For some scale, the area of water from Jeklea Bay, to the Azure Sea, to Rel Mord Bay is a bit under 2,000 miles, and the Mediterranean Sea is about 2,300 miles wide, so there is not much of a size difference. The continent of Oerik is, quite simply, massive, and would best be described as being as large as Eurasia; maybe with Africa thrown in as well to accommodate all of the western portion of Oerik. See HERE. That whole central continent in the pic, both eastern and western portions, comprises Oerik.
Lastly, here is an overlay of the continents of Oerth on a global map of earth (the Azure Sea area being centered on the Mediterranean Sea):
The Oerth map scale is slightly too large, but it is not off by too much, so it shows us that Oerik is ginormous! _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
Last edited by Cebrion on Thu Sep 20, 2012 12:04 am; edited 2 times in total
Wow ...
Cebrion, that is a nice overlay. I hadn't ever seen that one! Fantastic!
I think that I've always assumed that maps of the Flanaess are simply thematic, and use a Mercator, or an equirectangular projection. But, even using something like a Robinson projection (which may be close to what you have there) for the Earth is fairly darned close.
Actually, nobody has ever seen that pic because I made it just for this thread.
You are right though. I edited my response a couple of times because, the more I thought about it, the less sure I was as to whether Oerik is about the size of Eurasia, or Eurasia + Africa. Of course, when I looked into it more, I found out that I had been underestimating the size of Oerik completely. It is a freak of nature continent all right. _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
... I edited my response a couple of times because, the more I thought about it, the less sure I was as to whether Oerik is about the size of Eurasia, or Eurasia + Africa. Of course, when I looked into it more, I found out that I had been underestimating the size of Oerik completely. It is a freak of nature continent all right.
-Way back when, Gondwana was proabably about the same size:
Since Earth is roughly the same size, wrapping "The Dragon" map in Google Earth should give you a pretty good idea of how large Oerik is. If the Flaness is the east part of Oerik and is supposed to be roughly the size of Europe, then combined with the rest of Oerik, it is really large.
Raymond ... is that an image that you put together, or is it something that you got from another source. I haven't ever figured out how people "wrap" things in Google Earth, and I have always wanted to try putting maps on a globe myself. I have a couple of versions of a hand-drawn globe of oerth that I would like to see how they turn out.
REally? I don't think that they're too much different from the Great Kingdom at its height. ... or the Keoish Empire at its.
Bigger, I think. But it's also that there's more of them. The scale is much larger, much larger grain. One giant empire is fine. But then you've got the Celestial Imperium, and Orcreich, and some others that I'm sure I've forgotten. Just the penninsula south of the SoD is the size of South America.
Medieval times & earlier you've got, what, two, maybe three sizable empires of any significant duration on Earth? Rome, China, and Holy Roman? The Mongols fell apart almost instantly.
Plus (and ordinarily I'd be the last person to complain about this), when overlaid like that you become aware of just how arbitrary the climate is. It's ironic that the SoD looks like the only quasi-realistic desert there.
Well ... I'll just say that I think that situation is a more likely to happen when there's a supercontinent. Our history and historical Empires is influenced by the limits of our geography.
Well ... I'll just say that I think that situation is a more likely to happen when there's a supercontinent. Our history and historical Empires is influenced by the limits of our geography.
I guess I'm not wild about the geography either. It took something clear "4 continents"*, and made it kludgy.
Yeah, using that map for example, the western half of the continent sometimes looks so big that I want to mistake it for an ocean. Earth has 75% coverage of water and 25% of the land pokes up out above sea level.
Anyway, look at the buttons at the top of Google Earth and there is one for an overlay or import. Then you have to select the map which you want to use and define the north, south, east, and west borders of the map with latitude and longitude degrees.
The first time I tried using Google Earth, I couldn't find it. Then I tried again a year later and figured it out. In the left window pane, you can select or clear the map and compare Earth with Oerth. ...Or any other map you import. I went out and searched for all the TSR world maps and the Wilderlands maps.
