and that's why bigger, fellas... ain't always better. O:-)
It's good though.. just... overcompensating O:-)
@Lyrillies: I can't help but laugh everytime I see your sig![]()
and that's why bigger, fellas... ain't always better. O:-)
It's good though.. just... overcompensating O:-)
@Lyrillies: I can't help but laugh everytime I see your sig![]()
Have you "liked" a post today?
I'm trying to work out what factors my mind is subconsciously processing in coming to the conclusion that the mountains are too big - and I'm drawing a blank. The map has no scale, so what is it in the map that suggests the scale of it (my mind immediately thinks continental scale)? Perhaps it's the rivers? Or maybe the detailed coastlines and the concentric lines around them (what ARE they called??) as Lyrilles said. I really don't know but would be interested to hear what others think. (Sorry Diamond for potentially sending your thread on a slight diversion).
It's the size of the mountains compared to both the size of the islands AND the waves at the shoreline.
Your mind automatically finds the largest and smallest readily visible image in an object and compares them - part of how we perceive distances in the big wide world
EDIT: And it seems like a continent due to the range of ginormous mountains swathed across the center ^.^
Last edited by Jalyha; 02-01-2014 at 10:49 PM.
Have you "liked" a post today?
Aaaaand I've learned something again. The logic of it is so obvious it almost punches you, but I never really thought of it like that.
Those wave lines, as you call them, in my head are shelf lines. To me the represent the continental shelves, gradually descending into the ocean. That sentence made no geograpgical sense whatsoever, I'm afraid, but you know what I mean! ...You know what I mean, right?
As to the mountains: Smaller looks better to me too. And as you said, that way you can add more detail, like valleys and passes and such.
Great observation, Jalyha, but without an obvious scale the differences of size between the smallest and largest remain relative which takes us no further?
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.
Yep, I think J just hit the nail on the head there. I've started to rework it with smaller mountains and it looks MUCH better.
@ravs: no worries. This board could do with more tangents, frankly.There's gotta be a proper name for them, but I always just call them coastal rings.
I agree, smaller mountains will probably make it look even better. And I'm quite excited about seeing how you'll use my icons, if you do! It'll be a first for me
I've always thought of the coast rings as stylized waves… so I call them wave lines. Maybe that's crazy though![]()
I'm calling them waterlinesSame, I think smaller mountains would work better regarding coastlines and stuff.
Okay, these are half-size mountains. I think they work MUCH better. For one thing, I can fit more of them in now, giving greater detail to a region.
The mountains fit in much better with the coasts now. Definitely looking much better, they look like they belong.
@ The coast lines topic: I've always assumed the outlined coasts were a stylized derivation of water depths from navigation maps. Didn't think of a good name for them like Waterlines or wavelines though... I really like wave-lines as a term for some reason.