Conquer Club

TaCktiX wrote:I find it odd that "awarded" and "highest" don't fit on the line above where they appear. The extreme indent looks odd that way. Scoot the entire text box over a couple of pixels and you should be able to fit it all. If you want to vertically fill the space, just transform it a smidge (I do this trick with R&C's legend on the bottom right). Also, the map credit looks VERY out of place in the bottom right. Perhaps hijack the space in the top left, among the trees. A little glow and it'll stand out well enough.

And using any colorblind utility is fine, we just suggest VisCheck as Photoshop (the most popular used software) doesn't have that GIMP feature. VisCheck is universal, GIMP filters are not.

Will change now.
Had the sig there as there was space.

This map is really coming together nicely. The only real suggestions I have revolve around the legend---the text with the white outline doesn't seem to jive very well.

Additionally, the little bonus-color legend with the names looks unfinished.

And lastly, in the legend you mention both 'troop' and 'army' --- is there a difference or does it just need to be standardized to one or the other?

Keep up the good work.


--Andy

TaCktiX wrote:And using any colorblind utility is fine, we just suggest VisCheck as Photoshop (the most popular used software) doesn't have that GIMP feature. VisCheck is universal, GIMP filters are not.

What!

I thought PS was supposed to be the "good", "advanced" software for which it is worth to pay hundreds of dollars... can it be that it lacks such a vital feature as display filters???

I was going to start saving money for photoshop but now that I heard this, I'm going to spend it all on booze and drugs.

natty_dread wrote:

TaCktiX wrote:And using any colorblind utility is fine, we just suggest VisCheck as Photoshop (the most popular used software) doesn't have that GIMP feature. VisCheck is universal, GIMP filters are not.

What!

I thought PS was supposed to be the "good", "advanced" software for which it is worth to pay hundreds of dollars... can it be that it lacks such a vital feature as display filters???

I was going to start saving money for photoshop but now that I heard this, I'm going to spend it all on booze and drugs.

Photoshop does have the CB tests, here is a cropped screenshot of my CS4:

natty_dread wrote:

TaCktiX wrote:And using any colorblind utility is fine, we just suggest VisCheck as Photoshop (the most popular used software) doesn't have that GIMP feature. VisCheck is universal, GIMP filters are not.

What!

I thought PS was supposed to be the "good", "advanced" software for which it is worth to pay hundreds of dollars... can it be that it lacks such a vital feature as display filters???

I was going to start saving money for photoshop but now that I heard this, I'm going to spend it all on booze and drugs.

if you want to make professional images good for printing then photoshop is the right choice while gimp utterly fails.
for casual usage (CC map making included) gimp is just fine. in fact it actually has 2 very important advantages (price and resources needed to run)

How about Krita? I have it installed but haven't really had the chance to try it yet...

This is looking pretty darn good now. Just a little thing here. Some of the bush areas seem to be "on top" of the map, while others seem to be "part" of the map. Specifically the bushes at the top. For now I'll go ahead and sticky this, so it can move on!

Firstly, thanks for the sticky.

Latest Version [55]
Large Small TaCktiX, did as you asked with the story in the legend. Looks a lot better, thanks.
The sig is still there as without it, the legend seemed out of place. When it moved to the top left, it stuck out from the trees into the territ. Making it look bloody awful.

AndyDufresne, the glow around the text in the legend has changed. Hope you like it.
The iButho legend was put in a week ago and with all of the changes in the legend it got left behind. Brought it up to date and should now be good in both versions.
Changed the wording so it is now identical.

natty_dread, DiM and isaiah40, go to the foundry discussion threads to talk about CB tests and what PS can or cannot do.

What's changed.
Big version - iButho legend made nice. Glow has changed to a much nicer looking one.
Small - territ names have been made smaller to fit into territs - New glow around them all - legend sorted - little men moved to fit

isaiah40 - is there any particular bush you are referring to.

Oh, and thanks for the sticky again.

koontz1973...i hope you don't mind this...
I have taken the liberty of showing what I think the legend should look like.
The only font used is Verdana, and i have used the double stroke image from the shields in the title to create some separation guides in the bottom legend to give it a tie with the top legend by one element alone.
Please note the re-wording on the compound text.
the IButhos names have a small 2 px drop shadow.
Consistency is the key.
This also should look good if you use it in the large map.
I hope this helps!
Oh also, i don't think you need the arrows in the legend (which frees up a bit of space)...they are self explanatory really. They simply need to be sharpened a bit on the map to make the <=> => (heads) look more identifiable.

