[Official] Classic Revamp [Quenched]

[WidowMakers]

Saving server space? Please. All the posts on the forums take up more space than converting all of the map images to PNG:s...

Besides, I find it a bit offending to the mapmakers, who spend their time and effort to make the most graphically excellent & beautiful maps, only to have their image quality shitcanned by the administration...

It is a matter of bandwidth. Maps are viewed more than anything else. A very small percentage of player even hit the forums. Regardless, the maps are all jpeg (or animated gif). Go check for yourself.

[natty dread]

Oh, I believe you.

Oh well. Maybe some day...

[the.killing.44]

To add on to WM's post:

MAXIMUM QUALITY JPG
http://i449.photobucket.com/albums/qq21 ... ndv32S.jpg
PNG
http://i449.photobucket.com/albums/qq21 ... v32S-1.png

Open them in separate tabs and switch back and forth very fast. There is no visible difference, sorry.

[WidowMakers]

To add on to WM's post:

MAXIMUM QUALITY JPG
http://i449.photobucket.com/albums/qq21 ... ndv32S.jpg
PNG
http://i449.photobucket.com/albums/qq21 ... v32S-1.png

Open them in separate tabs and switch back and forth very fast. There is no visible difference, sorry.

Correct. But you are assuming MAX jpeg. Not all programs will do jpeg the same. It is apparent because Sully's screen capture image is not good.

[the.killing.44]

To add on to WM's post:

MAXIMUM QUALITY JPG
http://i449.photobucket.com/albums/qq21 ... ndv32S.jpg
PNG
http://i449.photobucket.com/albums/qq21 ... v32S-1.png

Open them in separate tabs and switch back and forth very fast. There is no visible difference, sorry.

Correct. But you are assuming MAX jpeg. Not all programs will do jpeg the same. It is apparent because Sully's screen capture image is not good.

I'm just trying to prove if sully, using Photoshop (which supports max qual), saved as highest quality (12) jpg, it would be just as fine at a lower file size (the PNG is 672kb; the JPG is 428kb).

[natty dread]

Open them in separate tabs and switch back and forth very fast.

Why very fast? Of course you can't see a difference if you switch them very fast. Your eyes won't even register those details if you switch images fast.

Also, about that file size comparison... is that made with optimized png:s?

[sully800]

I think this is all a conversation that is better left for "Not maps" since it is not contributing to this map specifically. I will definitely submit lack the highest quality image possible, so this debate seems inconsequential here. The info is important however and is useful to all cartographers, so it might be better to split these posts off into a new topic?

[natty dread]

so it might be better to split these posts off into a new topic?

I agree. Mods...

[the.killing.44]

I think this is all a conversation that is better left for "Not maps" since it is not contributing to this map specifically. I will definitely submit lack the highest quality image possible, so this debate seems inconsequential here. The info is important however and is useful to all cartographers, so it might be better to split these posts off into a new topic?

Good call. There's nothing left to discuss, though…

[sully800]

And here's the large versions:

Click image to enlarge.

Click image to enlarge.

I remembered why I don't save as png - it's not an option for me in photoshop (unless I'm missing something obvious). This is a higher quality jpeg though (still one short of the highest quality)

[edbeard]

does the large map have to be so big?

840 is the max

800x433 is art
750x400 is shapes

I want to say original was even slimmer than 750


it really just doesn't need to be this big. the max really should only be used when necessary.

[The Neon Peon]

Look at the two bonus circles on the left. (the edge).
Now look at the edge of the one on the right.

Is it just me, or are the edges of the ones on the left pixelated?

The only other problem I can see is that in "Anchorage and Magadan are connected" the e's look more like o's than anything else. I don't see this problem on the main map, though. Perhaps use the same font for that part of the legend as well?

Looks beautiful sully, can't wait to be able to play on classic again.

[isaiah40]

Look at the two bonus circles on the left. (the edge).
Now look at the edge of the one on the right.

Is it just me, or are the edges of the ones on the left pixelated?

The only other problem I can see is that in "Anchorage and Magadan are connected" the e's look more like o's than anything else. I don't see this problem on the main map, though. Perhaps use the same font for that part of the legend as well?

