![Very Happy :D](./images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif)
Moderator: Cartographers
gimil wrote:BRU station is hiding on the large.
Unfortunatly im still not happy with the legends numbers and the bonus textbut I think I can live with hte railways lines if you reduce the opacity slightly so there a little less visable.
For the bonus text how are you doin it effects wise?
cairnswk wrote:gimil wrote:BRU station is hiding on the large.
Unfortunatly im still not happy with the legends numbers and the bonus textbut I think I can live with hte railways lines if you reduce the opacity slightly so there a little less visable.
For the bonus text how are you doin it effects wise?
I can see BRU on both versions perfectly well, and my eyes are oplder than yours gimil.
what is wrong with the bonus texts now....you know gimil, one day everything is ok and you don't have time to give things a good look over....next two days you come back and start nit picking like buggery...i moved all the numbers and centered them...so what is wrong with everything now? I've changed the green so it can be seen...come one man, gimme a break...sometimes i wonder if you're just nit picking for the sake of being difficult.
natty_dread wrote:I was wrong
gimil wrote:cairnswk wrote:gimil wrote:BRU station is hiding on the large.
Unfortunatly im still not happy with the legends numbers and the bonus textbut I think I can live with hte railways lines if you reduce the opacity slightly so there a little less visable.
For the bonus text how are you doin it effects wise?
I can see BRU on both versions perfectly well, and my eyes are oplder than yours gimil.
what is wrong with the bonus texts now....you know gimil, one day everything is ok and you don't have time to give things a good look over....next two days you come back and start nit picking like buggery...i moved all the numbers and centered them...so what is wrong with everything now? I've changed the green so it can be seen...come one man, gimme a break...sometimes i wonder if you're just nit picking for the sake of being difficult.
Im sorry to have offened . . .
Do yo ureally think im trying to make your life more difficult? Do you really think im being unreasonable?
cairnswk wrote:So what needs fixing now?
natty_dread wrote:I was wrong
natty_dread wrote:I was wrong
gimil wrote:cairnswk wrote:So what needs fixing now?
Cairns my humble apologies, I needed my browser reset. I was working from an old image.
natty_dread wrote:I was wrong
juventino wrote:the title. Its looks bad where the "text" part and the "art" part comes together. Make it more smooth
gimil wrote:Yes cairns I wasnt aware that you did this towards the end ill remeber for the future
freeman, I mstill tossing around the idea of giving teh graphic. Im trying to think if there is any wat to resolve my concerns with hte sleepers on the large without giving cairns o much work
juventino wrote:the title. Its looks bad where the "text" part and the "art" part comes together. Make it more smooth
Im throwing around the idea of gicing the graphics still
natty_dread wrote:I was wrong
gimil wrote:Im sorry to bust in cairns, but have you gained permission for the extra space you have took for the small? You started this map before my time.
gangster2b wrote:I really like the idea!![]()
but the grapics don't look so attractive...
cairnswk wrote:gimil wrote:Im sorry to bust in cairns, but have you gained permission for the extra space you have took for the small? You started this map before my time.
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.
natty_dread wrote:I was wrong
gimil wrote:cairnswk wrote:gimil wrote:Im sorry to bust in cairns, but have you gained permission for the extra space you have took for the small? You started this map before my time.
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.
Ok cairns I will look into this, Im just trying to get all the map sizes in order
Users browsing this forum: No registered users