NES World/Regional Maps Requests Thread

[Dachs]

I don't like labels, mostly because of clutter. The glow-process looks pretty neat (except, yeah, I don't think that the rivers should be in), and it definitely shows the physical features better. Would it be possible to do the glow in GIMP?

 

[North King]

Question: Is the coast of China really that horribly polluted, or is that just an error in one of the two maps?

 

[Symphony D.]

Would it be possible to do the glow in GIMP?

Don't know. GIMP have a "Feather" command for selection?

Question: Is the coast of China really that horribly polluted, or is that just an error in one of the two maps?

It's sediment discharge. You will notice similar at the mouth of pretty much every major river, it just doesn't extend along the coast so far in most instances.

 

[North King]

It's sediment discharge. You will notice similar at the mouth of pretty much every major river, it just doesn't extend along the coast so far in most instances.

Right. I don't see how I missed that the first time. Excellent nonetheless (though get rid of the river glow).

 

[Symphony D.]

Alright, so I can edit out rivers from glowing. What about lakes?

I think if rivers are removed, the glow effect can be slightly thickened (it's Contract 3 and Feather 5 after a Magic Wand selection right now) and the opacity can be increased to 70 - 80%, just so it's exceptionally clear what's what. Alternately, the Contract (which is solid colored) can be reduced down to 1, and the Feather (which is a gradient) can be boosted up, and it can be set at 100% opacity, with only a thin solid line around the periphery.

Did people like the atmosphere effect? Since I have a bit more space to play around with in a .jpeg map I was thinking of redoing it if so. I'll probably get rid of the color-key and just attach it as a separate file.

 

[Gelion]

Here's something else to consider while I grind up your connections; this is at 66% opacity, and I like it:

Spoiler :

Rivers could be removed from the glow-process if desired. I think it looks much more like a display of this type would.

Opinions? Also, labels, or no labels?

Great for a risk game. GJ!

 

[Symphony D.]

Retroactive deletion.

 

[Symphony D.]

Retroactive deletion.

 

[Disenfrancised]

Looking very nice.

-The Philipines are hard to see, but thats just a function of dark green on a tropical island. A different base colour would clear it up.
-The River shading did not look good in my opinion.
-The aral sea kinda blurs to Kazakhstan, perhaps a different Kazakh colour might increase the contrast.
-You're not going to be able to scale the sun and the planets in that space so I wouldn't bother (I don't like the flare-tastic sun either, but thats just personal aesthetic).
-Atmosphere looked okay, no feelings one way or the other .

 

[Symphony D.]

-The River shading did not look good in my opinion.

What then? Darker blue? Lighter blue? Not a blue at all?

-The aral sea kinda blurs to Kazakhstan, perhaps a different Kazakh colour might increase the contrast.

That's more because most of the Aral sea is not actually a sea but a dust bowl. The sea doesn't actually begin until well into the cutout area, which isn't within the shading boundary. The boundary of the sea as expressed on maps doesn't actually convey the geographic reality of the sea.

-You're not going to be able to scale the sun and the planets in that space so I wouldn't bother (I don't like the flare-tastic sun either, but thats just personal aesthetic).

I know that, but there is a certain balance to be achieved, and I'd like to find it. The Sun there is NOAA imagery, but we can go for SOHO or NASA. Personally I'd prefer it as is or the NASA image.

Also, I will probably be including a Winter map (January) for the base, in addition to the existing map, which is Summer (August), just for people who want to do biannual updates or something.

 

[jalapeno_dude]

-Lakes should have glow.
-I'd go for a darker blue for rivers.
-I know the Mercury image you're using is the one NASA highlights, but the fact that it doesn't appear round at that size bothers me. Maybe use this image instead?
-I'm assuming you plan to add Brazilian, Indonesian, and Indian cities at some point.
-Agree on the different base color for the Philippines. By the same logic, maybe a different color for the D.R. Congo (though I don't feel strongly about that).
-Shouldn't Honolulu, at least, be marked on the map? If it's there, I'm not seeing it.

 

[Dachs]

-Responding to the ones I haven't already talked to you about...

