[WIP] Narridia, Revisited

[the-golem]

Agreed. I chose maps that showed the rivers clearly, but not all rivers are important.

On the other hand, his southern continent is larger than Asia with riverless coastal plains larger than Europe ... and that (IMHO) makes the areas feel smaller than they actually are.

I see we're back to the problem of determining the scale of the map. Looking at your images, I hadn't quite realized how close my southern continent is to South America. I could definitely branch off of the main river more, maybe add in some extras

*Big Long Pause While I do So*

LATEST WIP:

[Lukc]

Actually, I think the southern continent is more app. half the size of Europe ...

[atpollard]

OK, this could be my bad.

The map on post #8 has two scales ... one for the map of Europe and the Medeterranean, and another scale at the bottom of the map. They are very different. Which is correct?

I assumed that the medeterranean was shown at the same scale as your map, and your southern Continent is 3-4 times the area of Europe on the post #8 map.

From the scale on your drawings, both of your continents combined are about the size of Europe.

[the-golem]

OK, this could be my bad.
The map on post #8 has two scales ... one for the map of Europe and the Medeterranean and another scale at the bottom of the map.
They are very different. Which is correct?

I assumed that the medeterranean was shown at the same scale as your map, and your southern Continent is 3-4 times the area of Europe on the post #8 map. From the scale on your drawings, both of your continents combined are about the size of Europe.

Well, they both are. Kinda. The Euro-scale came with the map, and is 500 miles. My scale is actually measured in leagues, although I never went out and said that. The blue line *above* that is the same distance, converted to miles, based off of the length of the Euro-scale. However, I think that this is a bit too large, and I had a different idea: Each subcontinent is roughly the size of Australia. I think this is slightly smaller than I had before.

Although, interestingly the scales show up at different sizes, so I initially thought Australia would be smaller, but my math tells me they should be the same rough scale, roughly

[the-golem]

Ugh. I've been stumped for placenames, so to distract myself, I took a shot at few geo-features, namely Forests and Swamps. I'm not exactly pleased, but I thought I'd at least toss this out there:

[Lukc]

Hmm ... what about a style where more of the underlying map remains visible? For your style, such bright colours for features might kill your mountains and borders visually.

[the-golem]

Hmm ... what about a style where more of the underlying map remains visible? For your style, such bright colours for features might kill your mountains and borders visually.

Yeah, I should have thought of that sooner. I did a test with the swamp texture at 50% opacity, and the forests at 75%. I like the faintness of the swamp, I think it looks better. On the other hand, the forests look worse, IMO.



Edit: Meh, noone's replied, so instead of doing multiple posts, I'll just go ahead and make an addendum to this one.

To get a better grasp of scale, I went online and grabbed a world projection map (Goode's Homolosine), and superimposed an outline of Narridia onto it. I scaled the continent down to the same scale (more or less) as the one involving Australia to fit it to the map. I must confess, I'm a bit surprised as to how small the scale is. When I was working with Europe, It seemed very very large in comparison, and with Australia it also seemed large, but not overwhelmingly so.

Opinions?

------------------
Edit: Oh, I'm an idiot. I forgot to upload the new image. Fixed: