Classic cities: London [19.2.12] p27

[natty dread]

Well I'm not totally convinced if this is better... somehow it kinda looks sloppy and unfitting to the style of the map, I don't know... but if everyone thinks these bigger labels are better I guess I'll keep them.

[bigimg]http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/2562/londonn6.png[/bigimg]

[gimil]

I would maybe re-position a few if other like the new water marks. But I think it looks much much better.

[Victor Sullivan]

I think it's groovy.

-Sully

[natty dread]

So, I'll be doing the small image today if there's no objections.

[gimil]

No major concerns from me

[isaiah40]

There are major concerns from me. Every single angled line on both the black and white outline is pixelated, along the impassables, and a few territory borders. Plus you need to put in the legend what the impassables are. The bonus values still look cramped, please increase the spacing between them a little more as you still have room.
[bigimg]http://gyazo.com/a2f139c0ec97f1184833333a3fd20a90.png[/bigimg]

These need to be fixed as well:


As you tell others to zoom in, you need to zoom in as well. I got tired of circling every spot, so I suggest you go over this with a very fine tooth comb to correct these discrepancies.

[natty dread]

There isn't really any way to make the lines any smoother, at that size. I've aimed for a sharp look with thin lines, and due to the limitations in resolution there may be some places where pixels can be seen if you look real close with a magnifying glass.

I don't see why I should care when the image will be converted to a 80% JPEG anyway, so it's not like there's any difference if there's pixels or not.

[isaiah40]

There isn't really any way to make the lines any smoother, at that size. I've aimed for a sharp look with thin lines, and due to the limitations in resolution there may be some places where pixels can be seen if you look real close with a magnifying glass.

I don't see why I should care when the image will be converted to a 80% JPEG anyway, so it's not like there's any difference if there's pixels or not.

There's no way!??? How come I did it in like 3 mins?
[bigimg]http://gyazo.com/9fc6a59bd1ad26994ed8de2df0c49b09.png[/bigimg]

[natty dread]

There's no way!??? How come I did it in like 3 mins?

The line you drew is in the outer skirts of the image. Try drawing a black line on white background and you'll see it won't go as smoothly.

Here's the best I can do, I redrew the entire black outer border, I tried every possible thing to make the transition between the black and white line as smooth as possible, but the uncomfortable truth is that with a 24-bit colour palette there's only 256 values of colour between black and white... so at this resolution, at this line thickness & sharpness, it's actually impossible to make the black/white transition any smoother, at least when the lines go in angles.

[bigimg]http://img545.imageshack.us/img545/5314/londonn7.png[/bigimg]

These are technical limitations, if I had infinite resolution and colour depth at my disposal, I'd be glad to make all possible lines smooth & sharp at the same time, but there's only so much I can do with the available tools.

[natty dread]

I managed to improve the river outline somewhat with a sort of kludgy trick, but this is pretty much all that can be done for now...

[bigimg]http://img845.imageshack.us/img845/5314/londonn7.png[/bigimg]

[isaiah40]

You mean you can't do this?

[natty dread]

You're using a fuzzy brush there, and the purpose was to draw sharp lines.

Honestly, I can't make the line any better than what it is. I've redrawn it once already, redrawing it again won't make it any better.

[thenobodies80]

This wasn't done with a fuzzy brush and there're no pixels....

yours


mine


Isn't it sharper enough?

[natty dread]

Fine, you're 10 times better graphics artist, is that what you want to hear?

I can't do any better, if my work isn't suddenly good enough, then bin this, because I can't do it any better. I don't have the means to do so. Understand?

[thenobodies80]

no, just don't tell to us that is a tech limitations problem and that there's no solution, when it isn't in that way. What did you use to draw your borders?

[natty dread]

I've tried every possible tool available to me, and this is the absolutely best that I can do. I've redrawn the border like 5 times, each with a different method, I've used 2 different programs, various tools, and this is it, if it's not good enough I don't have anything else I can do.

[bigimg]http://img809.imageshack.us/img809/5314/londonn7.png[/bigimg]

[natty dread]

Here's now large and small version.