FEATURE: The atmospheric effect may return. Nobody has voiced an opinion.

I'm not really sure what you're talking about here, sorry.

CONCERN: I'm not really sure where to put the title. It isn't strictly necessary with just one map but I don't intend this to be the only one, so it could be useful.

As-is looks fine, maybe a little bit to the left, but really since you're using all of the corners there's no better place to put it, 'less the HUD's creation will free up some space up there in upper-left.

CONCERN: The Solar System display might still look a little tacky, due to sizing. The planets are properly scaled to each other, as are the orbits, but they're not scaled to each other or the Sun. If it looks bad I'm willing to entertain notions of how to fix it.

Scaling the planets to the Sun would either make the Sun way too big or the planets way too small to be intelligible. Including the gas giants would also make the inner planets way too small to be seen. I think that this is an okay happy medium, although the Sun's flares, as Dis mentioned, are a bit big. NASA and SOHO images look really off-color and weird to me, though.

CONCERN: This is riverless glow, but lakes are still by and large included. There's a few spots I missed when getting rid of rivers to boot. Should lakes be included, or not? No one has voiced an opinion.

Lakes glow works. Canada would look damned weird without them, after all.

CONCERN: River colors: acceptable or not? Different? If so, what?

They probably ought to be a few shades darker so's they mesh better with the ocean color and are more easily differentiable from the American and Russia border colors.

I also would be much obliged if you did indeed make a January map.

@jal - Honolulu is indeed there, although its color does not stand out well from the American border color.

 

[Symphony D.]

Retroactive deletion.

 

[Dachs]

<snip>
Oh, okay, thanks. Mmmm...I can't really say that I have an opinion there, because the map looks fine without it.

 

[jalapeno_dude]

Negatory, especially with that big blotch of "WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S HERE, SORRIES!!!" in the northern hemisphere.

Sorry, but this seems like a faulty argument to me. Here is a side-by-side comparison of the two images at the scale they'll be at on the map:

The blotch isn't so noticeable, is it?

Now, if you're planning on making a Mercury map, and thus were putting the image in the top left corner of the map, you'd have a point about this particular image, but then I'd still say your existing image doesn't cut it.

EDIT: I think I understand what you mean by

You can pretend the system has active shading, because the same thing is happening on Venus.

But:
1)It's not so noticeable with Venus.
2)IMHO, I'd rather have the planets appear round then be realistically shaded.
3)You can simply change the location of the image relative to the sun, and then have it both realistically shaded AND round.

 

[Symphony D.]

Sorry, but this seems like a faulty argument to me.

Then allow me to craft a superior one: satisfying you sense of aesthetics is not at the top of my list of priorities, particularly when your sensibilities are opposite mine. I'd rather have a decent representation than fudge an image, even if it is going to be small and blotchy.

 

[Symphony D.]

So if you people want a usable product right out of the box, you are advised to heed this notice and get to work. A lot of possible entries (eg: New York, Milan, Jerusalem, Tokyo, etc.) are obvious, some are not.

Now is also the time to figure out if we want military facilities. It's possible to display them in my estimation, though finding data for a lot of countries would be difficult. If you think it would be worthwhile to have them added, you're advised to start finding sources and campaigning for it.

I know you people aren't predisposed to passionate support of... anything really, but now is the time to make your stand if you want features included.

 

[Yui108]

Could anyone make a map of the world 322 B.C.?

 

[Dachs]

Could anyone make a map of the world 322 B.C.?

That'd be really boring, 'cause there's a big huge block of green stuff in the Middle and Near East. Are we looking for the beginning of the year or the end of the year? The Lamian War was still going on during most of the year and only ends in the autumn with Krateros' and Antipater's victory at Krannon.

 

[Yui108]

That'd be really boring, 'cause there's a big huge block of green stuff in the Middle and Near East. Are we looking for the beginning of the year or the end of the year? The Lamian War was still going on during most of the year and only ends in the autumn with Krateros' and Antipater's victory at Krannon.

Wasn't the Lamian war simply limited to Greece and Macedon? Yeah, Seleucus' empire is pretty big, but I don't think it was overly powerful for the time and for a fun NES. Is it?