# Lands of Fagacea

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page
Page 5 of 28 First ... 3456715 ... Last
• 01-02-2013, 06:10 PM
aquarits
not sure lol, i am addict ;)
Lets see till when i will keep doing ahhaha, honestly it is helping kill my time for my next 13 months :D
• 01-02-2013, 11:31 PM
Hai-Etlik
Quote:

Originally Posted by aquarits
Right, doing all things in same time :D impossible get bored!

JB and Hai need that you 2 check if gratitudes are right. I made a second grid with scales of 25 mm so i can keep controlling the size of my planet, i still need to work in 2 poles. Follow the pictures for checking, i i go back to details :P

I'm afraid that doesn't make sense unless the planet is quite oblate, which would mean it's rotating much faster than Earth. Or you've got the cylindrical projection surface so large it's not touching the globe at all (which is bad)

An Equidistant Cylindrical map of a full globe should have an aspect ratio of 2:1 or less. Also, it's not a good projection for final maps, of a full globe OR for a region. It's mostly something you use as an intermediary step of for storing raw data before projecting it for a finished map. The projection produces particularly unpleasant looking distortion by stretching things out horizontally near the poles. That means if you want to use this projection, you have to draw that distortion into the map, otherwise it's the land on the globe that's distorted (which will be evident to cartographers who look at the map, and it will be obvious to you if you ever try to change the projection or put it on a globe in 3D.

Also, you can't measure distance on a global map except in certain specific conditions. For instance, you can only measure distance on a Normal Equidistant Cylindrical map north-south, or if you stay fairly close to the standard parallels. Projections that have a geometric "projection surface" will preserve distances where they have the projection surface close to the surface of the globe and will distort it where the two surfaces diverge. So that's the Standard Parallels of Cylindrical and Conic projections, and the centre of Azimuthal projections.

That's why just zooming on on a global map doesn't make for good regional maps. You need to use a regional projection suited to the particular region. The sort of exception is that the Mercator projection can be used to get an OK regional map at large scales, and it works as a small scale global map for certain purposes (It used to be the standard "wall map" projection, even though it's not very good in that role) At medium scales, Mercator really isn't a very good choice, except for navigation.

If you are using an appropriate regional projection, then your regional maps can be used to measure distance fairly accurately. The smaller the extent, the less distortion there will be. Unfortunately, this isn't something you can do with ordinary graphics software.

If you don't want to deal with all that, you can always just make your world flat. That lets you use a flat map without any problem, although a lot of things we take for granted (the horizon, that north and south mean something and impact the climate, compasses and celestial navigation) depend on the earth being spherical so a flat world would be a bit odd to live on.
• 01-03-2013, 12:23 PM
aquarits
You right about the oblate, was me, missing to say that i not including the poles in the map, coz it make the file big and hard to work. I use one file to define the shape using the 3D tools (sphere), and i transter the shape for other file, and i dont use the amount of memory to work. Following some adivices from "waldronate" in page 2.
Just now, reading what u said and working in the poles that i understood what you said about the grids/ gratitudes. Yes, maybe i can get real dimensions in my center, but when close to the poles, grids become close, making a wrong measure, or if i make it plane, i will get a bigger dimension btw 2 points that are distant.
But the question is,after i draw in a 3D sphere, when i make it plane, i dont get a deformation like u said in the Mercator Projection?
Like i read here, my poles and islands are much bigger then what i made in the original shape. Looks like this example:

When distorced in a Mercator Projection "Greenland takes as much space on the map as Africa, when in reality Africa's area is 14 times greater and Greenland's is comparable to Algeria's alone."

Mercator projection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And if the distocion is right, the scale that i used in my areas, will be right in a "flatled" pole? Coz i am thinking in just include my scales getting a projection, when i put it in the sphere. This is the final shape with the gratitudes and the floor levels. Still missing the elements, but almost finished.

For now ,guess i cant do all thos modifications, so i will finishing it getting my last level of the shape and fast will re-draw making all corrections like rivers and gratitudes, and yes, probly for next step i will not use the deformation :D

ty Hai for all assintance, keep saying, i am learning a lots!