A good way to illustrate why Oerik is too big for some people is to look at it at 180 degrees East/West and at the Equator.
This map comes from "The Dragon" map. I think most of us think that the oceans should dominate the globe but with this view the ocean currents only get a little bitty way to flow at the north and an even smaller area to flow to the south. And this map has Polaria on it while the Living Greyhawk map does not. Polaria gets really small when you see how it wraps onto a globe and spin the south pole towards you. The flat map is deceptive even though we "know" it's distorted.
Fun, fun, fun!
I'd love to spend more time matching up features from Barsoom's map (from [url]http://www.grey-elf.com/barsoom.pdf [/url]on pages 22 and 23) with the details we have about Mars since the Barsoom map is so sparce.
For a re-do of "The Dragon" map, please check out Joseph Bloch's
Seen 'em. Great stuff, but Anna doesn't really tackle the Dragon map, insofar as I've seen, and Joe basically takes it as is and adds details and a few tweaks.
I'm going to hack it up. :)
I don't color inside the lines.
Fantastic, Raymond ... thanks for the tip on how to make the globe. I've wanted to do this for, like, ever. :D It makes me wonder if, in the interveneing time, they might have made it easier to do, and put in buttons or the dropdown because no one could figure out how to do it, and now it's easy.
So ... It's interesting that we've come into a discussion about the globe of Oerth again. I love it when this comes up, because I kind of like geography. For those of you who may not know, there's the Flanaess Geographical Society on Facebook, which was begin by Anna Bernemalm Meyer, our favorite resident cartographer. (www.ghmaps.net)
At any rate, the only thing wrong with the Google Earth globe is that it stretches a square object. There's no other way to account for a different shaped object. For example, I went back a read a little, to go and find my post where I shared my version of an Oerth projection, in the thread where I sometimes post my art (the "Art of Icarus" thread).
If Google could take those curved edges instead of the square-cropped frame around the image, it would match up very, very nicely. Unfortunately, it does use a square object, and no matter the accuracy of the illustration, it creates minor flaws in the globe. Here are two "snapshots" I just took. The first isn't too bad, but, the second is where the flaws show at the southern "pole" where the virtual corners of the JPG don't allow the curved edges of the illustration to meet.
Although ... now that I've examined it, and see what the software has done to the image, I realize it's not just the outside corners, but also the ... well, I'll just call them the "spaces" between the "banana peels" of the illustration. The four almond-shaped blank spaces are all four the same. Considering that, I could, in theory, go back and make an illustration that accounts for the software and uses straighter lines that would be stretched properly to show real latitude and longitude. But, that would essentially be turning it into a Cartesian grid, and that obviously distorts the original image when put on a globe. Which is why this one is distorted, because it assumes a cartesian layout.
Raymond wrote:
... I think most of us think that the oceans should dominate the globe but with this view the ocean currents only get a little bitty way to flow at the north and an even smaller area to flow to the south. ... The flat map is deceptive even though we "know" it's distorted.
The only problem, Raymond, is that you seem to be presuming that it's the original source that's wrong, and that the software is right. Think of it this way ... I don't think that I have ever seen any of the original maps that were drawn with longitude and latitude illustrated as part of the original map. If you take a look at the geography in the illustration that I did above, you'll note that while the gridlines are very different than one would expect, the actual geography and shape of the continents is pretty much exactly what is depicted on the Dragon Annual map, or on the LGG map. It's not a question, in my opinion, of the map being distorted, or deceptive, it's simply that we've never known what kind of gridlines to put on it. It's always been more of an artistic representation than a informative one.
