Map Projections

[Gray Pennell]

As I said I think we need to review options for different map projections to get more detail for our worlds. Hee is a nice link to images to open the debate.

http://geology.isu.edu/geostac/Field_Exercise/topomaps/distortion.htm

I like the Robinson projection.

 

[Omnivore]

Must be an evolutionary projection because it's a case of the missing link o:

Either that or my browser is playing games.

 

[far-trader]

Just remember the first rule of game preparation:

Time spent lovingly crafting game details is inversely proportional to the amount of time players will actually spend involved with the work.



Finding the right balance for your own players is the trick.

 

[Gray Pennell]

Must be an evolutionary projection because it's a case of the missing link o:

Either that or my browser is playing games.

Doh

http://geology.isu.edu/geostac/Field_Exercise/topomaps/distortion.htm

 

[BytePro]

Not seeing the link, either. Also, not seeing the relevance.

The level of detail has little to do with the projection - that is simply about accuracy of the map when wrapping it on a sphere.

The physical size of the map and the work/tools put into it's making determine how much detail is available.

 

[Gray Pennell]

I believe the current projection is un-inspirational and most maps put on them are restricted to the band around the equator as one land mass usually in the center of the map.

 

[far-trader]

I believe the current projection is un-inspirational and most maps put on them are restricted to the band around the equator as one land mass usually in the center of the map.

That would be the fault of the creator, not the projection choice. And I don't actually recall seeing that problem in canon or fan maps. I know I didn't make any of my own like that. At least not more than statistically likely by random plotting of land vs water.

 

[rancke]

I believe the current projection is un-inspirational and most maps put on them are restricted to the band around the equator as one land mass usually in the center of the map.

There's a pretty easy way to avoid that. Using the hydrographic percentage randomly determine the nature of each of the map's hexes as land or water. Then go over the result and delete a few land hexes here and add them there to create oceans, continents, lakes, and islands.


Hans

 

[BytePro]

Yeah - such simplistic maps are very rare IME - and 20 equal area triangle based hex maps are easy to work with... each major triangle is 5%.

I've looked into lots of other projections over the years (since I've had a computer at the gaming table since the early '80s) - and the icosahedral hex map is really hard to beat.

Especially using a computer, the 20 triangle basis transforms very nicely into a 3D sphere (simple recursive subdivision pushing the vertexes out on the normals - modern GPU geometry shaders will even do this nearly effortlessly). While other projections aim to minimize distortions for key features such as area or line scales at the expense of other areas or features - the simple icosahedral has a consistent, uniform distortion to each triangle and the edges follow great circles.

Fuller projection is based on an icosahedron (but 'optimized' for earth's land masses) -

 

[samuelvss]

Oooooh, shiny!

 

[BytePro]

My animated Traveller ones look way better!

(That one is from Wiki - I didn't make it. I don't have gifs of any of mine, which are all done in OpenGL for the last 12+ years. In the 80's I made 3D icosahedron versions on 8-bit systems in 16 color that could be spun, but had no zoom and didn't morph from a 2D map to a sphere... today I layer atmo, clouds and navigation grids along with smooth day/night transitions. )