I don't intend for this to be produced, so this isn't in the map fundry, but i just want to know...is this classic map better than the one we have now?
Classic map
Moderator: Community Team
Forum rules
Please read the community guidelines before posting.
Please read the community guidelines before posting.
Classic map
Last edited by The_Devil on Fri May 04, 2007 3:19 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Peace out
highest place...4948
highest place...4948
-
ClessAlvein
- Posts: 151
- Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 9:30 pm
Plus, Scandinavia is a bit messed up. And North America is far too bloated.
Last edited by ClessAlvein on Tue May 01, 2007 4:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
happy2seeyou
- Posts: 4022
- Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2007 2:59 pm
- Gender: Female
- Location: A state that is in the shape of a mitten!
- Contact:
-
ClessAlvein
- Posts: 151
- Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 9:30 pm
No, it wouldn't be. You've artificially stretched Greenland by what appears to be a factor of more than 2. If you're going to do that, you have to stretch southern Australia as well. Here's what a real rectangular projection of the globe looks like:
Edit: Not to sound mean, but this map will not get quenched. The current map is fine, and much better than your current version.
Edit: Not to sound mean, but this map will not get quenched. The current map is fine, and much better than your current version.
Last edited by ClessAlvein on Tue May 01, 2007 4:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
It's because this map is more like the Mercator map than the Classic map is.ClessAlvein wrote:Plus, Scandinavia is a bit messed up. And North America is far too bloated.
The Classic map looks more like the Peters Projection map, which has all countries shown at more-or-less their relative land areas.
The Mercator map exaggerates the sizes of the Northern Hemisphere countries, and understates the sizes of the Southern Hemisphere countries. So India looks like it's the same size as Scandinavia, when really it's much bigger.
EDIT: Fastposted, and by a much better answer. Never mind.
Its acutally bent backwards at the top and bottom...and besides i did strech S america (you don't see it because i don't have antartica)ClessAlvein wrote:No, it wouldn't be. You've artificially stretched Greenland by what appears to be a factor of more than 2. If you're going to do that, you have to stretch southern Australia as well. Here's what a real rectangular projection of the globe looks like:
Edit: Not to sound mean, but this map will not get quenched. The current map is fine, and much better than your current version.
Peace out
highest place...4948
highest place...4948
-
Incandenza
- Posts: 4949
- Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2006 5:34 pm
- Gender: Male
- Location: Playing Eschaton with a bucket of old tennis balls
-
Whiteberry
- Posts: 118
- Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2006 1:23 am
- Gender: Male
- Location: Las Vegas, NV
map numbers
I would love to see numbers in bold print so that it's easier to tell what color a certain country is. Sometimes it's very difficult to tell the difference between yellow and white or between pink and red. If the numbers on all maps were larger or bolder, this problem would be solved. Also, sometimes I have to get close to my monitor to read the number of blue armies. I can tell when a country is blue, but I have to look at the screen close to read the number of armies. Does anyone else have this problem?