Looks beautiful sully, can't wait to be able to play on classic again.

Hmmm ... I would say they are a tad bit, never noticed them until you mentioned them. I guess my eyes are going to

[RjBeals]

i like the projection you used for the land. Is this something you outlined yourself? Or did you trace something you found on the web?

[Intox2]

I suggest you make your drop shadow a little stronger under the lines connecting the territories around the meditarenean bassin and north africa, since it has details and parts of it over very light pixels, its at some places a little unclear

[saaimen]

One other thing that bothers me... Though it may seem ridiculous.
Your username, sully800, does not have capitals.
Your signature in the lower right corner of the map, says Sully800, with a capital.
Why?

[ender516]

I suggest you make your drop shadow a little stronger under the lines connecting the territories around the meditarenean bassin and north africa, since it has details and parts of it over very light pixels, its at some places a little unclear

Is the problem here that the lines are essentially aligned with the light source and thus not casting a shadow?

[Craze_b0i]

Apologies if this has been said already, but for me all the connecting lines make it look like an airline map. Makes it look as though the territories are not territories so much as cities connected by airports. I prefer maps with territorial-borders, like World 2.1.

[natty dread]

I prefer maps with territorial-borders, like World 2.1.

It's just not possible to make this map as such. It would be too close to the original classic map, thus breaking copyright...

[AndyDufresne]

Apologies if this has been said already, but for me all the connecting lines make it look like an airline map. Makes it look as though the territories are not territories so much as cities connected by airports. I prefer maps with territorial-borders, like World 2.1.

Right, though not completely ideal, connecting lines are probably the best option we have. And really, I think they work pretty well with the Major City theme.


--Andy

[sully800]

Apologies if this has been said already, but for me all the connecting lines make it look like an airline map. Makes it look as though the territories are not territories so much as cities connected by airports. I prefer maps with territorial-borders, like World 2.1.

The points ARE cities connected by airports/train lines/highways. Cities are not geographical regions, and they should be depicted as distinct points connected by lines.

[lackattack]

Port Moresby and Anchorage are pretty small, along with Edmonton, Reykavijk, a couple African cities. That is the nature of the beast though, it's not possible to get all very well known cities on the map because of the way they are distributed. I'm just hoping to get the best possible clear version, and so far I like version 5 a bit better.

Reykavijk is famous from Where in the world is Carmen SanDiego?

[Evil DIMwit]

Port Moresby and Anchorage are pretty small, along with Edmonton, Reykavijk, a couple African cities. That is the nature of the beast though, it's not possible to get all very well known cities on the map because of the way they are distributed. I'm just hoping to get the best possible clear version, and so far I like version 5 a bit better.

Reykavijk is famous from Where in the world is Carmen SanDiego?

Reykjavik, Magadan, Port Moresby, and Edmonton all show up in other CC maps.

[sully800]

Okay so to recap the important current points:

DO NOT use a magnifying inset. It will not look right at all. It will confuse and make a great looking look bad.

I never addressed the magnifying glass issue, but I trust WM's judgment. Like the pointers, a magnifying inset would allow more cities in the crowded area, but it could also cause some confusion to players when they initially look at the map. Any distortion or unnecessary marking makes it harder to easily glance and understand the image. I'm pretty happy with the latest city arrangement, but I also like V5. The only current issue is Manila-Novos. It's awkward, but hopefully clear enough.

Images +
I like straight lines for all of the connections, because with some of the text needing to go on top of the lines it makes it perfectly clear where the line is going.

Pork - Thanks for your suggestions and for the time you spent drafting up your ideas. I know you do it because you enjoy making images and because it is a clear way of showing suggestions. The rotating bonuses indeed have been scrapped because it would reduce the image quality of the entire map. As for straight lines, that won't be possible in all cases because some cities couldn't be connected directly (notably, Manila-Novosibirsk as mentioned above). I think the curved lines are much more visually pleasing and that seems to be the general consensus, though I guess there are still a few who disagree.

