Moderator: Cartographers
almost? man, you have some dirty fantasy, lol!ender516 wrote:ORBS! An excellent synonym. Short, and almost entirely lacking in sexual connotation.




Top Score:2403natty_dread wrote:I was wrong

Alternate sizes for the ones that are closer to the foreground might be a good place to start. However I am not sold on them in general. They just don't sit the way they should, you know what I mean?natty_dread wrote:Thanks gimil, I'll try to follow your advice. Any opinion about the orbs? (see last post)
Top Score:2403natty_dread wrote:I was wrong

In that case, experiment away until you find something that you like!natty_dread wrote:It's probably due to the reduced opacity, eh? That was really just an experiment...
Top Score:2403natty_dread wrote:I was wrong
I wouldn't take it personally, my opinion is just that, mine.paulk wrote:That gimil don't like this map is no surprise... he's been against it since the beginning and almost succeeded in killing it.
Top Score:2403natty_dread wrote:I was wrong

Top Score:2403natty_dread wrote:I was wrong
That's a good point, when it comes to 3d perspective. Although, I wonder how it would affect the legibility of the army numbers...?gimil wrote:I put my finger on what is wrong with the orbs. Some of them should have 'bars' that appear in front of them however all the bars are seen through the orbs transparency, Does that make sense?

For the 3D effect I think the orbs need to be more like this:natty_dread wrote:Yep, I think I see what you mean.

Top Score:2403natty_dread wrote:I was wrong

Top Score:2403natty_dread wrote:I was wrong

Yeah, I agree...the orb in the front is a good size to start from, but the others need to be bigger. you have to consider that you should aim to fit 888 even in the smaller map version.
IMO the layer shadows improve the legibility of the map. Why do you want to get rid of them?Can you give me this one again as a transparent PNG, with 3d orbs changing size with the perspective and rods sticking out, but without the 1-4 layer shadows, thanks?

I think the two rows of orbs in the middle are to similar in size while the front and back seen to be noticeable bigger/smaller.natty_dread wrote:Somehow the perspective still seems a bit skewed. I can't quite put my finger on it... 2 possible things come in mind:
a) maybe the 3rd layer of orbs (2nd smallest) should be moved forward just a bit?
b) perhaps the first (largest) orbs are just a bit too large?
Top Score:2403natty_dread wrote:I was wrong