Maps maps I hate maps

[Poseptune]

Well I've been playing with the maps for Adveria for a long time, never quite happy with the outcome. After a flight I decided to try something else, but it still didn't come out to something I like.

So I bring it to the community:

Which do you like better?

[spoiler=Map1] [/spoiler]

[spoiler=Map2] [/spoiler]

Any thoughts? Advice?

[Xeviat]

I like Map2 best. It's less artistic, but easier to view. I do want to know why you left out, what I assume to be, the desert distinction that was on Map1?

As for advice, go read some of the stuff on the Campaign Cartographer's board. I've fiddled a little with what they have to teach, but I haven't been able to decide upon a format to utilize.

[Ninja D!]

The things on map 2 look like they are for much smaller scale mapping.  Map 1 is probably better, in my opinion.

[Poseptune]

Map1 is the new one, so it has some additions that the old map didn't (mostly the deserty region)

I've looked at the Cartographer guild and didn't find anything useful.


I'm just getting frustrated with playing with the different textures and not getting anything that I like. :(

[Ninja D!]

They both have a very "work in progress" feel, I think.  Maybe it is because nothing is labeled, maybe you just shouldn't be done tinkering yet.  Whatever the case, the water near the land looks far to light by my eyes.

[khyron1144]

Okay, for me, right now Map 1 is just a broken link, so I have no opinion on it yet.

Map 2 is very pretty, but for me to be complete it needs labels and to appear on a hex grid with a clearly marked scale of X number of miles to the hex.

[Nomadic]

I like map 2 better as it is much cleaner than map 1. Might I suggest you turn the faded gradient in the water into an actual height map of sorts showing stepped depths farther down into the ocean instead of one smooth gradient.

Question for you though. How much are you worried about making your maps realistic (note that some realism is important in order to get a map that looks like it could actually exist).

[Acrimone]

Forests from map 1, mountains from map 2.

[Steel General]

I like them both, though they both look only partially finished. Try mixing the "best" parts of each and see how that comes out for you.

[SA]

Map one.

[Ishmayl-Retired]

I personally like Map 1 best, but the lakes/seas have some funky effect that makes them look above the rest of the landscape.  Not sure what kind of filter (if any) you used for those, but that should probably be fixed. ;)  Other than that, I think it's a very nice looking map.

[Ishmayl-Retired]

I personally like Map 1 best, but the lakes/seas have some funky effect that makes them look above the rest of the landscape.  Not sure what kind of filter (if any) you used for those, but that should probably be fixed. ;)  Other than that, I think it's a very nice looking map.

Edit: Oh, I see, you put some sort of drop shadow beneath the lakes.  Remove that, and maybe put some sort of inner bevel on the negative z plane, and it should do nicely.

Edit 2: Apparently I don't know how to use my own forums...

[Poseptune]

They both have a very "work in progress" feel, I think.  Maybe it is because nothing is labeled, maybe you just shouldn't be done tinkering yet.  Whatever the case, the water near the land looks far to light by my eyes.

Yes they are both a work in progress. I have some cities, and trade routes on layers that are turned off. I like how those are turning out, but I started to think about the cities I was adding and what they would be like. With Map2 there is no visual indication of what the terrain surrounding a city is, so I had a hard time with describing cities. I put it on the back burner for a long time and haven't touched Adveria since.

While flying across the US I saw some interesting patterns and textures, and thought about mapping once again and how I could get a better looking terrain on my maps. So nearly a month ago I started playing with other maps and trying to recreate what is in my mind.

Problem is that I can see things I want to do clearly in my mind, I've just never been able to get my hands to translate it well.

I'm not done tinkering by a long shot, but I am getting to a point where I want to put it on the back burner once again and I know if I do that I won't pick it back up for a long time (if ever). I'm just wondering if I should continue trying to get the terrain effects just right, or go back to the "stamp" look and try to make it better.

Map 2 is very pretty, but for me to be complete it needs labels and to appear on a hex grid with a clearly marked scale of X number of miles to the hex.

This is only one of the land masses, the map's scale is under one of the other landmasses. Labels right now are turned off (though those are no where near done, but I like the way they are coming along).

I like map 2 better as it is much cleaner than map 1. Might I suggest you turn the faded gradient in the water into an actual height map of sorts showing stepped depths farther down into the ocean instead of one smooth gradient.

After I get the land the way I want it I will be working on the water. The current white blurred ring was something Raelifin showed me and on the original map it looked fine. The more I work on the map the more it looks out of place.

Question for you though. How much are you worried about making your maps realistic (note that some realism is important in order to get a map that looks like it could actually exist).

I know I could never make it look completely real, but I do want a good representation of the terrain. The areas that are flat, the areas that are hilly, mountains, forests, etc...

I've been looking at various topographic maps of the different continents, I know I couldn't get that level of detail, but I think I want to emulate some of the things I see.

Forests from map 1, mountains from map 2.

Funny, I like the forest of either map and was happy with those, the mountains are what really get me. I don't care for the stamp look of map 2, however I can't seem to get the terrain look for map 1.

I personally like Map 1 best, but the lakes/seas have some funky effect that makes them look above the rest of the landscape.  Not sure what kind of filter (if any) you used for those, but that should probably be fixed. ;)  Other than that, I think it's a very nice looking map.

Edit: Oh, I see, you put some sort of drop shadow beneath the lakes.  Remove that, and maybe put some sort of inner bevel on the negative z plane, and it should do nicely.

The water right now is a flat, blue layer. There are no effects on it, the lakes and oceans are transparent areas in and around the land. What you are seeing is a bevel on the land. I tried to use a bevel on the rivers, but it made it look really bad, so those got a slightly offset drop shadow (I was trying to make it look the opposite of what you are describing. Sunk in instead of hovering above.). Now I can't remember if I used an inner or outer bevel for the land...

[Ishmayl-Retired]

Ah... yeah, that makes sense then.  

[Raelifin]

I like map 1 much better. I despise stamps.

[spoiler But I have a few suggestions]
Click for full size:

The map is too bright and saturated, even for "high fantasy." In the top-left I've just applied a simple de-saturate and down-tone, and I think it makes it (the land) look much better.

* Having solid-blue lakes and seas really hurts the eyes compared with your oceans. I've circled an area where I've done a quick fix in this department. I think my fix helps the eye understand the north-eastern coast on the western continent.

* You've made a comment about the water looking out of place. This is because there is too much contrast (the light-blue is too glowy), the drop-off is unusually swift (my maps use a stair-step of color before blurring), and you need a texture for your ocean.

* The drop-shadow or emboss or whatever on the southern coastline makes the land look like it's hanging down at you. I redid a section to compare with the emboss, and I think it's better with a uniform-sized coastline.

* There are a few tree stamps on the far-right.

* The biggest problem is your use of textures. When all of the land has a pattern (repeating texture), the eye cannot understand any real topography, which makes everything look flat. The solution is to use a combination of noise, hand brushwork and

multiple overlayed images/textures to create a chaotic, but attractive surface. Mountains will come out of this if you pull some tricks with the shadows/color.[/list]
[/spoiler]
[spoiler Also]I have some issues with your geography. Namely, the placement of "forests" and apparent distinction between seas and lakes. I understand that this might not be the place to bring such things up, so let me know if you want to get into it.[/spoiler]
[spoiler Also-also]Part of what we do here is refine our craft, and I think that practice makes perfect, but if you think that the digital art aspect of cartography is not something you'd like to work on in particular I would be happy to do a map of Adveria in the style of my newest maps. I'd even make it a tutorial if you wanted.

Just offering. :)[/spoiler]