In my personal opinion, the Goode's Homolosine projection solves the problem. I think that it was originally drawn *as* a globe obect, and it's only by trying to make it relate to a flat map that it becomes inaccurate. There's a lot, A Lot, A LOT of ideas about what it's s'posed to be. Mercator, Mollwiede, Ekert, Kavrayskiy? Conical, Cylindrical, Azmithal? ... There's so much to look at, it's difficult to konw. The thing that I generally try to think of is, "What was the author's intent?" In this case, "what was the artist's intent"? So, I personally think that it was originally designed to show the actual area and shape of the continents. I don't believe that the continental/world maps were intended to measure overland travel (smaller, more local maps are intended for that), or to accurately illustrate the bearing, distance, or direction on them (other than generally speaking). It makes a huge difference.
I like that very much, Icarus! Your rendition of the continent of Oerik covers two of the Oerth's quarters (easily observable on your cut-out paper globe) rather than three or almost four. Thus, your version leaves room for large oceans on the continent as well.
Funny you should take a picture of your paper globe. I tried to print out "The Dragon" map and tape it to a globe-ball my son has and found out the ratio wouldn't work because it wasn't a 2:1 dimention. Here's a pic of that:
Regarding the latitude and longitude lines, the Greyhawk box set and folio have a map with latitude lines which I compared with "The Dragon" map and Google Earth and they lined up perfectly. Here's a sample of where I whited out a section of that map in the same places the lines appeared on the box set map.
The result of wrapping it on the globe in Google Earth shows the latitude lines in the right spot. It's got to be more than a coincidence.
Raymond -
Yeah, I guess my fingers certainly got carried away with me when I asked if maps had been published with latitude and longitude. What I was actually thinking in my head (and clearly said very unclearly) was that I didn't think that a global map showing both latitude and longitude.
Above, I said that we didn't really know what kind of lines to put on a map. Essentially, I was trying to say that we didn't know which kind of meridians to place on any given map. While we certainly know where the equator is, we don't know where to place the other lines. Take the Dragon Annual map, for example. It's a great map, and it established the look of the continents. The only problem (aside from the poor choice of splitting the southern (australia-looking continent, connotating the edges of the map) is that we don't know how much other water is out there. We can't compare how much water is there to where the latitudes are placed. If we knew the physical distance of even a single interval between latitudes, we could extrapolate that for the whole globe. While we know the size of the globe, we don't know how to relate that to the size of the continents themselves ... thus the reason that the Dragon Anuual map looks so distorted on a globe - it doesn't have all of the water that, say, the LGG version does.
So ... I fiddled and fiddled with stretching the globe, and making sure the equator was where it's s'posed to be, and all. And I left a little room at the bottom for where we know Polaria is s'posed to be ... though I likely under estimated its size ... I basically just left Antarctica there. But, I made this scan of the LGG insert myself at about 600dpi.
It looked to me that both "The Dragon" map and the Living Greyhawk map have placed the equator in the middle. So to me, it looks like both maps go to 90 N and 90 S. So my next delima was how much longitude to use. I chose to wrap each map end to end and think they are about the same.
I had to look up which was which in wikipedia to make sure I said the right word because I don't use the terms often enough myself to keep the straight all the time.
It's like stalagtite versus stalagmite...normally I would say 'tite hangs from the top like the T in tite but with this group we could say 'tite hangs from the top like the T in sTurge!
I have mnemonic devices, too! Glad I'm not the only one!
Long-itude goes the "long" way around the globe. (Latitudes are much shorter, except for the equator.)
Stalag-tites hold on "tight" to the ceiling. - this one seems to be popular.
Stalag-mites have to use "might" to push up from the ground.
Hmm. At any rate ... yeah, if we just had one other placement of a latitude other than the Prime Meridian, we'd be doing grand. I mean, in theory, we can say that we know the circumferance ... but, that's all been covered by the mathematicians, the Oerth Journal, and much debate online.
I think that I am going for what is more aesthetically correct. I think the originals were intended to show the actual shape of the continents, rather than a Cartesian layout that shows distortion like a Mercator Projection. I just can't imagine that being the original author's/artist's intent.
