Page 18 of 25
Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 11:32 am
by Qwert
Why i have filing that every MOD,have something against me.
Every time when i say that not have same right like others authors,Andy say oposite, Now i support Cairnswk with these dimension of small map(621px),and i know that Edbeard will say"These map not need extra px" and that Gimil will react"I understand that these will upset some people so Cairswk remove these extra px",but these is wrong,because i belive that Cairnswk have logical reason,also i have reason why i need extra px.
I realy dont want to be some Investigate Agent,and to finding thing who oposite from what Andy and CA says.
Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 7:03 am
by cairnswk
Version 31 vs Verions 30 Comparison
Below is the last version 30 at 621 px wide. I suggest that this map needs the extra 21 pixels to allow eye-space to work and moderate the design.
The comparison V31 is below this to show the reductions in the map at 600px wide where the same size statsion (as v30) are placed.
Make your own judgement.
Would you be comfortable playing on the reduced size V31, or so you prefer V30. Let me know.
Previous V30
New Version 30 Small and Large
Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 8:50 am
by FreeMan10
I'd venture that the extra 31 px will make this small map more readable. However, I think it'll be OK at the 600 px size - especially with BoB. It is more crowded, but since I think you'd be crazy to play w/o BoB, I say smaller is fine.
Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 8:50 am
by onbekende
I don't mind the change
Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 10:25 am
by yeti_c
FreeMan10 wrote:I'd venture that the extra 31 px will make this small map more readable. However, I think it'll be OK at the 600 px size - especially with BoB. It is more crowded, but since I think you'd be crazy to play w/o BoB, I say smaller is fine.
BTW - it's 21px -> Cairns made a typo above...
C.
PS I agree though - it is quite a busy map - and some of the rails really aren't improved with the loss of clarity...
Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 12:21 pm
by FreeMan10
yeti_c wrote:BTW - it's 21px -> Cairns made a typo above...
What's 10 pixels among friends?
yeti_c wrote:PS I agree though - it is quite a busy map - and some of the rails really aren't improved with the loss of clarity...
All in all, I really don't care much about the small map because I use the large size. I also use BoB, so attack routes are pretty clear, no matter what the rails look like!
Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 4:34 pm
by Qwert
Gimil, at the time this map was started on 21 sep last year, there was no need to gain oversize permission because maps were allowed to go to that limit if they were going to need the extra 21 px width becauiise of their size and continent capacity.
At the time of my being a CA, we went through the exercise of downsizing most maps; most of my maps were downsized to the required 600px, however, this one was not put opn the list because of the largeness of the map and the extra space that is needed for the eye.
Lackattack did make a comment in the downsizing exercise, to the extent that it would be a shame to downsize maps like World 2.1 because they look great and need that extra space.
So to answer your question, i don't beleive i ever gained full permission to do this because at the time the extra 21 px were allowed. Andy may be aware of this map situation, if he is not, then i seek permission now....after the map is finished. I will say, that at this point in time, if i have to re-size this small version, i will be most disappointed.
Cairnswk,you are mine man
You open mine eye.
Mine bouth map start before these new Restriction size rules,and now i remember,that when i create Map Western front they have 340px,and Andy only ask to resize to 630px.
First when Gimil say to me that i dont ask for permision,i whas confuse,because i dont avare that Andy and Mod squad change these rules,and insted to give map authors to decide if hes need Extra px,they remove these option and put complete new order(only exclusive right to Andy and Mod,to decide who can get and who can not get extra px)
These is not good,and these is not fair to You,me or all others map authors who map is in production very long,before these new restriction size rules. I must say that these new rules,must be valid for all maps who start after these new rules starting,not for maps who is near complete.
Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 4:41 pm
by Unit_2
i don't like to nit-pick but the rails in italy are a little blury.
Posted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 10:47 am
by cairnswk
Gimil, is there any decision about this size issue yet?
Posted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 3:01 pm
by gimil
cairnswk wrote:Gimil, is there any decision about this size issue yet?
were getting there cairns.
Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 3:05 pm
by sam_levi_11
maybe in the unused area near scily(sp), you could put another picture, one that makes the map seem more european. something like the eiffel tower, sagrada familia, tower of london...
Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 4:24 pm
by cairnswk
VErsion 32
Bonus board at the top of the map? Comments.
Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 4:29 pm
by Night Strike
Ack!! The legend needs to stay at the bottom. The map looks odd with it at the top.
Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 4:31 pm
by gimil
I think there better on the bottom, give some difference from railUS.
As for making it more european, adding images of different country landmarks probably isnt the best way to go. You can really make something feel european since there isnt a proper cultural sterotype to go by since the concept of "europe" is still fairly new if you know what i mean.
THe only real way i feel you could describe europe is politically which also isnt the way to go for this map i feel.
Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 4:46 pm
by FreeMan10
I like the legend at the top in RailUSA - it allows me to see the whole map, have the BoB HUD visible, see the list of players, etc., because I can scroll the legend off the screen. I think it's a good way to go.
Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 2:14 am
by cairnswk
The size issue has now been resolved (thanks CAs and Andy) in favour of this map:
So, to recap, these are the size limits we will be enforcing:
Small map: height=600 pixels, width=630 pixels
Large map: height=800 pixels, width=840 pixels (800 pixels recommended)
as this map was started before all these new restrictions, and thereofore Version 30 above will go forward from here.
This will include feedback that the legend is best at the bottom. Thanks everyone for your opinions.
Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 9:55 am
by FreeMan10
cairnswk wrote:This will include feedback that the legend is best at the bottom. Thanks everyone for your opinions.
sniff... sniff... out voted...
Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 3:26 pm
by gimil
Here you are cairns, sorry for the inconvenince
Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 3:29 pm
by cairnswk
gimil wrote:Here you are cairns, sorry for the inconvenince
Thanks Gimil, but you don't have to apologise for doing your job.
Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 1:20 pm
by cairnswk
Surely this must be ready for FF?
Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 4:37 pm
by gimil
Patience cairns, patience
Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 11:57 am
by Gozar
Looks Rail-tastic.
Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 12:58 pm
by gimil
Gozar wrote:Looks Rail-tastic.
I love bad jokes
Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 3:46 pm
by cairnswk
gimil wrote:Patience cairns, patience
An update would be helpful please gimil!
Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 12:45 pm
by iancanton
in the legend, the colons and initial letters of the route names don’t line up with each other. this looks a bit untidy.
move the box for LVP by 5mm southward to be closer to liverpool’s actual location.
i think the STATIONS text ought to read “station names (not stations names) are 3-letter city code (not 3 letter station code), full city name, 1-letter (not 1 letter) service code”. this will make it consistent with the ATTACKING text, which includes the phrase “stations in same city”, implying that the 3-letter code is a city code, not a station code.
otherwise neat.
ian.
