From flat to shperical

[Elterio Delgard]

Hello all! No I have not forsaken my maps, just REALLY busy with work.

So far I have only shown you a continent, but I plan on having other continents and lone islands. The problem is, I will have no choice but to have a spherical map if I want to have a realistic representation right? How do I DO that... That is the question... Especially if I draw it all by hands....

[Falconius]

You don't do that. You have to choose a projection method to represent a spherical object on a flat plane. There are so many options it really falls to figuring out what your goal is and go from there. Some people have had success by mapping to some sort of polygon shape that can be folded into a globe like object. However this doesn't really give good regional maps. Other people doing a bunch of maps for their world just do regional in its own particular projection and stitch them together as best they can.

[Midgardsormr]

I once got one of those vinyl balls from the toy section of Wal-Mart and used a wet erase marker to draw in my continent shapes, then I did a simple orthographic projection to my flat maps:
Set the ball so the area I want to map is in the center of my view, then simply freehand the shapes onto the page.

It wasn't the most accurate method, and I couldn't do a full world map that way, but I was mapping from the perspective of a culture that didn't have advanced cartographic tools, so it was good enough for my purposes.

These days, I'd use 3d software to paint the gross features on a virtual sphere, then unwrap it to an equirectangular map (cylindrical projection) for detailing.

[Elterio Delgard]

Hahahaha! Man! I guess it's a good thing I have been unbable to work on another version of my maps cause I think I will have to try another way. I suppose it is easyer to go from a sphere to a flat map then? Goodness, and I don't want to start using programs because I have to save money for my master's degree. Well, if anyone finds a tutrial I would be grateful.

Maybe I am just over obsessed with details for my books... I know that a good map is essential for fantasy novels, but... Gah!

[Elterio Delgard]

You don't do that. You have to choose a projection method to represent a spherical object on a flat plane. There are so many options it really falls to figuring out what your goal is and go from there. Some people have had success by mapping to some sort of polygon shape that can be folded into a globe like object. However this doesn't really give good regional maps. Other people doing a bunch of maps for their world just do regional in its own particular projection and stitch them together as best they can.

Mmmm... Thanks for the tip. However, errrrmmm, I have a hard time to visualize it.

[Elterio Delgard]

I think I have an idea. I might as well draw all my continents and AFTER think about how I will draw them on a sherical planet. Should be easyer if I know how they look like.

[Midgardsormr]

The reason I find it easier to start with the sphere is because every projection will distort the actual shapes in question. If you look at an equirectangular projection of the Earth, you see Antarctica stretched out across the entire bottom part of the world. If you look at a polar project, though, you see its actual shape:





Now, knowing Antarctica's shape, how difficult would it be to draw it down there at the bottom of the equirectangular map? Pretty darn hard, in my opinion. You can mitigate the problem by using a different projection, but ultimately you're going to wind up having to make some kind of compromise of some shape or distance.

Now, 3d software isn't necessarily out of reach, even if you have no budget, though you'll be trading money for time spent learning. Blender 3d is free, open source software that has tools to directly paint on a mesh and unwrap to a texture. Here's an overview of the feature:

https://wiki.blender.org/index.php/D...tures/Painting

You won't get a detailed map that way, but you will at least be able to do your layout so that you can reproject and then work on a flat image.

[Elterio Delgard]

The reason I find it easier to start with the sphere is because every projection will distort the actual shapes in question. If you look at an equirectangular projection of the Earth, you see Antarctica stretched out across the entire bottom part of the world. If you look at a polar project, though, you see its actual shape:

Now, knowing Antarctica's shape, how difficult would it be to draw it down there at the bottom of the equirectangular map? Pretty darn hard, in my opinion. You can mitigate the problem by using a different projection, but ultimately you're going to wind up having to make some kind of compromise of some shape or distance.

Now, 3d software isn't necessarily out of reach, even if you have no budget, though you'll be trading money for time spent learning. Blender 3d is free, open source software that has tools to directly paint on a mesh and unwrap to a texture. Here's an overview of the feature:

https://wiki.blender.org/index.php/D...tures/Painting

You won't get a detailed map that way, but you will at least be able to do your layout so that you can reproject and then work on a flat image.

Mmmmmm.... interesting You DO have a point there. Grrrrrr! I guess this will be even harder than figuring a coastline! Oh well, like I say, a NEVER ending redrawing, that is the adventure of cartography! Very well, I will try it out. Won;t have much time and all but will try in the following weeks.

[Elterio Delgard]

Actually, I may even try it out tomorrow.

[johnvanvliet]

blender might not be the best option , unless you already are using it a lot
there is a very steep learning curve .

even after 12 years and relearning the NEW api in the 2.5+ and newer it is rather complex .

learning to remap a scanned image in qgis would be easier ( there is also a gis version of blender )

The remapping in qgis is a point and click GUI for GDAL , and is rather easy to learn

you can use blank grids for different map projections and redraw them by hand