I like cairns example for the legend.

As for the bushes, it looks like you have a drop shadow on them. IDK, but where the shadow is it looks like they are on the map. And where that shadow is, it is looking a little pixelated. So let's start with this and see from there shall we?

you have the words "all" and "awarded" written as "allawarded" in the little story.

cairnswk wrote:koontz1973...i hope you don't mind this...
I have taken the liberty of showing what I think the legend should look like.
The only font used is Verdana, and i have used the double stroke image from the shields in the title to create some separation guides in the bottom legend to give it a tie with the top legend by one element alone.
Please note the re-wording on the compound text.
the IButhos names have a small 2 px drop shadow.
Consistency is the key.
This also should look good if you use it in the large map.
I hope this helps!
Oh also, i don't think you need the arrows in the legend (which frees up a bit of space)...they are self explanatory really. They simply need to be sharpened a bit on the map to make the <=> => (heads) look more identifiable.

cairnswk, this is the type of help that is invaluable to a new mapmaker. I hope it did not take you too long to do. Thanks, I will copy your example today and hope to do it justice.

isaiah40 wrote:I like cairns example for the legend.

As for the bushes, it looks like you have a drop shadow on them. IDK, but where the shadow is it looks like they are on the map. And where that shadow is, it is looking a little pixelated. So let's start with this and see from there shall we?

There are no shadows on the bushes at all. I will go around them today to remove any pixelation.

DiM wrote:you have the words "all" and "awarded" written as "allawarded" in the little story.

Thanks DiM.

koontz1973 wrote:...
cairnswk, this is the type of help that is invaluable to a new mapmaker. I hope it did not take you too long to do. Thanks, I will copy your example today and hope to do it justice.

It took a little while but a picture is worth a 1000 words. (sometimes)
A couple of small adjustments i just noticed to my own stuff:
1. small t for "Each territory..." in
2. it might be helpful to put the title above the i Buthos as "i Buthos (Regions)"
I'm looking forward to seeing your results.

Version 56 Bushes are now not pixelated at all.
The legend from cairnswk has been copied to a point.

The iButho legend.
Realigning the lext.
Glow.
150 yard line text and line (line has now come back to how I had it in previous versions)
Did not put the shield lines in. No particular reason apart from the fact that, this I did not like and wanted to keep the two different (top has Zulu shield, bottom has the British shield).
Did not put the glow around the main text on the left, again no reason but felt it needed to be different to have a difference between instructions and icons. Had the story different but is now the same for this reason.

A few other things but I need to go out. Will post the rest in a couple of hours. Noticed the rock in the small one can come down a tad.

koontz1973 wrote:...
The legend from cairnswk has been copied to a point.
....

I'm afraid koontz1973 you have not copied to a point.
If you had, you would have exactly what i had in both maps, with also the two changes i mentioned above.
You still have four different fonts in the legend. I had two, one for your sig and one for everything else. This is consistency.
On the large, you need a space after the comma before "Britain's highest military honour, and on the small you need a comma where the full stop is.
Large - The kerning in bonus font is still all out of whack.
In both maps you don't need the "Be" in Be Careful, and that text on large does not read the same as the small map in the last line.
The shape of the legend background is not the same on the large and small, they should be.
Please do not post an update until you have these all fixed. You go on about how invaluable all my advice is, yet you don't follow it to the point.
It is your map however. Good luck.

cairnswk wrote:

koontz1973 wrote:...
The legend from cairnswk has been copied to a point.
....

I'm afraid koontz1973 you have not copied to a point.

A minute points I concede. I have been at this for a while so forgive my double vision.

You still have four different fonts in the legend. I had two, one for your sig and one for everything else. This is consistency.

Font I can change easy enough. I will choose one and use it.

On the large, you need a space after the comma before "Britain's highest military honour, and on the small you need a comma where the full stop is.

OK!

Large - The kerning in bonus font is still all out of whack.

I have the kerning set to .5 on both large and small. This is the same for all text. Is this the cause of the problem and how do you suggest I deal with it. Could this be caused by the font?

