Great observation, Jalyha, but without an obvious scale the differences of size between the smallest and largest remain relative which takes us no further?
Originally Posted by Jalyha
One possibility sort of along the same track, may be that it might have more to do us building up an internal framework of expectation from looking at lots of other maps in the past and (subconsciously) applying those to Diamond's map. So maybe it's a case of our minds saying something like 'In other maps I've seen where the waterlines are that big and the islands are that big and the coast is that fractalised, the mountains are usually smaller than the ones you have drawn.
I'm still not sure.
Well... that's part of it.
We know how big a tree is. We know how big a house is. Sure, they're all different sizes, but the *average* is very well set in our minds, from a rather young age. So, if we see a picture with a tree, a car, and a house on a floating island, with a waterfall over the side from a small stream , and those three things fill the entire island, we know that the island is REALLY small... about the size of your backyard... definitely no bigger than a city block.
If the car - drawn exactly as it is - was appropriately sized beside the house, and the TREE was smaller than the car, we wouldn't think "tree", we'd think "bush", because, regardless of whether it's a map, or a painting, or a photograph, our minds know how big those things should be, in comparison to the tiny bridge, and the big house.
Same thing applies, or should, conceivably, to mountains and islands, continents, and coastlines. So people make maps that seem size-proportionate, and we view those maps and it adds to the depth perception we've been building since birth -- or rather... since we developed a vague understanding of the world outside what we've seen.
My 4 year old draws a picture. It's him, his mom, a house, and a mountain. There's no correlation in sizes. Usually, he's the most important thing, so he's biggest, then mommy, then the house. The mountain is either a big scribble off the page, or a tiny little thing off to the side. He knows "mountains are big" but he doesn't have a perception of that meaning yet.
EVERYthing in his world is big.
By around 5-6 years old, a kid will (typically!) draw himself bigger than mommy, a house bigger than both of them, and a mountain the size of a house.
If they live NEAR mountains, and see them every day, mountains tend to be semi-size appropriate
Another year and things go in order of size but they still aren't proportional. And then we start learning - really learning - geography, and once we understand houses are big but mountains are HUGE, the kids will draw towering mountains, medium-small houses and tiny people.
You can see how this affects depth perception by watching them fall. Little kids trip over *nothing*. They're just starting to learn the difference between a "big step" or a "little step" or a "giant" or "baby step".
As we get older, and our perception evolves, we balance more easily.
So... where was I going with this? Oh yeaah..
So we see a mountain on continent A). And it's about an inch and a half across. and we see an island near continent B) and it's about an eighth of an inch (didn't pull examples from your map, just explaining an example) and we think, ....well we don't really think... our mind just processes it, like any other size/depth perception... like:
Okay, the island is 1/8 the size of the mountain, must be a really big mountain or a really small island"
But if ALL the islands are similar sizes, and ALL the mountains are similar to the first we can't rationalize that. So we think "What a huge land. What gargantuan mountains!" "what a tiny coast!"
And your brain either just sends out a signal: "Something is off". or, depending on your visual experience, it says, the coasts are right, compared to the islands... so it must be the mountain!!! (or from the earlier example: "the car and the house are okay, it must be the tree!")
So even if the mountains are perfect, and everything ELSE is off, we see the mountains as flawed. :)
I did TELL you all I ramble... :/
Nice work Diamond. I'm on the side of the smaller mountains (and I'm also on Eilathan's side about the mountain style).
Regarding the Ravells/Jalyha conversation going on, I think the reason the mountains looked too big on the first version is that the thickness of the lines on the edge of the mountains was so much greater than on the coastline. The latest version, with the resized mountains, has the outline of the mountain-shapes more in sync with the coast, and therefore more appropriate. At least, that's my observation.
Oh that is prolly part of it too :P :P :P
Originally Posted by TheHoarseWhisperer
That's actually a very good point...
I'm one of those CGers that often "complain" about size-relations in a map. I guess it is sometimes an expecation kind of thing (as ravells said...if you almost always look at continental-scale maps and all of a sudden you look at a regional map then your view is skewed etc )...but not only . I think it always helps tremendously if the mapper includes a scale bar on the map...then size issues become apparent very quickly.
As for your map, Diamond, the second one is definitely much better.
Progress! Rainy weekends are good for keeping me inside and mapping. And God knows we needed some rain here in California...
I changed the shape of the continent a little bit; the first version didn't feel right to me, maybe because of that whole size/perspective issue. It felt like the landmass on the left was MASSIVE and the strip showing in the map threw off the balance of the whole thing. Much better like this. Well, I like it better anyway. :D
I like the new shape, Diamond.
Some weathering and color and a bit of stipple around the coasts. Also a first try at some forests.