I don't know if that makes me a grognard or not, but, I don't think that scale and travel were intended to be geographically correct on those early maps ... they were thematic, at best. And i am also one of those contenders that still say that the Dragon Annual map was one that was in-character, and not any more accurate in that regard than IRL medieval maps were. _________________ Owner and Lead Admin: https://greyhawkonline.com<div>Editor-in-Chief of the Oerth Journal: https://greyhawkonline.com/oerthjournal</div><div>Visit my professional art gallery: https://wkristophnolen.daportfolio.com</div>
Yep, yep. I think that's also interesting how "The Dragon" map looks like an in-game map while the Living Greyhawk map is presented in a more scientific way that you wouldn't expect from a pseudo-mediveal setting.
I think that I am going for what is more aesthetically correct. I think the originals were intended to show the actual shape of the continents, rather than a Cartesian layout that shows distortion like a Mercator Projection. I just can't imagine that being the original author's/artist's intent.
I don't know if that makes me a grognard or not, but, I don't think that scale and travel were intended to be geographically correct on those early maps ... they were thematic, at best. And i am also one of those contenders that still say that the Dragon Annual map was one that was in-character, and not any more accurate in that regard than IRL medieval maps were.
I'm not sure if I'm understanding your intent here correctly, Icarus. Let me point out that, though Darlene's map of the Flanaess is very asthetically pleasing, I believe that the intent of the author was that it was also as globally accurate as possible. This is because it is drawn on a hex grid and no mention has ever been made (to my knowledge) that the 10 league hexes in the north should be shrunk to a smaller scale than those in the south, as happens in a mercator projection.
I suggest the Winkel Tripel Projection as the basis for Darlene's map of the Flanaess and the rest of the continent.
Sir Xaris ... I'm not sure if you just missed part of the post, or misread, or something ... it happens from time to time. But, we're essentially making the same point. Thus -
Icarus wrote:
I think the originals were intended to show the actual shape of the continents.
Sir Xaris wrote:
I believe that the intent of the author was that it was also as globally accurate as possible.
In my post, I actually say that both a Cartesian layout and a Mercator layout distorts the map ... so ... I'm pretty positive that you're on the same page with me.
I know that you commented on my illustration of how I thought that the continents should be in relation to the globe. ... that version, while different from the Winkel Tripel Projection that you provided, essentially makes the same point. The purpose of the map was to graphically represent the physical geography with as little distortion as possible.
Although I will say that i think that hexes (while being more conducive to global mapping because it's a more versatile shape) is simply a product of the gaming of the 70s and early 80s when table top strategy was done one hexes.
Bear in mind that the superimposition of a hex grid tosses out many of the discussions of different projections. The center of a hex in the Hold of Stonefist is 30 miles away from the center of its neighbor, and the center of a hex in Hepmonaland is 30 miles away from the center of its neighbor, too.
I have no idea what that would make the map of the Flanaess look like in various modern mapping projections, but it does speak to the fact that the Darlene maps (and later maps based upon them) are designed to be practical representations of relative distance, consistent across all latitudes and longitudes.
Apologies if this point has already been raised or is irrelevant. I'm prone to missing things in long and intricate threads, don't pretend to be an expert at cartography, and haven't been coming by here as much as I used to.
I think you're agreeing with Icarus and I, Joe. We are all saying that Darlene's map is a true representation of actual distances, not a distorted image.
Hi, (This is my first post ever on this wonderful website, that I've been reading for years )
I'm sorry that my first post will be a LONG POST (1/3), but there is much to say on the issue of the scale and the projection used for the Darlene's map.
Actually, it's a tough issue. To summarize things : from a cartographic point a view (I emphasize : not from a player's one), you cannot preserve shape AND distances everywhere on the map of such a big area of land. Darlene's map encompasses 2 or 3 times the area of mainland USA (depending the... projection you choose ;-), so it's a huge piece of land, certainly for a cartographer.
