentioned will do the trick.

cheers,
Meshon
Thanks for the tip, Meshon!

I had a strong suspicion that my quickly hacked together hop, skip and jump wasn't the pinnacle of elegance.

[testing it now...]

..Unfortunately, the 45, 57.7 transform fell short of passing my measure tool test. I tried toying around and got pretty close to 30°, but it stubbornly kept closer to 4 pixels tile length than 5.
I want a transform that's perfectly compatible with the axonometric grid's angles & measures-- grid snapping is my friend.

{Minor aside: I've made the arbitrary decision to up my primitive tile to 6 pixels, 3 to a meter. My Z axis will likewise be upped to 9 pixels between planes. I like the number three. Nine is fun too.}
I'm not sure if this is the same thing but to get my top downs into an isometric shape I rotate 45º and then scale the vertical to 57.7% of original.

Aha! I went and read the page you linked. The more complex transform lets you do vertical faces! I am so bookmarking that. I think I haven't quite yet even realized how awesome this will be.

However, in case all you're doing is taking a standard top-down grided map and turning it into the base layer for an isometric map, the two-part transform I mentioned will do the trick.

cheers,
Meshon
Heh, neat!
Abrahadarba, again, I appreciate the feedback.

I thought I made it clear in my last response, but I'll reiterate... the map right here was one step in a longer process. This version is irrelevant now. Please see the semi-finished version with a border in the album I linked to in my previous response.

Thanks.
I noticed that a lot of the erosive force you've expressed in the image have carried over into the ocean levels - if you can, can I suggest that you ease off on the erosion below sea levels? Oceans - while having a powerful erosive force - tend not to have a lot of incising and such in the ground supporting it; just nit-picking really...
abrahadarba, thanks for taking the time to comment and provide feedback. This map has gone through some updates. Here's a link to my WIP album for that map. As for more details like lakes and such, since this is a world map, only the largest and most prominent bodies of water will be shown. This world map has changed many times over the years and is sort of an evolving project until I actually start publishing the novels that go with it. Some version of this map may show inhabited areas and named regions and such, but not this particular map. With the exception of a few touch-ups I still want to do this version of this map is pretty much finished (see the link above for further progress). I'm working on some different projections and alternate presentations of this map, but I haven't had much progress lately.

As for the mountains/land/ocean floor shaping is all done in Fractal Terrains and another program called Wilbur. Those applications allow me to plug in numerical values to shape the land and such to create incising and erosion. Then once I'm done with all that I do the artistic stuff in Photoshop.
As someone looking to produce a similarly executed image, I can say you have a quality piece of work there...
if I may be so bold, however: the desert areas look a little bright to me - you might want to adjust them to look a little darker/more matted..?
I'd be interested in seeing this piece with river systems & lakes included (if there are any), and then another layer sporting inhabited areas (did you work with a tectonic layer as well? Some of the mountainous areas look a bit unnatural - just an opinion...)
How did you generate the mountain shadowing?
Great work - keep on it

(I just spotted all the river systems: it could use some lakes/inland seas in my humble opinion)
Updated 03-29-2015 at 08:10 PM by abrahadarba