Moderator: Cartographers
If craters are inside a sea or on the shore of one, they are connected to that sea territory. Otherwise they are connected by connecting lines.yeti_c wrote:You know - I look at the map and I can't see what borders what... There are craters with connections - then seas and flags that have no connections... Is that because you have only drawn on a few of the connections?
ME LIKES!! 
Do you think tilting them sideways would suffice? That way it'd kinda look like they were heading to moon... Could add some tail flames... etc.ender516 wrote: The rockets as they don't quite fit that concept, but you could put them in a polar orbit of the moon, and even convert them to space stations.
Yeah, kinda figured it... form follows function, so they need to be changed again.I don't like the new territory font, though, it is harder to read than the old one.
SignaturesDid you change anything else? A blink comparison seems to say you didn't.
Yes I suppose that might work, but don't bother if you don't go all the way with the cockpit viewpoint.natty_dread wrote:Do you think tilting them sideways would suffice? That way it'd kinda look like they were heading to moon... Could add some tail flames... etc.ender516 wrote: The rockets as they don't quite fit that concept, but you could put them in a polar orbit of the moon, and even convert them to space stations.
Yeah... I don't think we will. Too much stuff around the edges would take the focus away from what is most important, the moon. Also there isn't much room... The rockets, title, etc need to fit, so it would make the map too crowded... as it is now, it effectively gives the feeling of space, of vast nothingness in all directions... I'd like to preserve that aspect.ender516 wrote: Yes I suppose that might work, but don't bother if you don't go all the way with the cockpit viewpoint.
I suspected a lack of room would kill my idea, but I thought it worth mentioning. I'd say we are in complete agreement here.natty_dread wrote:Yeah... I don't think we will. Too much stuff around the edges would take the focus away from what is most important, the moon. Also there isn't much room... The rockets, title, etc need to fit, so it would make the map too crowded... as it is now, it effectively gives the feeling of space, of vast nothingness in all directions... I'd like to preserve that aspect.ender516 wrote: Yes I suppose that might work, but don't bother if you don't go all the way with the cockpit viewpoint.
The screens in the lower edge, they can be kept, since they give a nice futuristic feel. I'll have to see how Isaiah feels about them though... but, as for me, the more I look at them, the more I'm starting to like them... kinda cool...
Hmm... flagpoles?isaiah40 wrote:Sorry natty, been busy. Yes I love what you have done with the legend area at first site (love at first site?). Yes we need to change the territory font way to hard to read, also the landing site names seem blurry.
One major concern is how are the numbers going to look on the landing sites? I'm thinking it is going to be hard to see the numbers. If they are I suggest using flags on poles to mark those sites.
Heavy isotope of helium?fumandomuerte wrote:Can you change some craters to Helium 3 mines? That isotope could be a future reason for a war to start between powerful nations
Cosmochemist and geochemist Ouyang Ziyuan from the Chinese Academy of Sciences who is now in charge of the Chinese Lunar Exploration Program has already stated on many occasions that one of the main goals of the program would be the mining of helium-3, from which operation "each year three space shuttle missions could bring enough fuel for all human beings across the world."
Nice iconography for the ³He mines (note the position of the atomic weight, but He-3 is okay too). Strictly from the point of legibility, my preference (numbered top to bottom) is font 4, then 3, then 1 and 2 about the same, since they both do a poor job of distinguishing "A" from "R". I'm also not big on all caps, and font 3 seems more artsy than sciency to me, not sure why. Font 4 has the advantage of being clear and compact at the same time.natty_dread wrote:How's this for He3 mines?
Fonts are yet to be fixed...
- Click image to enlarge.
Here are a few options for a new territory font. Which one is the easiest to read?
No, what I meant was if we go with this font I need to remove the "Aris. = Aristillus" from the legend since with this font the Aristillus label fits well in the image.isaiah40 wrote:In the legend for the craters instead of "Each 4 craters ..." How about "Every 4 craters ..."? To me it just sounds better.
No need to change the font in the legend, as I think the font there fits in with the 'computer' panels better.
Oh well, no big deal, I'll do another version with font 4 to see how it compares.ender516 wrote:Sorry, but when you put it on the map, I like that new font even less than I did in the sample. The shadow or glow or whatever seems to eat the tops of the letters, especially on the crater names, so it may have something to do with the colour. I'd like to see font 4 on the map, but I'm afraid that because it is a lighter weight font and somewhat condensed horizontally, that text effect may do even more damage to it. Also, just to nudge a bit again, I recall reading somewhere that in general, mixed upper and lower case is more legible than all upper case.
