CBMAP t1 t2

[NUTTZ]

Map1




Map2


NUTTZ

[BenDover]

1 looks a little hilly
2 looks too flat

can you do something in between?

[CptTrips]

I like the first one.

Wab

[hitech]

From just looks, I like #1, but I think #2 has more of a paper map feel and will be easyer to pick stuff out on. Just look how much easyer it is to see the grid lines on #2.

Also one trick nate and superfly use is to change the shade slightly of the grid lines and numbers as they go over different areas.

[SirLoin]

I thinkl #1 would be great!!!!..Though it's hard to tell from so high up.

...

[NUTTZ]

I can do anything in between, what i did was take the relief map ( greyscale) and made a second map and colorized the zones. then i put the coloered map as a transparency over the relief map used to make the map in the TE. The transparency can change. I thought it looked to flat once done so i ran it threw "plastic" or bitbumping, both of which can be controlled, this just exagerated the mountain definitions. But i Can do any where in between since i have complete controll at each stage.

I also have the grids on a seperate layer so THAT also can be completely controlled.

I originally wanted to keep it looking like a paper map by just tinting the zones in different shades of tan or light browns. I'm not sure if the colored zone looks to much like a "risk" board, Is that good or bad?

I agree some sort of elevation needs to be shown.

I've attached the 2 images.





NUTTZ

[NUTTZ]

CC, I did that with the Tunisia gridlines and numbers.

NUTTZ

Originally posted by hitech
From just looks, I like #1, but I think #2 has more of a paper map feel and will be easyer to pick stuff out on. Just look how much easyer it is to see the grid lines on #2.

Also one trick nate and superfly use is to change the shade slightly of the grid lines and numbers as they go over different areas.

[CptTrips]

Personally, this is the solution I'd like to see:

You know how you can select different maps to view on the clipboard?  I'd like a flag in the config file showing which of those you'd like a position icon on.  That way you could have different versions of a terrains map for different purposes.  A flat, zone tinted  version that doesn't show elevations but where you can see dar icons against very well.  Then switchover and see a fairly detaiiled elevation map with gradation lines with enough detail to plan GV operation and find low spots for reverse slope defensive positions.  How to get from A to Z with climbing the least number of hills, etc.  The maps could be of different resolution.  The flat paper map to see dar icons doesn't need a lot of res.  So maybe its 512x512 pixels.  The GV terrain elevation map needs the most resolutions to show fine scale ground detail.  2048x2048 pixels?  Anyway, my point being, I don't think a single style map can serve all the needs to maximium effeciency.  

$0.02,
Wab

[steely07]

Drool

[SKurj]

yes Wabbit! same sort of idea had occured to me as well.  With the calls for a grey scale map... yeah why not permit the players to have multiple MA terrain maps of different complexities and colours for different things...  

SKurj

[NUTTZ]

Thinking this over, I think you have a better solution to the congestion of the cb map. when you hit the "zone " tab or the information tab, field tab , alt tab Maybe the map can change with it , instead of compiling all the information over top. For instance the grid line numbers are a nusaince while try to see dar bars and  field activity but when i ask where somebody is and i get 12,15,7  It really takes some effort to zoom in, read the grid to zoom out and get to a closer field to zoom in and find them. A simple grid map would be great, while a alt map would be also useful for planing raids. Etc. etc.  We can make them all and let the user pick which one he will use for default and which one's he'll use to toggle.



I personally like the idea, I also understand this is cumbersome to the mapmakers. But trying to fit all the info into one map waters down it effectiveness.


NUTTZ


 

Originally posted by AKWabbit
Personally, this is the solution I'd like to see:

You know how you can select different maps to view on the clipboard?  I'd like a flag in the config file showing which of those you'd like a position icon on.  That way you could have different versions of a terrains map for different purposes.  A flat, zone tinted  version that doesn't show elevations but where you can see dar icons against very well.  Then switchover and see a fairly detaiiled elevation map with gradation lines with enough detail to plan GV operation and find low spots for reverse slope defensive positions.  How to get from A to Z with climbing the least number of hills, etc.  The maps could be of different resolution.  The flat paper map to see dar icons doesn't need a lot of res.  So maybe its 512x512 pixels.  The GV terrain elevation map needs the most resolutions to show fine scale ground detail.  2048x2048 pixels?  Anyway, my point being, I don't think a single style map can serve all the needs to maximium effeciency.  

$0.02,
Wab

[wantok]

Nuttz, i think the first map looks fantastic - it gets my vote.

it's a big improvement over the standard CB maps in terms of field/dar visibility, and still gives good detail and definition for topography.

to my mind the second one is too soft on landform detail, and as both your samples use low saturation colours in land areas, dar and fields will still be highly visible on  the first one.

my only suggestion would be to similarly reduce the saturation of the colour of the water areas, and maybe to lighten the heavy coastal lines.

for bringing this up, too.