Whoa! I found The River and then scrolled down, down, down. And lo! The City!
To be honest, it's really not much more than a version of herewego that's better on the eyes. So yeah, artistic gesture.
And because I like playing with maps and geography for its own sake.
Funny you should mention Prague; I tried to think of cities that would fit and my thinking meandered to: European, eastern, old, big & sprawling, a capital ... and centered on those kinds of cities ... Vienna, Prague, Budapest, Bucharest, and Istanbul. I think it may have a piece of each of those, but most of it is Budapest (the darker NW), Bucharest (the chaotic E, and that lovely wall), and Istanbul (the blocky SW). Vienna and Prague ended up being a little too "clean" if you'll forgive me for saying so.
Last edited by demagogue; 28th Mar 2009 at 00:35.
Ah. So it's even more cobbled than we knew. Thanks for the extra effort!
And the mountains are the eastern Alps ... in Austria or Slovenia somewhere.
Edit: And -- can't forget this! -- The bridges and basic floorplan is our old beloved Gorinchem, Holland.
Last edited by demagogue; 28th Mar 2009 at 00:36.
Gods, how I hate and love my city.
Anyway, what you say is really too much of an (?)honour(?).
Budapest is the modern Rome, is some respects - we have everything. Literally everything. Everything bad, everything good, everything new, everything old, everything's dirty, everything's clear, the people can be on any, any persuasion, etc.
Ankh-Morpork is often compared to Budapest, too, by the way, all too truly, especially with the Shades...
On the map(s): is it not to small? The City is, what, maybe a 100 times as large as the Overlook Mansion... Which seems to be tiny compared to the 1,5 million (is that certain?) people living there. I know that there are inconsistencies in the sizes of the maps (like Wayside and the Overlook or the two Docks masp compared), but nevertheless 'tis still way too small. All maps, by the way. In my opinion
But very nice work, and a lot of effort seems to have gone into it Congrats!
Last edited by Herr_Garrett; 28th Mar 2009 at 04:13.
However, I wonder why the older parts of town in the westbank have more of the chess board construction than the new parts on the east bank which seem so chaotic.
To be a stickler for detail, the east bank should be more grid-like, and the west-bank more chaotic--specifically--old/chaotic and new/orderly.
What about the hauted cathedral ? The walled out bit of the city ? Man, if I manage to to edit on my PC, i'm making the city....
the way it's supposed to be...
with every bit can remember...
What about the Haunted Cathedral and the walled-off part of the Old Quarter?
It's right there in the middle.
I really didn't notice how those kinds of differences were going to look together until they were literally right next to each other (they all look chaotic from Google maps); but by then I had spent so much effort... I'll fix up for the 2.0 version.
For the record, I may switch the NW (Budapest dark) and SW (Istanbul grid) sides. I really like that lovely wall on the east side (which makes sense since there's a mountain wall protecting the west side). But (alternatively) maybe I can keep the wall and put the Istanbul-grid East, then move Bucharest to the NW. Decisions, decisions...
I travelled to Budapest and it was a real pleasure ... I met great people, loved the markets and churches, got yelled at by undercover police for riding the tram without a ticket (never mind it was late and I had no idea how to buy one), found the history museum interesting in tracing every trouble in Hungary to the evil of Nazis and Soviets; it felt a little like a crumbling Vienna (architecture-wise) in the honeymoon rush of young (unchecked?) capitalism, and I walked all over that city and got lost so many times ... Yeah, it's a full-on city. Great fun.Originally Posted by Herr_Garrett
So I thought it had a place in the City.
Last edited by demagogue; 28th Mar 2009 at 17:26.
'Twas no undercover policeman, but a ticket inspector! They can be worse than policemen, though, and a 100 times as fucktards.
Crumbling Vienna? Man, Budapest is much better than Vienna. The latter is waaay to orderly, they paid atttention there to build buildings of the same style next to each other, and demolished the ones that didn't fit; here we didin't so we have a much beautiful and exciting architechtural chaos, which just rocks.
When we first undertook this project so very long ago our ultimate objective was an interactive map, one where users could turn on and off various layers in order to see as much or as little as they wanted. With the layout now essentially finalized we're at the stage to finish this puppy off, but we seem to be having trouble getting over the final hurdle.
MorbusG has taken a stab at it, but not everyone has been completely happy with the result. Obviously, either someone else needs to step up and create a vectorized map that better satisifies everyone's wishes, or we must simply accept Morbus' map and proceed with its development. That's option one.
As for option two, well... there's a reason I prefaced this post with a callback to our original objective. Our current difficulties make me wonder if we aren't being overly ambitious here. Creating a vectorized, layered map is an arduous undertaking, after all. Creating a "simple" artistic version of the base map, however, is much more easily accomplished--especially considering some of the talented artists that have been following this project.
Option two, then, is just that: we forego our plans to create an interactive map and settle on one or more artistic versions. As it is, we're languishing in indecisiveness. We need to make a decision, renew our interest in the project, and then rely on that enthusiasm to see us through.
The question I put before you then, friends, is which way do we go?
