Reply With Quote
Looks quite attractive, but i have this strange impression like planets are too close to each other and to the star.
Its great universe graphic overall.
Calidar: Soltan Ephemeris Illustration
I made a simple solar system map for Calidar a few years ago, then upgraded them with rendered mock-ups of each planet. My goal was always to create an artistic illustration akin to the posters I used to love when I was younger, but it took me a few years for inspiration to hit.
It finally came a couple of months ago, and I used NASA space imagery combined with my planet renders to create this illustration. Each planet has its own DEM and terrain colouring, and I loosely adjusted the light so that it makes some sort of sense as being lit by the sun — although I avoided doing this totally accurately, instead opting to have each planet properly visible.
I wondered about adding orbit lines for the moons, but eventually decided against it. The planetary orbits are not quite as good as they could be. Specifically, Ghüle's is supposed to be angled so that it doesn't overlap with the other orbits.
I really enjoyed making the starfield, which turned out quite serendipitously, with each area being nicely in-theme with the planets situated there: Calidar and its moons are the heart of the setting, surrounded in bluish space, next to the majestic swirls of the Oortan Cloud (aka the Antennae Galaxies in real life); Draconia, barren home of militant dragons, is in an area of deep red; magic-rich Lao-Kwei and its moon are in an area of purple; and the sinister Ghüle is in an area of eerie green. What's funniest about this is that I only realised afterwards that I'd placed them this way.
Looks quite attractive, but i have this strange impression like planets are too close to each other and to the star.
Its great universe graphic overall.
Hehe — the scale is totally out, yes! The star should be much, much bigger, and the distances between the orbits are not on the same scale as the size of the planets, although they are at scale relevant to each other.Originally Posted by Voolf
It's a compromise to make the planets as big as possible, really. My earlier diagrams had much, much smaller planets, but after a while I realised that this was counter-productive. Here's one of them for reference:
I don't think there's a realistic chance to depict a star system for the sake of illustrative cartography both in detail and in scale. I remember doing some of my older star system maps at a width of 6000px and the scale was still nowhere near realistic.
Sorry Thorf, can't rep you at the moment.
Actually, I prefer the second map you posted. But both maps are really cool! Good job, Thorf.
Both have their uses, I think. The larger one makes a great print/poster, or indeed desktop. The narrow horizontal one works better with text — which is precisely where it was used.Actually, I prefer the second map you posted. But both maps are really cool! Good job, Thorf
Incidentally, I also have a redo of that one with less space and far larger (but still in-scale) planet orbs:
I redid this one after seeing the finished book in print, and realising that perhaps I'd made the planets too small.
Thanks for the feedback!
Very true. I'm sure you've seen If the Moon Were Only One Pixel, which really brings this issue into perspective.
The only realistic way to work round this is to have multiple scales, with the planets on one scale and the distances between them on an entirely different one. But even then, showing the star at the same scale as the planets will make the planets tiny, so you have to have it on a scale of its own.
This is why I keep referring to this map as an illustration rather than a map.
