Wow...thanks fro the comprehensive reply...
Here's a few notes/responses to some of the above...
1. I found this on adobe's forums just now... (PSB is necessary for files beyond a certain size - but I can't remember if file size only or also resolution-limited. I think PSD only go up to 2GB in size).
2. If the 'Yes' means its coming, you've almost guaranteed the first update customerOriginally Posted by http://forums.adobe.com/thread/588226
3. Perhaps preference files (the program should remember where they are) for saving/outputting images of the maps. These could include check-boxes to include: a) texturing on/off, b) height map on/off, c) climate on/off, d) render oceans / render lakes / render rivers / render land ... and perhaps a colour setting for those areas not rendered (allow choice of colour, with presets calculated to be as far from the normal colours on the map as possible so that it can be selected easily, and transparency)
4. fair enough...though it drives me nuts that I load a map, then have to navigate to a different folder to load the climate colours, and if I want to load another map, it resets the folders in the climate-colour area...and so onI can live though, I do in many programs
5. I did not know this. I'll have to explore that. Thank you.
6. Well, where do I send the CO2 to enhance bubblage
7. I follow that. I think the on-screen benefit of this gets lost when output at full res because river width doesn't vary. Once exported, the 1 pixel rivers tend to dominate everything. I wonder if there is a way (colour gradients/shading?) to simulate river width as it might vary from it's head to it foot. A tiny creek looks the same as an epic river in terms of width/size (not length, of course) which breaks up the realism a bit. Keep in mind, I'm exporting to an ed size of around 30000px in width usually, so my frustrations may be specialized to me. What about the possibility of placing eps/transparent png objects at set locations/resolutions?
8. I just dream of being able to save larger/full size maps in one go as opposed to 32+ with a painful rejoining at the end. At the edges of each tile there are often inconsistencies from the saving (e.g., rivers don't connect with the neighbouring tile having 1 blank pixel at the edge of a tile)...this happens in jpg (artifacts cause more inconsistencies) and bmp (fewer issues). If that could be worked around, and a separate instance that rejoins the tiles into the huge image, I could live with that. I actually uploaded a program a friend wrote for me to do this, but it's a java command-line dealio. If we could just specify the final size we want, and the program does the tiling/rejoining in the background so that we dont' have to do the math of figuring out how many tiles/resolution of each etc, that would be great, as right now, a miscalculation leaves parts of the map cutoff, and sometimes you end up with a tiny map in the middle of huge black borders (if memory serves). http://www.cartographersguild.com/sh...8525#post58525
9. I don't use CC2. Does this vector save open up in illustrator/photoshop as paths etc? I guess an eps output or something like that would be what I should have requested (a vector format traditional imaging programs can open).
10. ...
11. Hey, I'm broad strokes, you're fine detailsI'm not sure how this could really be implemented, especially in terms of high detail. I guess I'm just looking for an easier, more fluid way to adjust land mass shapes while maintaining the same degree of smoothing/roughness as the rest of the map (for altitude changes, land texture, and especially coast line roughness. A feathering setting for the brushes may help (pressure sensitivity with the wacom tables would be great)....
12. I've gotta re-install FT Pro on my new-at-Christmas setup and check. What my memory is telling me, is that when you zoom in, beyond a certain point, landscape features begin to lose meaning right now. This may be a cross-over memory from other mapping programs, but might not. Maybe it's just rivers, or maybe its more (or nothing)... It also may be something I'm noticing as I make my massive oversized maps (texture only goes so far etc?).... It's kinda like your description of the river setup above (varying amount of rivers shown depending on zoom). I'd like the land to develop another level of detail as you get closer....right now the large-scale roughness/noise/texturing doesn't transition to small-scale noise/texturing. Now I'm thinking again about the 'google maps' style export, and, really, if you could identify, as the user, different settings for noise etc (along with the river variation etc) to appear on the different zoom levels saved out, that would be marvellous. I'm going to have to reload and get playing again (Winter is my mapping time), and I'll try to figure out a better explanation while I confirm my own thoughts on this one.
13. Now I'll have to go scouring my old posts, as I know it's come up in the past. I seem to remember finding success (without export glitches, surprisingly huge black borders) on outputs other than the Equiangular projection). I remember you fixed (the beta) river issue, but I didn't revisit other projections after that. (here's a thread where it was discussed a couple years back... http://www.cartographersguild.com/sh...top-of-my-maps)
14. I haven't done too much since river-fixing-Beta came out (other than verifying that the river stuff was better on the default projection I was using).