When dealing with an area as big as a continent, you can never reproduce it perfectly on a flat map. This is due of course to the spheroidal nature of the globe. For such an area, there is no existing projection able to respect distances _everywhere_ on a flat map. Simply it's impossible.
This means that our hex grid, with its constant scale of 30 miles per hex, printed on such a big area of land... has to be wrong somewhere.
Don't worry, though. If you keep to the Flanaess and to the Darlene's map, you can assume it has the original shape we all know AND a constant distant scale. This last bit is not perfectly true from a cartographic point of view, as I mentioned above, but it's still a decent assumption. Go on playing and don't change anything to your campaign, anyway.
The trouble with the constant distance scale comes when you try to map the rest of Oerth, but I'll come to this in my second post, just below this one (to make this one not too long).
In a third post here below, I also give some pictures of what a distance-constant Flanaess map would look on a globe.
PS : Which map projection should you consider if you're assuming that distances have been preserved on the Darlene's map ? The existing ''equidistant'' projections usually preserve distances along the meridians and one or two reference parallel(s) ; or between one or two reference points on the map and the rest of it ; or along parallels if you use the Sinusoidal projection (this one can also be interrupted, to better preserve shapes). If you want to read more about this, see Wikipedia, Map projection, especially the Equidistant chapter.
Things will become problematic if you extend the 30-miles-per-hex rule to the entire Dragon annual map. We have a good example of this with the wonderful work that Joe Bloch (greyhawk grognard) did recently. (By the way, Joe this is an amazing job you did !)
Since Joe used the same hex grid as on the original Darlene map, we can compare his result to the known dimensions of the Flanaess. (Joe also stated sooner in this thread that he wants to keep the constant 30-miles-per-hex scale along the hex grid.)
Well, I'll spare you calculations here (I can give you them, if you want). But if we respect the distance scale everywhere on the Darlene's map, then at its top the map encompasses 26% of the length of the parallel at that latitude (54,5° North - remember parallels get shorter and shorter as you go North, to reach 0 at the Pole).
Now, on the map that Joe assembled, we see that his whole map is 3,5 times as broad as Darlene's map. It means that if we stick to the 30-miles-per-hex scale, *at its top* Joe's map would span 90,5% of the length of the parallel. This is almost all round the globe *at that latitude*, but then we could still live with it. (Only that West Oerik is now even bigger than before.)
But the bottom of his map lies at a higher latitude : around 65°(south). Here we have a problem. Because, with the constant distance scale, the bottom of his map spans... 125% of the parallel's length at that latitude. Now, that is to long of course.
What can we do in order not to loose the beautiful job that Joe did ? Well, *if you want to keep the drawings as they are*, there is no other possibility than to break with the constant-distance-scale rule. (Another solution would be to consider that Oerth's diameter is bigger than 25,200 miles at its equator, but then you go off-canon.) I would suggest to use the compromise offered by Gary Holian, e.g.: the Darlene's map is in an equirectangular projection and the reference parallels lie at 35° north and 35° south. But feel free to design you own solution, there are a lot of them.
If you still want to keep the 30-miles-per-hex distance scale for mapping the rest of Oerth (this means your map is in a non-equirectangular projection), you'd better off by shrinking West Oerik, simply to avoid the map being bigger than the globe ; but also to have more room for other continents and oceans. Yet, this is not convenient for Joe's maps which have already been drawn.
If you want to keep the constant distance scale AND the shape of the DA map, then you will have to cut anyway the lower southern part of West Oerik, at least. And remember you're already almost round the globe in many places. Also, if you want to design the regions closer to the two poles, you'll have to reduce the width of your ''drawing board'' as you go towards the pole (e.g. the limits of your world map should look like a rugby balloon, as in the Robinson or Winkel-Tripel projections).
Well, I'm sorry to have been so technical and so long. But these things are not easy to explain. Anyway, I think this is a fascinating question and I'll love to hear your comments about all this.
