Moderator: Cartographers

The Viking wrote:I just noticed Langjökull isn't mentioned![]()


hmm.... perhaps.fireedud wrote:I like the names of the glaciers, but tsince the small will look a bit busy, is it possible to include it only on the large?

Same here, and i was thinking exactly the same.fireedud wrote:I like the names of the glaciers, but tsince the small will look a bit busy, is it possible to include it only on the large?
I concur. All of a sudden some of the terit names are hard to read (esp skykkisholmir)Ruben Cassar wrote:I like everything new in this update RJ.
The only thing that I am still not 100% happy about is the legibility of the territory names in some regions.


I agree with this as well.oaktown wrote:tell me to shut up if you disagree, but I don't think that it's entirely necessary to use different colors for the territory titles... some of the colors become very hard to read against the sea color, especially (for my eyes) the western titles. I applaud the attempt to make the different regions unique, but it would certainly be simpler for you to find one color that was easy to read and stick with it.

I can read it, and like the different colors for each continent. Maybe you can make it bolder or something like that.RjBeals wrote:was the previous version easier to read than this most recent update?
I'll look into a common color for all the text, but I'm still thinking I had just enough bevel to make it hard to read.
I can read it just fine tooMarVal wrote:I can read it, and like the different colors for each continent. Maybe you can make it bolder or something like that.RjBeals wrote:was the previous version easier to read than this most recent update?
I'll look into a common color for all the text, but I'm still thinking I had just enough bevel to make it hard to read.
Instead of this suggestion, I adjusted the colors (and blending / outer glows) of the territory names. Now the names are a shade of the bonus region they are in. I've added enough flare to them so they don't blend into the oceans or the land colors. I'm happy with it this way. Hope you guys are too.Ruben Cassar wrote:I agree with this as well.oaktown wrote:tell me to shut up if you disagree, but I don't think that it's entirely necessary to use different colors for the territory titles... some of the colors become very hard to read against the sea color, especially (for my eyes) the western titles. I applaud the attempt to make the different regions unique, but it would certainly be simpler for you to find one color that was easy to read and stick with it.

I think tacktix is right on this one.TaCktiX wrote:Wherever a territory name crosses the land/sea border, it goes completely unreadable. This IS fixable without changing colors, fonts, or effects, only where names are placed.
E.G.,
Isafjordur can move to the left a bit (into the sea, but there's nothing else there to confuse with)
Drangsnes can move a little right
Trollaskagi can move left onto the land
Stykkisholmur can move slightly right so it isn't coinciding with the Olafsvik border
Djupivogur can go right and down, same with Eskifjordur
Heraosfloi can go up and right
Neskaupstaour can move slightly to the left
Holtavorduheidi can move slightly left toward the territory border
Budaradalur can move slightly to the left onto the sea
And that should resolve any text readability issues in their entirety. Or at least, that's my thinking.

Actually I was looking at version 10 when I posted that comment. I just realised that there were two versions.RjBeals wrote:come on now guys. I really do not want to move text around. It took me a while to place the territ names where they are. Are they that hard to read? I know they are not as clear as some maps, but they were chosen for the style. I'll add a poll.
Edit.. Poll's don't work.
So I'll just wait for comments.