Moderator: Cartographers
thenobodies80 wrote:
I would delete the black lines, where visible, under the impassable.
This border, I would make a bit thicker.
Same here.
I would add a bit more green to the PT1 background and, on the opposite, have a bit less for HST, but i think it's just matter of personal preference.
I notice a few pixelation on a couple of names, but it's just nit-picking...the map looks really nice.
good work cairnswk.
cairnswk wrote:Ready for upload...tnb80...unless someone else has something to say.
agentcom wrote:I'm back! Sorry for the delay. I agree with ManB and others about toning down the bevel. Your last one where you did that is the best looking of the newest versions. I also agree with chap about the horses. That was one of the first things I noticed about the newest generation of map.
GoodNow onto what you're more likely asking about. I think that the newest versions are definitely a step forward in being able to see the infantry icons. I'd be happy with the latest version, as far as that goes.
Yes there are small inconsistencies...which you have noticed...but i doubt if everyone else will notice or even bother with, certainly not enough for me to spend another several hours changing them all again on 2 maps.Two things on that latest version (the bottom one in your last post): First, Is the red in the infantry, cavalry and artillery the same red? I can't tell if it's just due to the contrast, but: (1) the cavalry icon looks the "reddest" perhaps because of the black of the outline makes up a bigger portion of the "total" icon; (2) the cavalry icon looks slightly "less red" perhaps due to the fact that the outline only goes around the perimeter of the icon; and (3) the infantry icons look the "least red" and still somewhat "blend into" the image behind them perhaps because they have no outline. To me, this is only an issue with the red icons. Maybe the blue infantry could use a black outline, but the colors in the cavalry and artillery appear more consistent to me.
Second, are you going to re-add the texture that you had on the old map now that you've changed the colors a bit? I think this is a bit too "crisp" for me. I think that could mute the birghtness of the colors a bit without actually changing the colors and bringing back whatever CB/contrast issues you may have been trying to fix.
Oh and one final thing: I notice that you're maybe not happy with the "Territory Naming" wording. Could I suggest "Territory Descriptions"
agentcom wrote:...
I've said pretty much all I have to say (except one thing): I like the old horses and the issues with the red that I brought up earlier...
But the one thing that I didn't say yet is thanks for taking the time to give this one another look. Really cool of you to go back and spend the time to update this even though you could just call it done since you already have the medal for it.
cairnswk wrote:The opportunity cost for me to redo these is far greater than getting on with something else.
thenobodies80 wrote:I was checking the files before sending....I see you changed the order of 2 regions Ney 04 and Ney 05.
To update the file using this order we have to close the map, wait all games end, etc etc due the way the game store the data.
I strongly suggest to use the old order so switch the two regions back in the old position, even if Ney 04 and Ney 05 are "not in order",specially considering that the change is just a cosmetic one.
thenobodies80 wrote:Yes I'm sure.
http://www.deltaxml.com/demo/document/3 ... esult.html
Check difference 63 and 66
On the left side is the current live xml, on the right side there's the one you posted here.
thenobodies80 wrote:I was checking the files before sending....I see you changed the order of 2 regions Ney 04 and Ney 05.
To update the file using this order we have to close the map, wait all games end, etc etc due the way the game store the data.
I strongly suggest to use the old order so switch the two regions back in the old position, even if Ney 04 and Ney 05 are "not in order",specially considering that the change is just a cosmetic one.
ViperOverLord wrote:thenobodies80 wrote:I was checking the files before sending....I see you changed the order of 2 regions Ney 04 and Ney 05.
To update the file using this order we have to close the map, wait all games end, etc etc due the way the game store the data.
I strongly suggest to use the old order so switch the two regions back in the old position, even if Ney 04 and Ney 05 are "not in order",specially considering that the change is just a cosmetic one.
[player]kchalot[/player] would be heartbroken if you closed the map. Other than that, I don't think it'd be too big a deal to close it if he wants to make the change.
ViperOverLord wrote:I'm not against closing the map to make an artificial change that'll better the map. But if you do, I'd wait til the big auto Waterloo tourney has completed.
thenobodies80 wrote:....
If you see, Ney 04 and Ney 05 aren't listed in the same order.
In the first file, it is ney 03, ney 05, ney 04
In the second file it is ney 03, ney 04, ney 05
The game stored the territories with a " number" , so for example ney 04 could be the 10th territory. If you change its position, making it the 9th region, when the game will read the file, it will search for the 10th territory, not for ney04, so the game will mess up because de facto ney 05 will be ney 04 with your new file. So, if before the update you had ney04,after it you'll find yourself with ney05.
The same is for continents. You can change all names, coords, features, but you must keep the same order of the current live file when you list them
In few words what i'm asking you is to swap ney 04 and ney 05 positions in your new xml to have them as they are in the current one that's live. Don't worry, no one will notice they are not in order in the xml because the drop down list will be a-z anyway so there's no difference while playing.
