Moderator: Cartographers
I can look into it. Most likely will be possible. Just need to see how the pixel letters enlarge.cairnswk wrote:WM. is there anything that can be done to increase the height of the id cell numbers.
I'm having great difficulty telling 16, 18 ,19 and 20 apart..although they are clearer on the small map than on the large map and look less squashed.
WidowMakers wrote:Large Version 3
-Made letters and numbers taller for better readability
...
porkenbeans wrote:Yes, it is starting to look better. It does however, still have a fuzziness to it overall. I think you can fix that, if you play with the drop shadow a little. Don't be afraid to crank it all the way up until it goes out of focus, and then slide the bar back and forth to see just where it looks the clearest.
Oh, I am sorry it is not a drop shadow, but a bevel setting on the cells.WidowMakers wrote:porkenbeans wrote:Yes, it is starting to look better. It does however, still have a fuzziness to it overall. I think you can fix that, if you play with the drop shadow a little. Don't be afraid to crank it all the way up until it goes out of focus, and then slide the bar back and forth to see just where it looks the clearest.
What drop shadow are you referring to.
MrBenn wrote:I still think the region naming convention is a little wordy... I'm sure there must be some way to indicate which territory is the "lowest alphanumeric value" in each cluster? I wonder if you could indicate the "Master" territory with square brackets or something: [A1], or possibly with underlining or a red dot or a larval grub or something??
Yes, get bold with it. It feels like I am looking at it without my glasses on. If that makes any sense to you. Just try to bring it into focus.WidowMakers wrote:MrBenn wrote:I still think the region naming convention is a little wordy... I'm sure there must be some way to indicate which territory is the "lowest alphanumeric value" in each cluster? I wonder if you could indicate the "Master" territory with square brackets or something: [A1], or possibly with underlining or a red dot or a larval grub or something??
Basically: HONEYCOMB CLUSTER NAMING: Number of Hexes in each color group + Name of underlined Hex?
How is that?
I will get to your suggestion too pork. But just so I understand, you want a more crisp bevel correct? The current one is too soft for you right?
WM
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
Which decision? Bevel or symbol?john9blue wrote:Putting in army numbers would help make the decision easier...
natty_dread wrote:x A1 x seems best to me.
WidowMakers wrote:natty_dread wrote:x A1 x seems best to me.
porkenbeans wrote:Your bevel settings are off. It looks like it is all choked out. I usually start with the opacity at around 60 or 70%, with 0 choke, 1 distance, and 0 size. Tentatively set your size to the kind of shadow you are looking for. in other words what kind of an edge you are after. Then go back and forth between the distance and size and opacity. The choke is only necessary in rare occasions when the layer's opacity is set low. I do not think that you will need to use it here.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users