[bigimg]http://img864.imageshack.us/img864/5314/londonn7.png[/bigimg]

[bigimg]http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/9772/londonn7s.png[/bigimg]

[thenobodies80]

Borders are much better. Now you see that it wasn't impossible to do?

Isaiah suggested other two things and honestly I agree with him on them:

...... Plus you need to put in the legend what the impassables are. The bonus values still look cramped, please increase the spacing between them a little more as you still have room.

[ManBungalow]

Go look at how pixellated the lines are on Hive and move on to the next complaint.

[natty dread]

Go look at how pixellated the lines are on Hive and move on to the next complaint.

Hah, I was just looking at Hive for a totally unrelated reason, and I noticed the borders...

Isaiah suggested other two things and honestly I agree with him on them:

you need to put in the legend what the impassables are.

Is this really necessary though? I'd think at this point it's pretty much universally known that impassables are impassable. I haven't explicitly explained impassables in a few maps now and I haven't heard of a single complaint about it.

The bonus values still look cramped, please increase the spacing between them a little more

Can you specify? Do you mean to increase the vertical spacing or the horizontal spacing, or the gap between names & numbers?

[isaiah40]

Vertical spacing.

[natty dread]

Done.

[bigimg]http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/5314/londonn7.png[/bigimg]

[bigimg]http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/9772/londonn7s.png[/bigimg]

[thenobodies80]

Is this really necessary though? I'd think at this point it's pretty much universally known that impassables are impassable. I haven't explicitly explained impassables in a few maps now and I haven't heard of a single complaint about it.

yes, it is necessary. Don't ask me to cut a rule that will cause a severe spanking for me. You can't imagine how many things are for us (universally) known but that aren't in that way. KA should start to share eTicket contents a day....

Go look at how pixellated the lines are on Hive and move on to the next complaint.

In fact i don't like that thing. At that time i suggested to remove pixels and other things (like the invisible impassable between N18 and honey storage cell 5) and i was totally ignored since i wasn't part of the "old guys" group.
In any case use an imperfection of an old map to have an alibi to produce other "imperfect" maps in the future is totally nonsense. The process is done to create the better maps possible. Pixellation is a big no no imo and if something was allowed in past, it doesn't mean we're going to allow it in the future.

[natty dread]

yes, it is necessary. Don't ask me to cut a rule that will cause a severe spanking for me. You can't imagine how many things are for us (universally) known but that aren't in that way. KA should start to share eTicket contents a day....

So this is a rule now? On my Yugoslavia map, there's nothing stating that mountains and rivers are impassable. No one has complained anywhere as far as I know that they couldn't understand without explanation that mountains are impassable. Same on Nordic Countries, no one asked me to add a text that says mountains, forests etc. are impassable.

So why all of a sudden it's being demanded for this map?

Pixellation is a big no no imo and if something was allowed in past, it doesn't mean we're going to allow it in the future.

Pixelation is not universally bad. It can be used as an effect as much as anything else. I'm not saying it should be used as an excuse for allowing pixelation on any map, but if it suits the theme and style of the map, there's nothing wrong with it. For example, Conquer Man.

[thenobodies80]

thenobodies80 wrote:yes, it is necessary. Don't ask me to cut a rule that will cause a severe spanking for me. You can't imagine how many things are for us (universally) known but that aren't in that way. KA should start to share eTicket contents a day....



So this is a rule now? On my Yugoslavia map, there's nothing stating that mountains and rivers are impassable. No one has complained anywhere as far as I know that they couldn't understand without explanation that mountains are impassable. Same on Nordic Countries, no one asked me to add a text that says mountains, forests etc. are impassable.

So why all of a sudden it's being demanded for this map?

I reply with another question....why is a so big problem to add them, specially because you have lot of space to do that? (but yes take it as a rule, impassable must be listed, specially if they are not something clear, like a mountain)

thenobodies80 wrote:Pixellation is a big no no imo and if something was allowed in past, it doesn't mean we're going to allow it in the future.

Pixelation is not universally bad. It can be used as an effect as much as anything else. I'm not saying it should be used as an excuse for allowing pixelation on any map, but if it suits the theme and style of the map, there's nothing wrong with it. For example, Conquer Man.

Sure, for conquer man it works, it depends what you're developing. But it doesn't work for the hive, nor for this map.