Skord of Skule
Last edited by Skord_of_Skule on Sat Oct 13, 2012 7:07 pm; edited 1 time in total
Well, I said above I would post pictures showing what looks a distance-constant map of the Flanaess set on a globe. But I don't understand how to put an image inside the thread. Can someone help me ?
(The tags sem to indicate I have to insert the url of my image. But is there a specific place where to upload the pictures on the website ? I guess an external link is not the best option, since it could be easily broken.)
Well, I said above I would post pictures showing what looks a distance-constant map of the Flanaess set on a globe. But I don't understand how to put an image inside the thread. Can someone help me ?
(The tags sem to indicate I have to insert the url of my image. But is there a specific place where to upload the pictures on the website ? I guess an external link is not the best option, since it could be easily broken.)
Thanks in advance,
Skord of Skule
I believe you have to upload your pictures to a website like photobucket, then you can link to them here on Canonfire!
And, your explanations are very helpful. You have provided workable solutions to DMs who want options for how to work the maps and their numbers. Thanks!
Skord of Skule ... you clearly have a strong working knowledge of the process of cartography, and it's let you explore the concepts of how a global map can err when compared to a flat map. It's something that cartographers (and gamers) have fretted over for years.
While I can certainly appreciate such a technical and detailed analysis, I think that you might be going to vast lengths to explain something that ... well, doesn't have a mathematical explanation, so to speak.
The answer that you're giving is essentially one that is displayed in the Google Earth screenshots above. The mathematical and technical answers that you're giving rely on presuming that the maps are going to be distorted when placing the on a globe because of the reduction in the latitudes. As can readily be seen, this pinches and squeezes the maps, making them horribly inaccurate and strange-looking.
Imagine, if you will, a rubber stamp of the kind that might be used to stamp "Reiceived" in red ink. Now, further that concept by making it a ball, and instead of "Received" it has a rubber-stamp image of the flanaess. If this ball were inked and rolled across paper, it would certainly make an image with which we are familiar, though if that image were then loaded into Google Earth, or changed in the way you're describing, it would just as certainly not produce an identical structure to the original globe.
Most people who draw gaming maps aren't cartographers in a professional sense. We have to take into account what the original author's and/or artist's intent was. More often than not, they're interested in showing what the geography looks like - making a topical map that shows layout and shape, and not actual navigational degrees and distance. Especially in an age when cartographic specialty wasn't just a wiki-search away, most gamers didn't have any kind of technical expertise, and just wanted to draw a nice picture of the continents. Because of that, we have maps that don't precisely conform to our ideas of mapping and various mapping techniques.
I think that the best way to look at these maps is to think of them sort of floating independently of lines and grids and numbers. Just think of them and how they should logically be placed, without distortion, exactly as drawn. Above, there's some examples of the continents laid out without altering them ... like this one, that I offered. No matter how one moves the lines around "under" the continents, the continents should remain the same size and shape, and not conform to a mathematical program that alters the images so that they are bent or changed. The only thing that we know is that the latitudes are parallel, and the shape of the continents ... and those are the key factors that should be kept. _________________ Owner and Lead Admin: https://greyhawkonline.com<div>Editor-in-Chief of the Oerth Journal: https://greyhawkonline.com/oerthjournal</div><div>Visit my professional art gallery: https://wkristophnolen.daportfolio.com</div>
The only problem (aside from the poor choice of splitting the southern (australia-looking continent, connotating the edges of the map) is that we don't know how much other water is out there.
We know the diameter of the Oerth is 8,021.5 miles, and we know that the Solnor Ocean is over 3000 miles across from the Flanaess to western Oerik. That's got to get us a ballpark figure.
SirXaris, thank you for the answer. I'll try photobucket, let's see below if it works.
Icarus, maybe it wasn't clear from my first posts, but our views are quite similar. I also think we have to take into account what the original authors wanted to say/show. To my eyes, the Darlene's map is like the "core of the core" of the GH canon. And I understand very well that the Darlene's map was not drawn with a precise projection system in mind, you're certainly right about that.