Off question: If i upload one file with the same name but with new modfications, i will auto update my files here in Cart Guild dir?
• 01-04-2013, 03:16 AM
Hai-Etlik
OK, judging by the graticule on that version of the map, it's Equidistant Cylindrical, with standard parallels at 42.4 degrees.

That is not a Mercator graticule so the distortion behaves differently. In Equidistant things get stretched out east-west (horizontally) as you near the poles, but distances remain constant north-south (vertically). Mercator compensates for this by adding a north-south stretch equal to the east-west stretch. So everything gets bigger as you near the poles, but it does so consistently and so it preserves angles. (in cartography speak, it's "Conformal"). If that doesn't make sense, think of it as preserving the shapes of things. That's not exactly correct, but it's the easiest way of thinking about it.

Mercator has a rather odd property. It's stretching each parallel out to the width of the map, and then adding the same stretch to the height. The poles are just single points though, so in a rough sense, stretching them out out to lines is infinite stretch, so there needs to be infinite vertical stretch, so the poles are infinitely far away from the equator. In practice, you have to decide how much you want to cut off at the poles.

If you want your map to be in the Mercator projection, you need to use a different graticule. The spacing of the parallels (horizontal lines) needs to increase as you move away from the equator. you can get a Mercator graticule here: http://www.cartographersguild.com/ma...-template.html It spans from 85 S to 85 N. But you can trim off the top and bottom if you want.

On the other hand, it's the only projection which lets you put a compass rose or straight rumb lines (the lines radiating from compasses on some maps) on a global map. All other projections distort compass directions.

Equidistant Cylindrical is generally easier to transform. For instance there's a handy little program called G.Projector that can take equidistant maps and project into just about anything you want, and you can easily wrap it around a globe in 3D graphics software. The difficulty is that it's hard to draw in the first place because of the uneven distortion, and you have to reproject it into something else to get a decent map.

Mercator is easier to draw because the distortion is consistent. You still need to be aware of it, but it's easier. You can also use it "as is" for a world map, and you can get away with zooming in on it to get regional maps, although it's still problematic. The downside is that there aren't any simple tools for re-projecting it like G.Projector. You need to go through a more complicated process and use more advanced tools like QuantumGIS. It's not actually that great a choice for a general reference map, but it's a bad choice that was popular, and it looks a lot better than Equidistant Cylindrical.
• 01-04-2013, 11:53 AM
aquarits
Hai, I am Impressed! You are a chest of knowledge.
I dowlnoaded the GProjector and checked somethings, ofc not so specific, but just about my shape.

Dunno how to explain right, so i will describe what i did.
I used a 3D software (Autodesk Inventor) creating my globe and draw my shape (draw and emboss the shape), after it i made a "flat" getting all my globe (elipse) in a plane. Checking the GProjector, i guess it is like a Orth projection, my shape already have the the grids with the same dimension that i got in the globe.
See image, that i have 25 mm in the center and the same 25 mm close to the pole. Is a very close dimension when i made the dimension in only one plane, is like if the software stretch the pole to my grid dimension, in this case 25 mm.

After it i tried 2 things, set my pole shape in ortho GProjector and in 3D function of Photoshop.
I get exaclty same shape, i believe that same dimension that i got in my origial shape. So i need to do few adjstments to get the real shape. Sinse i dont make the grid fix, i guess i can get the real dimension. Like i did im my maps, i did wrong, coz used only one grid for the entire map. Guess i have to get the projection, get the area to be detailed and after it, set one point to insert my scale, following points that i got flatting in Inventor or the shape from GProjector. Where is called Equiretangular projection.This is my pole shape, comparing my first in Inventor, GP and Photoshop.

Now, following your tuto, i am still trying undertand how to get the "real" distance using the Gratitudes, probly i am having problens with math/english, if u can simply for me i apreciate.
You conviced me to remove the grid, probly getting a "game version" and a "beliveable version" :D
About the distorsion, i can get a "real" projection and close up and give up from the distorsion effect that used in my maps.

Thank you for sharing all your experience!!!
heh, it being a nice learn road!

*i dunno how to use ur Mercator template in Photoshop :P *
• 01-04-2013, 08:52 PM
aquarits
Ok, 3 months to get this. Now i go back to pencil and paper to make the improvements.
• 01-04-2013, 08:53 PM
Hai-Etlik
Quote:

Originally Posted by aquarits
Hai, I am Impressed! You are a chest of knowledge.
I dowlnoaded the GProjector and checked somethings, ofc not so specific, but just about my shape.