15/16.
17. This would be a challenge. Consider, however, that every single ounce of pain Canon SLR owners went through when Canon redesigned their lens mount for AF: they now have the most versatile mount in the business, which allows for brighter lenses (it's a wider mount) and for converters to use almost every other brand of lens in the world on it in manual mode...sometimes it just has to be done. Could the 'old' algorithm be included for opening and viewing older files (for export etc)., and the new one for all new files created? I guess it's a balance of benefits from a newly designed structure, and grafting things on to the old one (and sometimes shoehorning them in?).
18. I figure I have another 40 years or so before I croak...someday!
19. glove should have read globe. Right now when you create a map and change the rotation on rectangular projections that show the whole world, the left right/top bottom edges (when you actually see them meeting now that they aren't the edges of the original map) don't actually line up nicely for the noise/texturing and I believe (memory could be faulty) rivers... the end result is an imaging artifact going in a straight line through your map (maybe noticeable more at the resolutions I'm working with). I'd like to be able rotate the globe like a ball without any seams showing up anywhere in the image when projected flat.
20. Another poor explanation by me. If I generate a map, and there is land at the north pole, it is usually in an ice zone (let's pretend those are the way my default climates were set). I would like to be able to shift the land mass positions so that the land that was formally my north pole is now at the equator and would therefore receive a different climate. This would be in addition to just changing the view so that the north pole is in the center of the map, and still has the north pole climate. One changes your veiwing position, the other changes the land's position around the globe while maintaining the globe's polar orientation adn your position. I don't think that explanation is much better, but here's hoping...(hmm....if I said I wanted to simulate a planet's orbit and polar orientation shifting so that it's poles moved into equatorial positions, changing the planet's climate, would that help?)
21. Music to my ears. I think that finding that balance is a challenge for sure. Could you maintain both the old and new algorithms and or allow a sliding control for 'accuracy' which would allow users of slow and fast computers to achieve that balance of time/quality?
22. Maybe that's what I'm wanting then ...I can't remember the term without re-installing and checking...but when you create a new map, there's a detail setting...I think the limit (4GB? from the 32 bit deal) is 5-6000. I think this is referred to as detail/resolution/accuracy, or affects those things. If I set it beyond that, the program accepts the input but will consistently crash (if crashes are likely to occur, having program defined ranges for user settings would be nice!). Would being able to increase this (2x,3x?) take care of my 'land doesn't look great when really zoomed in' issue above? I get what you're saying about the tiny/large steps...what about parallel algorithms (when needed) which are then compared and combined at certain stages?
If the 'small' step algorithm moves at 10 year increments, and the large at 1000 year increments (or whatever makes sense in a geological time), we can start with the land in X year.
At X+1000, the small step algorithm has gone through 100 steps, the large 1. The two are combined in some way, then the next iteration takes place. I'm envisioning some sort of mesh overlays that track a grid of positions. Each point in the matrix is matched up between algorithms which is how they can be recombined. If point A moves x,y in the long step, and a,b in the small, the meshs could be warped in some way to ensure they still match up in a 'plausible' way...
Please keep in mind I'm a layperson who likes logic, but doesn't program and hasn't done any statistical analysis/study in 15 years. I'm likely suggesting impossibles.
23. Would it be possible to a) have rivers form as they do now, but when they encounter suitable zones (climates/heigh field areas) they may form a lake... and b) placement of 'starter' ground springs which can form lakes (in flat areas) or rivers above when they move out of the flat zone or start on a slop or area inhospitable to a lake. This could give us oases etc? I get the time/calculation thing too. It would be one thing at a global level and viewing scale, another when you zoom in. This is where the 64bit, no memory limitation thing would come in for those of us wanting to ramp the detail up to 6000000.
___
I was initially frustrated with some of the shortcomings of FT (the river issue, projections, output)...and didn't find much help/support on the company website. I encounter this often in creative programs as I love to test the limits of things (I'm a lover of the extreme wide angle/macro, infrared film, etc in photography, for example) Your openness and always honest and positive help on here kept me working through and developing workarounds. Your detailed response (you could have just said, "thanks, added to list" and left) is an excellent example of this ethic; you are the main reason I'll likely grab the next release of FT Pro.
Reply With Quote