Yet, it does not prevent us to make some backward-thinking in order to find which projection would "explain" the best the result we have (e.g. the Darlene's map) while at the same time respecting the most the shape we see. I think that's what you tried to do with your (beautiful) Goode rendition. And I think there could well be a ''mathematical solution'' to that question, though. I'll think a bit about it and I'll post if I find something interesting.
But I'm with you when you say we should try to preserve the shape of the Darlene's map. With this you've made me change my mind about the 'implied projection' for the Darlene's map. For years I had favored the equirectangular solution and the compromise offered by Gary Holian in the Oerth Journal. But you made me look at this with a new eye.
I see now that it could be possible to find a better solution, certainly for the shape and the main distances. I will try various possibilities. For the Flanaess my guess is it will end with a conical conform, but it's worth a check (by the way, I hope you understand that this kind of research is part of the game for me, though weird as it may seem ).
For the DA map, the way Icarus rendered it through a Goode homolosine projection is very good. You keep the shape of the Flanaess but you shrink West Oerik. That's the best way to proceed, I think. And besides, the drawing is very beautiful. (But I'm not being very objective here, I'm a long time fan of your art actually.)
I want to emphasize that my main point, in my two previous posts, was the difficulty to preserve the shape of the Darlene's map AND the constant distance-scale of 30-miles-per-hex, since several people here in this thread said they wanted this. I certainly don't want to annoy anyone with technicalities, that's not my goal. I just wanted to stress this difficulty, because it has implications when you try to map the rest of Oerth, as I showed above.
Anyway, I will try now to post my pictures.
Skord of Skule
P.S.: The analogy of the rubber stamp-ball is nice. But in fact it does not work like that. Try to print that ball-stamp and you'll see you don't get any coherent picture of what it looked like on the globe. It would rather be a mess, actually. That's why maps are designed through projections. But once you have a correctly projected map, if you prepare it for Google Earth (e.g.: make a rectangle contiguous picture out of your map, a necessary step for GE ; you could use an equirectangular for that transition step - indeed, that's the easier way. That projection is kind of a standard in digital cartography, because it's Cartesian of course) and put it in the software, GE will then show it accurately again, like it was on the original globe.
What would look like on a globe a distance-constant Darlene's map ? Here some pics. (Click on the URL if the pic doesn't appear. It doesn't seem to work with the [img] tag, I don't know why.)
Assuming the hex grid of the Darlene's map has a perfectly constant scale means that you assume this map is designed in some kind of an azimuthal projection or other. Finding that ''implied'' projection is not easy, as we discussed above in this thread.
Yet we can try to approximate what means a distance-constant Darlene's map. As a first approximation, it will appear as a trapezoid on an equirectangular projection. This is not perfectly correct, but it's a good first assumption (and it's easy to draw :-).
It will give something like this below : (the black rectangle shows the ''footprint'' of the Darlene's map assuming it was originally designed in an equirectangular projection, which is the assumption made for the underlying Oerth map used here).
Now, you see that there is not so much difference "by the look of it" on the globe. If you choose to keep this result, remember that now the Thillonrian peninsula is projecting itself farther away to the east relatively to the coast of the Great kingdom. The shore of the Dramidj ocean is more to the west, on the other side.
Welcome to the forums Skord! You certainly picked a good topic to leap into. I've fixed your links rather than post the images since the first one seemed too big as to make the forum page stretch. Links will do.
For future reference, from your Photobucket screen click the direct link button to the right of the photo's page and use that for you URL code on this forum. I'm no expert mind you, it took me several tries.
Mortellan, thank you very much for correcting my links and for the advice about the URLs.
I'll try later to make my pictures smaller then, and edit my post in order to see if my pictures can be directly seen from the thread. Indeed, it deserves several tries.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Canonfire! is a production of the Thursday Group in assocation with GREYtalk and Canonfire! Enterprises
Did I 
