Quote Originally Posted by vorropohaiah View Post
you caught me! i didnt mention that i changed some things from one map to the next, so it wasnt just a case of updating it, but i actually changed the orientation of the map, so the large and middle maps do not line up at all (N does not line up between one and the other), and the incorrect scale in the middle map is also something i had fixed after posting this version. the rhumb lines, i realised a long time after making the original large map, were incorrect for something of that scale, though my knowledge of them remains quite limited, though i never realsied that rhumb lines from different maps had to be consistent
Well, if you have one map that really is bearing preserving, and another that is also bearing preserving, and they have extents that overlap, then the bearings should be the same between them, unless something screwy has happened like the axis of the planet shifting dramatically. But if you're throwing out the old map then it's not a problem.

regarding the graticules... the degrees of lat/long should be visible on the edges of the border. The closest thing i can think of is an Pseudoazimuthal (Hammer?) projection, though i didnt really want to base it off of a real-world projection. there's always going to be some amount of distortion on a map, though to be honest i didnt realise this was so off. Im hardly an expert on the subject (as im sure youve noticed ), though any other pointers you can give would be greatly appreceated. also can i just go on record saying that i hate projections! especially when trying to create a skin for a 3D globe, the distortions around the poles are a nightmare to iron out when switching between a distorted projection like mercatorto a skin for a 3D map and while i really wanted to create a globe for this world im close to giving up!
Yes, there's always going to be distortion, and it's good that you know that as it's one of the things a lot of fantasy map makers with a background in graphics rather than geography have trouble understanding. That doesn't mean that they are all equally good for all situations. If you have a restricted extent, you want a projection that minimizes distortion within that particular extent. In this case, I'd probably go with a Conic. Equidistant Conic is simple and was known as far back as Ancient Greece, and I happen to have an Equidistant Conic Graticule Generator.

Click image for larger version. 

Name:	image3158.png 
Views:	1985 
Size:	1.60 MB 
ID:	45272

Here's an SVG version so you can mess around with it. The two green parallels are the standard parallels where distortion is minimized. grat.svg

i actually am writing the text on a path, though after the many comments saying the paths are too curved I've decided to tone them down.
Well, the typeface isn't particularly readable, and it looks really squashed or stretched out. Though it's more an issue on the big map than on the new one. It's not the degree of curvature that's the problem. I've run text along a path through a sharp right angle and it's worked out fine.

Click image for larger version. 

Name:	columbia_river.png 
Views:	127 
Size:	18.8 KB 
ID:	45274

I've also noticed that your planet seems a bit big. Based on the scale and spacing of parallels on the new map, I get a radius of 12,356 km compared to Earth's radius of only 6,371 km. If it has a similar density to Earth, it should have close to twice Earth's surface gravity, 19.02 m/s˛. Assuming I didn't make any mistakes in my math.