Last edited by Doc_Brown; 13th Apr 2009 at 12:57. Reason: Fixed bad link. Good eye, Stingm.
Roads? Where we're going, we don't need roads.
A basic foundation first, and then built up from there. My old refrain of "make it editable", easily editable as far as adding and moving things around, which is why the idea of layers was introduced. It doesn't have to be interactive, but should be importable into such a system.
If real life is just getting in the way, then we can only hope someone else can step in. If a lack of clear vision, or a desire to not continue working without strong approval of the progress already made, are the main reason it's stalled, then we need to discuss those creative blocks into oblivion.
I have been keeping up with this thread eagerly awaiting the final map. I will just say I agree with jtr7.
I also wanted to add that Doc_Brown your link for the base map isn't working for me.
I also want to thank everybody for all the work they have put in this project. It is to be comended.
To be honest, I'd already come to the conclusion we need to at least get an artistic map out there for now.
That's exactly why I made one on my own initiative and threw it into the ring, with the purpose of cleaning it up over time and making it more palatable as something people could use (e.g., smaller, more "map" like).
Yes, the foundation, and if you can, the missions on a separate layer above, or one can be made if you keep that surrounding flat color with each mission map, once you've pinned down the locations--and keep a clean copy of the complete art without the maps.
I wonder if there isn't some way to drum up interest in the idea, like a TTLG art contest or something...
Just brainstorming, here.
Roads? Where we're going, we don't need roads.
'Twould be awesome, if more people were actively interested.
If TerraGen wasn't frustrating for me, I'd try it, too, otherwise I'd be doing something like demagogue myself. I got pissed off when I was working on a detailed and layered concept map, and LOST IT ALL!
The layered version was partly suggested to show the underground areas, or the possibility to toggle fan content on and off etc. By no means is it necessary though.
I'd be content on a cruder version that shows the known locations in an artistic form, much in line with T:ds manual map maybe.
As jtr7 suggests, an artistic version can be then used as the basis for the mission maps, which we need to standardize somehow possibly.
We could possibly use MorbusG's work by replacing the manual map he uses with ours then.
Anyway, if we decide on an artistic version soon, we should make some clear cut rules for the artist:
-Colors that should be used (to fit the existing maps with it)
-Level of detail; all streets and alleys/a general motiff like in T:ds manual map (depends on the artist more really, if he/she has the time)
-Parks, walls, major roads, canals or other landmarks, location names? Should they be added on the layer instead, or drawn by the artist?
-How much dazzle can it contain, before it gets uneditable? Can it be dazzled again with a simple layer afterwards?
The work can be a fast one, in line with the manual map, or a long one with all the details we can gouge from our notes.
For me, the layers were always to allow movement of visual information without harming the background, or erasing any pixels, or having to assemble it again, etc. Yeah, the toggles are the grand end goal, otherwise multiple versions will have to be available, created from one layered master map.
I'd like it if the background was grayscale, and the mission maps were in colour.
Labels need a layer so they can be moved around, should not be hand-drawn, but text on a vector line to curve it around, and to squeeze into place when things get crowded, scalable, etc.
From an RPG campaign, a map I made to order, cobbled from many different modules, and map packs, assembled in Fireworks 8 at a university library:
I think anyone who wants to take a stab at an artistic version of the map should do so, whether it can be used as the basis for a more interactive version or not.
I also wonder how final the final version is. What about some of the street names and so on? Anyone making an artistic version will want to put some of this stuff in, and yet we have avoided it in the main part, because it is just guesswork and cannot be prooved one way or another. But maybe we should go ahead and make some educated guesses.
I think a contest is a decent idea, though it is a fairly big task for anyone to take on
The only street names we can use are the ones that are actually on the original maps. The other names would best be applied later, after we see where the FMs are going to go. I anticipate all kinds of weirdness from that, since there aren't going to be many that follow the geology of the OMs, so that may require some reconciliation.
Anybody who wants to create a basic background is free to do it, but everybody is waiting on something, whether it's time, resources, or information.
I guess we need to lay down guidelines and those could also be applied to a contest, but really just to do the canon justice.
- The older areas, poor areas, and areas on hills will have the twisting, winding, chaotic streets.
- The newer areas, richer areas (Dayport, for example), and areas on flatter ground will be more grid-like.
- Hightowne is on and around a hill, or small mountain, sloping down to Downtowne, so the surrounding terrain should reflect the hitherto unseen slopes on all sides.
- The banks of The River are steep, and the buildings are piled up.
- The coast has flat areas, and some steeper areas. I like how it's steeper closer to The River.
- The visible terrain should show signs of volcanism, fissures, sinkholes, collapsed lavatubes, caves, cinder cones, basalt lava flows, a ring of craggy mountain ridges far off, surrounding The City, but far away, yet with smaller ridges, foothills, and rock quarries.
- There should be as many smaller rivers, anabranches, tributaries, canals, and signs of erosion as possible.
- There should be agricultural areas beyond The City limits.
- Merchant roads, major and minor.
Real aerial maps of appropriate geographically similar locales would make great references.