In both maps you don't need the "Be" in Be Careful, and that text on large does not read the same as the small map in the last line.

I know about the Be in Be careful but was told to put it in. Thew last line will change so the same.

The shape of the legend background is not the same on the large and small, they should be.

Why? A lot of maps have slight differences.

Please do not post an update until you have these all fixed. You go on about how invaluable all my advice is, yet you don't follow it to the point.
It is your map however. Good luck.

I look at everyone's advice the same. So far you have given the most comprehensive so for that I am grateful. Don't give up yet.

EDIT: this is also the way I work, very little steps. Might not be the best and most efficient way but it is my way.

Neither the scripty font on the large, nor the square font on the small version are really working for me, and it seems a tad odd that they're so different from map to map. You should really be more consistent with your fonts, like cairns mentioned (I think?). Perhaps use the territory font in your legend to tie things together a bit better.

-Sully

koontz1973 wrote:I have the kerning set to .5 on both large and small. This is the same for all text. Is this the cause of the problem and how do you suggest I deal with it. Could this be caused by the font?

Some fonts have bad kerning. Kerning refers to the intervals between different letters... for example, in a badly kerned font, the spaces between different characters are not consistent, and there can be a bigger gap between a and o than between a and p and so on...

When you look for new fonts, you have to consider 2 things:

1 - the font must be free to use for all uses, including commercial use
2 - if the font is for text usage, it must be clear and reasonably well kerned - for ornamental fonts that you use for titles and such, it isn't such a big deal since there's less & larger text and you can usually edit the letters manually

So when looking for a text font, look for a font where the kerning is consistent, no ugly gaps between character pairs. Gimp allows you to adjust the spacing of the letters, but sadly it has no function to adjust the kerning of individual characters.

Another thing about fonts:

A good guideline is to use no more than 2 different typefaces (not including title) on any graphical work. Sometimes it may be ok to break this rule, but most of the time it's better not to.

koontz1973 wrote:....
A minute points I concede. I have been at this for a while so forgive my double vision.

I think you need to take a couple of days break from the map and then return to it with fresh eyes.
I know you have been working hard but you have to look at every aspect and ask "are they the same in each map?"

Large - The kerning in bonus font is still all out of whack.

I have the kerning set to .5 on both large and small. This is the same for all text. Is this the cause of the problem and how do you suggest I deal with it. Could this be caused by the font?

Perhaps it is the font. Perhaps you need to turn it off. I don't know because i don't use PS and don't know what that font is.
Also i have to ask why you are using it. Keep the fonts the same in both maps. Then you have consistency. I showed you what to do with the Verdana font. It is easily legible and everyone can read it. Remember, this is your first map. Try to climb small mountains with it and when you are experienced you can climb bigger mountains.

In both maps you don't need the "Be" in Be Careful, and that text on large does not read the same as the small map in the last line.

I know about the Be in Be careful but was told to put it in. Thew last line will change so the same.

OK, i took it out because it isn't really needed, and it saved space on the small version that i did.
When we say in English "be careful" it means "do be careful". But there is nothing wrong with extracting the verbs do and be, and saying "Careful..." If it saves space.

The shape of the legend background is not the same on the large and small, they should be.

Why? A lot of maps have slight differences.

Once again it is a matter of consistency. it is consistency that will get you stamped and through to FF.

...
I look at everyone's advice the same. So far you have given the most comprehensive so for that I am grateful. Don't give up yet.

I'm not giving up. but please take my advice. You already had isaiah40 saying he liked my legend. Why then not use it.

EDIT: this is also the way I work, very little steps. Might not be the best and most efficient way but it is my way.

OK, that's fair comment, but you waste your energy and resources by posting so quickly to do little updates that are not the same in each map when you could be using the time to make sure you have both maps the same and then posting the update.
At present, both maps are very inconsistent. I am sorry to be so harsh.

At this stage, you would be better to focus on getting one of the maps (probably the large one) looking perfect, and then you should only require small changes after you have resized it to make the small map.

I'm not too fond of the colour on the bushes! May I suggest a bit darker tone? Legend looks great except that one of the impassable's looks like a semi erect penis! Just a little detail I couldn't help noticing !

Latest Version [57]
Large Small Only legend work.
Text on both is now the same throughout.
Shape and size of legend is the same.
Both should look identical (to a point). Two of the impassable pictures are different.