Moderator: Cartographers
I can see BRU on both versions perfectly well, and my eyes are oplder than yours gimil.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?




Im sorry to have offened . . .cairnswk wrote:I can see BRU on both versions perfectly well, and my eyes are oplder than yours gimil.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?
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.
Top Score:2403natty_dread wrote:I was wrong
And I am sorry for begin angry Gimil...no i don't think you're begin unreasonable, but one day everything is fine and the next you tell me another story...what am I to beleive or wonder?gimil wrote:Im sorry to have offened . . .cairnswk wrote:I can see BRU on both versions perfectly well, and my eyes are oplder than yours gimil.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?
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.
Do yo ureally think im trying to make your life more difficult? Do you really think im being unreasonable?

Gimiiiilllllll!!!gimil wrote:Cairns my humble apologies, I needed my browser reset. I was working from an old image.cairnswk wrote:So what needs fixing now?



Top Score:2403natty_dread wrote:I was wrong
Interesting point. Cairns - could the bottom of the text be curved to match the arch of the title box, and could the edges of the text box be blended into the iron work a little more smoothly? Now that I look at it, it does seem a bit abrupt.juventino wrote:the title. Its looks bad where the "text" part and the "art" part comes together. Make it more smooth
Gimil- Maybe you should resolve my concerns with your finger functionality first!!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
Gimil, thanks for the Idea Passed iconjuventino wrote:the title. Its looks bad where the "text" part and the "art" part comes together. Make it more smooth
Sorry, don't understand what "gicing" the graphics means.Im throwing around the idea of gicing the graphics still



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.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.

1. if you could do better, i challenge you.gangster2b wrote:I really like the idea!![]()
but the grapics don't look so attractive...

Ok cairns I will look into this, Im just trying to get all the map sizes in ordercairnswk wrote: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.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.
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.
Top Score:2403natty_dread wrote:I was wrong
Thank you Gimil....you do that!gimil wrote:Ok cairns I will look into this, Im just trying to get all the map sizes in ordercairnswk wrote: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.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.
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.


