Sol System Map

Yes please make all the borders clear. I have to check them with the lens! Also I have not a clear idea why you put the ring divider there. It seem to me the weirdest location. If you make Saturn South and Eastern Ring to touch each other it will provide a good internal connectivity inside the 'Ringed Planets' region. Personally I'm not a fan of disconnected regions. Names don't need to perfectly fit inside the territory. Circles possibly yes. For example Jupiter Minor and Cronus are okay even if they partially cover the outline. Your eye is able to understand the line path even where it is hidden by the text. In some places they seem to be forced in a non-natural position, (Ouranos) In the whole site Western and Eastern are shorten as W. and E. where the place is little. Since I cannot see the problem to call them 'W. Rings' and 'E. Rings'. It seems more logical to me. For the Belt I personally liked this version http://www.the-inkstore.co.uk/frame/Sol%20Rev%205a.png but without the red coloring on the right of the Moon. (Let fall the white frame option) I don't know what Fendi thinks about it being to much real... but in my opinion it looked definitely better than as the current one is. I would like to see a bit more the Sun surface and a bit less the luminescence. I think there are many little things you can do to finalize it better rather than ask to Fendi to make the work. Don't be impatient!

It's not patience - it's contradicting input. Matty likes the divide where it is, Bishop doesn't. Fendi wants the asteroids more planet like, others want them more real. Some want no texture to the surface of the sun and brighter, others want more texture and less brightness. We can change anything, but then someone will want it back the way it was. Fendi asked for the file, which is why we sent it to her. That's all I was saying when I said she had it. In any case, I think I have 50+ hours on this thing, and I know Aeronautic is in the 20s. So it's not effort or time. There's no way to please everyone, unfortunately. I really wish we could. On a positive note, it actually met the concept posted in the map suggestion topic: [quote=cbt711]I think it would be awesome to have our solar system, which seems impossible and segregated in concept alone - and has most likely been attempted. But some combination of "not to scale" and perspective should make it at least plausible. Like this perspective: [spoiler][img]http://annesastronomynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Artist-impression-of-the-solar-system-by-ESA.jpg[/img][/spoiler] With this scale: [spoiler][img]http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/wiredscience/2012/12/Our-Solar-System-Montage1.jpg[/img][/spoiler] Roughly. [/quote] So that's pretty cool.

It seem to me that you just go from an extreme to the opposite without showing a middle way that would make everybody happy. Plus you refused to make many changes suggested just giving reasons or even not giving any. It seem to me that you decided not to change anything anymore. This way we cannot collaborate so much. But okay, I didn't know that Fendi asked for the file... Since let her to work on it!

[quote=null cbt711 wrote: ]There's no way to please everyone, unfortunately. I really wish we could.[/quote] I'm glad you already know this. That is unfortunately one of the hardest parts about creating a map.

Here is the latest version that has been submitted with all the requests from Fendi carried out. This is the Final version as far as I know, so take a look at what you should soon be playing![spoiler=Solar System Final Version][img]http://www.the-inkstore.co.uk/frame/Sol-Final.png[/img][/spoiler] I think a few other people may be happier with the final version?

Am I the only one to think that there are clouds on the moon? It could be rotated a bit as well, considering the position of the sun and the dark side. Also, I don't really know which asteroids is better. Both have their pres and cons.

@Bishop - I'm sorry it seems like I've not addressed issues. I promise I have tried. I mean you even said I went to extremes... well I didn't do that for no reason. The most input I got was to make a space like realistic look that wasn't flat. Also the textures were too much. There's where the extreme graphical change came from. Also I listed the changes to gameplay I was going to do ahead of time and debated them as such before they were made, like the dead end territories changes. I personally don't like dead end territories so I minimized them. I left Cronos just so there is a niche in gameplay in the hardest region to control for the sake of variety... thanks to input from Matty I think who said no need to take out all dead ends. Also, I rearranged the entire map and it evolved away from space ports from your and matty's input. It's harder to reduce borders now in Jupiter. There are three paths left to right (rings, asteroid belt, Inner planets), three paths bottom to top (Mars to Jupiter, Asteroid belt to Oberon, Luna to Neptune). I think aeronautic has taken every issue to heart - asteroids have been remade about 5 times now - almost as much as the Italy Mountains :-D . I really don't want to act stubborn and give the impression that I refuse input, I just want to get somewhere with the map. If we weren't taking feedback, I wouldn't have a Rev 7a and 18 versions of it saved to my hard drive. We are trying. I just don't know at which point you can push forward and make it happen. @Matty - I think the moon itself being gray and shaded like a cloud in real life is giving that effect. I think it can be darkened, maybe contrast lowered some. The light dark split was for gameplay, and always bugged me it didn't match the sun, but gameplay > looks so it has remained. Uranus minor / saturn south need some separation for sure though. Fendi has the master copy right now, but I have a duplicate. If she wants, I can split them up some. I can darken the moon too, or I can do that between testing and final versions with whatever shakes out in gameplay.

With regard to the Moon, I was always aware of the shadow mismatch, but assumed it would be taken as if the territory was actually a different colour and for the sake of game play. Since looking at it, I think it can be made into a small crescent and still match the territory borders. The cloud effect is the actual dark & light surface of the moon, which (nerd alert) the dark regions were caused by moulten rock being gravitationally pulled toward the Earth side, there are none on the actual dark side of the moon.

Did not know that. Very cool.

[quote=aeronautic - Feb 12, 11:37 AM]With regard to the Moon, I was always aware of the shadow mismatch, but assumed it would be taken as if the territory was actually a different colour and for the sake of game play.[/quote] It is called the "dark side". Therefore I assume you mean the part that is not illuminated by the sun. It is no problem or something, just a bit odd ;) You however can rotate it a bit so that the gameplay is the same, but the light side is closer to the sun and the dark side further away. @the clouds, mars has the same thing, but for some reason I don't mind it there at all, but I think it's a bit too much on the moon. It's a really nice effect, just a bit too much.

I like the "clouds", because it is actually recognisable as being the moon. The "clouds" are actually the dark spots on the moon, so yeah... I vote for keeping them :D

I agree with Cireon, I cannot see any clouds, that is just the Moon as it is! By the way it looks a bit faded compared to the others territories of the same region. The Dark side actually it is not the part not illuminated by the Sun, it is just the part not visible from the Earth, more properly called the Far side of the Moon. I don't think it can be adjusted to properly correspond to the definitions.

Good feedback, I can, if required, make a crescent that looks asthetically true and maintains the gameplay... The final version has been submitted, but may be opened to graphic adjustments that don't interfere with game play, but I fear, if they already set the grid positions of the Circle link for that territory, it would also need reprogramming as well and may not be an option. I really need feedback from the programmers and or the Head Cartographer (Fendi) on this before I can do anything about it.

If it solely requires adjusting the positions of two territory circles than there is no problem I'd say. If connections differ (that means different gameplay) than it gets difficultier to edit, but not impossible.

I just need to know now if it has gone for programming or if any other graphic adjustments have been done to the master copy by Fendi, if so, I would need it sending back to adjust and if not I will go ahead and change it then forward her my amended master?? @Matty, it wouldn't change gameplay in any way, nor connections, it would just require 1 circle to be moved to the right. just noticed spelling mistake above... *aesthetically*, in case anyone thought I was swearing!!!