Dunno how to explain right, so i will describe what i did.
I used a 3D software (Autodesk Inventor) creating my globe and draw my shape (draw and emboss the shape), after it i made a "flat" getting all my globe (elipse) in a plane. Checking the GProjector, i guess it is like a Orth projection, my shape already have the the grids with the same dimension that i got in the globe.
See image, that i have 25 mm in the center and the same 25 mm close to the pole. Is a very close dimension when i made the dimension in only one plane, is like if the software stretch the pole to my grid dimension, in this case 25 mm.

I'm sorry but I'm really not sure what you are trying to do here.

Quote:

After it i tried 2 things, set my pole shape in ortho GProjector and in 3D function of Photoshop.
I get exaclty same shape, i believe that same dimension that i got in my origial shape. So i need to do few adjstments to get the real shape. Sinse i dont make the grid fix, i guess i can get the real dimension. Like i did im my maps, i did wrong, coz used only one grid for the entire map. Guess i have to get the projection, get the area to be detailed and after it, set one point to insert my scale, following points that i got flatting in Inventor or the shape from GProjector. Where is called Equiretangular projection.This is my pole shape, comparing my first in Inventor, GP and Photoshop.

Now, following your tuto, i am still trying undertand how to get the "real" distance using the Gratitudes, probly i am having problens with math/english, if u can simply for me i apreciate.
You conviced me to remove the grid, probly getting a "game version" and a "beliveable version" :D
About the distorsion, i can get a "real" projection and close up and give up from the distorsion effect that used in my maps.

Thank you for sharing all your experience!!!
heh, it being a nice learn road!

*i dunno how to use ur Mercator template in Photoshop :P *
It sounds like this is probably the way you should go, use the equidistant map as the "raw data" adjust it until you get the right distortion, then export to your final projection and apply styling. You wouldn't need my Mercator template working this way. If you want a Mercator map, just select the Mercator option in G.Projector. If you want a graticule on it, G.Projector can add one for you.

For your regional maps, there are a lot of options to choose from. I would recommend against using Orthographic for this. For a fairly compact region, an Azimuthal projection would work well, and is fairly simple, enter the latitude and longitude of the centre of the map. For larger areas, particularly if they run mostly east-west and in higher latitudes, Conic projections work well. You need to pick to standard parallels near the top and bottom of the area, and a central meridian to set where the middle is east-west. It's hard to explain so you'll just have to experiment. Finally, for regions that run mostly north-south, transverse cylindrical projections work well but I don't think G.Projector supports them. I'd recommend using the conformal versions unless you specifically need equal area: Stereographic for azimuthal maps, Lambert Conformal Conic (LCC) for conic maps, and Transverse Mercator for transverse maps.

As long as your regional maps use appropriate projections and don't try to cover too large of an area (like a whole hemisphere) areas, angles, and straight line distances should be approximately correct regardless of which particular projection you use.

If you want the graticule as a separate layer, feed in a blank, transparent image, set all the parameters exactly the same as when you projected the map, add the graticule, and export, then load as a layer over top of the projected base map.
• 01-04-2013, 09:09 PM
aquarits
Quote:

Originally Posted by aquarits
Dunno how to explain right, so i will describe what i did.
I used a 3D software (Autodesk Inventor) creating my globe and draw my shape (draw and emboss the shape), after it i made a "flat" getting all my globe (elipse) in a plane. Checking the GProjector, i guess it is like a Orth projection, my shape already have the the grids with the same dimension that i got in the globe.
See image, that i have 25 mm in the center and the same 25 mm close to the pole. Is a very close dimension when i made the dimension in only one plane, is like if the software stretch the pole to my grid dimension, in this case 25 mm.

Just trying to say how i got the grids of my old maps, like software stretching the image small at poles to 25 mm in a plane image. But its ok, doesn't matter now :D going to start the things righ! :)

Ok, thanks for all projection references!
• 01-05-2013, 09:58 PM
aquarits
This is just my template for the new maps. The map detailed "IS NOT" my last version, just used it to define the template and what new colors i have to use in my new version.
I loved!! Thank for the tips.