Personally, I don't like having 3 globes. The way each globe is a representation of "half" earth, but yet that there are three somewhat suggest there are three halves (?). Just a personal quirk. It works well, so you don't really have to change it.

There was a recent wave of posts in favor of 2 globes instead of the current 3. If we don't have any more pressing issues I think we can make a poll to decide 3 or 2 globes, or maybe even the simple list. And if we use the list or 2 globes should we reinstate the compass. Plenty of options out there! I like the globes, and I think the current arrangement is very clear and has a nice balance, but it also takes up more space than the 2 globe arrangement.

3) Adjust 88's for: Edmonton (up) / Mexico City (up) / Lima (up) / Sao Paulo (up) / Moscow (up) / Jakarta (up) / Tokyo (up & left) / Magadan (up)

Done! Before we fine tune the coords on the large, I suppose we should decide if the size is okay...

does the large map have to be so big?

840 is the max

800x433 is art
750x400 is shapes

I want to say original was even slimmer than 750

it really just doesn't need to be this big. the max really should only be used when necessary.

edbeard makes a valid point, and I wish I had considered it before entering in all the large coords and aligning connections. I suppose it won't take too long to decrease to 750 or 800 pixels instead of 840. I was thinking larger is better for visibility, but it does seem to be awfully large. Would everyone prefer the large to be 800 pixels wide?

Look at the two bonus circles on the left. (the edge).
Now look at the edge of the one on the right.

Is it just me, or are the edges of the ones on the left pixelated?

The only other problem I can see is that in "Anchorage and Magadan are connected" the e's look more like o's than anything else. I don't see this problem on the main map, though. Perhaps use the same font for that part of the legend as well?

Looks beautiful sully, can't wait to be able to play on classic again.

I'm not sure about the pixelated globes you are seeing. The background images started out identical and have been sized identically. There have been some funny things occurring when resizing the globes. If others notice this issue I will make sure there's nothing wrong. As for the font in the top left, you've got a good eye! The font is exactly the same (Trebuchet MS), but apparently when you change from size 12 to size 13 the shape of the e's changes significantly. So I've switched that font to size 12 in the large version which matches the rest of the territory text.

And thanks!

i like the projection you used for the land. Is this something you outlined yourself? Or did you trace something you found on the web?

I began tracing this map while waiting for a plane in O'hare this March. The airline hub maps were my initial inspiration of how we might be able to make classic work!

I suggest you make your drop shadow a little stronger under the lines connecting the territories around the meditarenean bassin and north africa, since it has details and parts of it over very light pixels, its at some places a little unclear

The problem here is that all the connecting lines use a global light source to cast their shadow (all shadows go in the same direction) and those lines are basically parallel to the light. I've adjusted the light source, because the Mediterranean lines were particularly hard to see (very light background). Now the only concern I see is Perth-Port Moresby, but it is still clearer than the lines you pointed out.

One other thing that bothers me... Though it may seem ridiculous.
Your username, sully800, does not have capitals.
Your signature in the lower right corner of the map, says Sully800, with a capital.
Why?

I use this name on many sites with slight variations (sully800, Sully800, Sully 800, Sully_800). Adjusted to match my CC name

Reykavijk is famous from Where in the world is Carmen SanDiego?

Is that actually where she was? I'm a huge Rockapella fan and I scanned the lyrics to see if I had always missed the Reykavijk reference, but they don't mention it in the theme song. I can safely say she visited many parts of this map: Berlin, Chicago, Perth, Lima... We better watch out before we give someone else a new Map Idea!

[Evil DIMwit]

does the large map have to be so big?

840 is the max

800x433 is art
750x400 is shapes

I want to say original was even slimmer than 750

it really just doesn't need to be this big. the max really should only be used when necessary.

edbeard makes a valid point, and I wish I had considered it before entering in all the large coords and aligning connections. I suppose it won't take too long to decrease to 750 or 800 pixels instead of 840. I was thinking larger is better for visibility, but it does seem to be awfully large. Would everyone prefer the large to be 800 pixels wide?

Yeah, the large map can certainly go down in size. Especially since it's so roomy and the city circles are the same size as in the small one.