I still consider myself new to the guild, and a newbie at creating maps - but I'll start this thread so I can get some opinions and pro advice.
The general idea is this: a world that hasn't been harmed, where life has got to grow in peace with different chaotic circumstances. No major extinction events; no comets, no great changes in climate and temperature, 5-10 degree axial tilt. Earth untouched? I want as much life as possible, mammals, reptiles, dinosaurs, humans and so on. Oh, and it is fantasy (no/low magic). Think Dinotopia, or Dino Riders without lasers. Hah.
Here are some early drafts:
So I've been playing around in paint (I love MS Paint):
Another one from paint:
This one's from PS, I wanted to try out working with globes from the start:
I have also been using the Saderan-tutorial by Tear lately, I really like the style it can produce and I think I'll be using it for creating the world. I've got some other ideas that I'll be doing when the first map is done.
Any comments are welcome, praise or criticism, love or hate aso.
Last edited by urxed; 04-05-2013 at 09:27 AM.
Well, my first two thoughts are:
1) Minimize the polar land masses and maximize the temperate and tropical land areas. There's a greater variety of life in those in those regions.
2) Maybe save the borders for when you have the map finalized. Depending on the detail in your actual map, excessive backgrounds and borders can be distracting. Also, it depends on what look you're going after. Antique? Scientific/technical? Atlas?
One other thought...I like the idea of thinking of the place as an actual planet, and thus the circular hemispheres, but it's very hard to visualize actual land area on a hemispherical map. Is there a reason you've not plotted out the map on an equirectangular layout or other projection?
2. Yeah, absolutely. That was just a minor detail I did when I had some spare time over. Generally I'm looking for some kind of neo-atlas style with scientific feel - I'm not going all out science though, my knowledge is not enough. But that map will be for me to look upon so that I can flesh out good stories and so on. I'll be creating other maps of areas throughout the world in a "old style" manner (I love this style:
(3). Well, I don't really care about the right projections or if it's distorted or not - I just like the feel of it when it is portrayed as a planet. I find it gives a better view of how large/small things are. When looking at an atlas map of earth you don't really understand how humongous some of the oceans really are, such details looks better in a "fake" planetary style. I might just put it on a flat area map later on though.
Last edited by urxed; 01-10-2013 at 04:32 AM. Reason: positioning
You don't need much land at the poles. Earth has none at its north pole. Yet it has a nice ice cap...or at least it used to have ice in the summer. The way things are heating up, they may be looking at ice free summers in their northern hemisphere. You could still put some land masses near the poles. Greenland, Iceland, and the Scandinavian countries are examples. The temperature of the planet depends on so many other factors, ice being a relatively minor one. Ice is an effect of temperature, not so much a cause of temperature. Besides, with the minor axial tilt your planet has, think of it as being in a perpetual spring thaw. There will always be ice at the poles because there is little seasonal change on the planet.
Keep in mind that when you do a hemispherical map as you've done, you're not necessarily getting a better view of how large/small things are.
That's why people make flat maps.
With a hemispherical map, you're basically looking at a picture of the world, not a map of the world, and thus the only things that are actual size are the areas facing the viewer at the equator. Now if you're in a quandary as to whether you want distortion showing on some parts of a picture of a globe versus distortions at the top and bottom of an equirectangular map (or some other projection), welcome to the club! That's what mapmakers have been trying to solve for hundreds of years.
By the way, I like that style of map you showed. It's definitely an antique look.
Last edited by ManOfSteel; 01-11-2013 at 01:06 AM.
Any of these projections are flat. That's the point, they project the globe onto a flat map. If you mean you want to use a cylindrical projection later (comes out as a rectangle) then you really do have to get this stuff right from the beginning or you will be in for nothing but pain later and you'll have to start over almost from scratch. If you want both cylindrical and hemispherical, it would be easiest to do the cylindrical one first.
Also, hemispherical maps are not fake, at least not inherently. This goes equally for Stereographic or Orthographic. What would make it fake is if you do it wrong, which is of course fine if all you really want is a pretty picture and don't want to worry about all this cartography stuff.
Orthographic just isn't particularly suited to reference maps like this since the severe distortion of shape can make it hard to recognize things. It's more useful for locator maps like locator insets or the country locator maps on Wikipedia. If you want to do Stereographic instead (Like the above map), I have a template you could use: Mecator Map Vector Template
I've got some questions, for Hai-Etlik mostly:
On your map of mars you have created (I suppose?) exact borders and latitude/longitude lines (I'm sorry I suck at the language part here).
I wonder how you did this.
Are there any tutorials, advice, tips & tricks?
I use PS CS2 mostly, but I'm willing to learn how to use Inkscape, GIMP or maybe even QGIS (can't really afford anything else).
The lines of the graticule are 15° apart so the outer boarder is just in evenly spaced 3° sections. At the equator, I cheated and just divided each graticule spacing into 5 equal sized boxes. This is not strictly accurate but close enough for this map. Inkscape would probably be a better tool for this sort of precise repeated line work thing than Photoshop. As for QGIS, I think you might want to hold off on that for now.