A New Map?

[ahowl11]

Alright well here's the plan. I think our current map (not the large one) will suffice until we make the new one (which will be the best ever made for rtw!) and I will continue editing everything else I can, non-map related.
Beta 3 will probably just be a major graphical upgrade to beta 2 and I'm okay with that. I will be patient with the map, but I will progress the mod in other areas so there doesn't feel like there's a traffic jam. Thoughts?

[Vrosivs Avgvstvs Rakvs]

Seems very reasonable. While we're stuck at the map issue currently, working on a roadmap (pun not intended) regarding other things that need to be done in the following period and precisely defining the remaining issues would be great.

[Gigantus]

Just a note: the worldwind program (which produced this map) is no longer supported by it's original server (still used with private servers) and therefore it's not possible to get proper maps. Which is a pity because it does support rotating and tilting and the demis add-on created easy convertible maps.

[Muizer]

Ok, so I've looked into various options. The following is the best yet. May seem ironical in that it looks a lot like the RTR7 map, and indeed it covers about the same extent and at a smiliar angle. Difference is in the whay the pixels are 'spent' within this area. The RTR7 map has a cell size of 8x8km cell along the center line which decreases with distance from the center line.

The projection shown here is the Orthographic one. It has a cell size of 6.7x6.7 km at the center of projection (a bit south of Greece in this case) which increases radially. 

The difference across the map is not huge in terms of extending land mass, but there is a significant decrease in blurring of terrain features in the areas where it matters most.  The effect is positive as far away from the center point as Britain.

It's not a huge leap, but it's the best I can think of.

Projections that would in theory suit us better only do so in theary as they do not seem to be implemented in any GIS.

[ahowl11]

Looks good. Seems as if we can get lark Balkhash in as well, so we will all be happy. Let's do it

[Vrosivs Avgvstvs Rakvs]

This looks very nice, M! Congrats!

[xeofox]

Looks good. Seems as if we can get lark Balkhash in as well, so we will all be happy. Let's do it

it will be good if Balkhash will be in NE edge of map and be sure to Issyk-Kul under Balkhash.

[Gigantus]

Looks good. Might present a challenge to get an accurate coast line (an inherent problem with this type of projection I believe), but that shouldn't be too big a problem.

[Muizer]

Lake Balkhash is on the screen I showed. It's not very visible on the height map. You can make out lake Issyk-Kul though, if you know what to look for (I didn't ) Due to the projection, however it's not under Balkhash but more to the right of it.

@Gigantus. Coastlines are always tricky. Special care will have to be taken to retain important topological features and this will no doubt involve manual (post) processing.

[ahowl11]

So what are the next steps?

[Muizer]

Firstly, it's important to establish that the extents of the map, because, while it may be possible to add to it at the top and bottom, the left and right will be fixed permanently and beyond appeal! To that end I'll provide a definite map with an overlay of coastlines and rivers.

The next step is going to be to create a basic ground and height map. These map will only have 3 terrain classes: Land, Beach and Sea. Getting the coastline right is the main challenge here.

Once that is done, the regions map can be implemented. I can do this, but help would be welcome. The historical geography of the map should be laid out fully and accurately before the ground types are developed further and even the height map needs to take this into account. That concerns the placement of settlements, ports, roads and sea-lanes. Of these, settlements and ports can best be done by collecting their latitude and longitude in decimal degrees in a spreadsheet, so if anyone wants a job, compiling that list would be very welcome. 

With a basic division of land and sea and a regions map, we'll have the first "test-able" map. Characters will have to be commented out or moved temporarily.

Next up will be the features map. Lots of manual editing again.

After that, we have enough info to build the land portion of the height map. Areas under settlements will need to be smoothed and, always fun, the terrain needs to be adjusted under the rivers to ensure they run downwards nice and gently.

Next up, the climate map. This is easy in a sense, as it does not materially affect anything except looks. However, solid info is hard to come by. We know Africa and the middle east were somewhat more habitable. Perhaps we can use ancient settlement patterns as proxies.

The ground types map is to be constructed last. The ground under settlements and roads has to be reserved for passable ground types. Otherwise, terrain slope will inform where to put mountains, hills or arable land. This is rule-based and those rules will vary depending on the climatic zones. This process is basically done with a script.

Seems a bit daunting, but I've documented most of these steps well enough.

[Mausolos of Caria]

It's great to have you on board, Muizer    Good luck with your task! If you need any further advice or information regarding the historical accuracy, feel free to ask me and I'll try to help you as far as I can.

[Muizer]

Here's a snapshot of the planned layout with rivers and coastlines. If this is not ok, in terms of extents, let me know asap.

[ahowl11]

Well the only question I have is why do we need Iceland, Greenland, all of Scandinavia and the tundra on the map, but I guess it's due to the projection?

[Muizer]

Yeah, it's due to the projection. For our purposes, that's the price for putting Lake Balkhash further to the left. But as you know, the map width is the bottleneck, not its height, so it's not much of a price.  Personally, I like having all of Europe on the map, including Scandinavia. It makes the map versatile.