|
Post by CELS on Aug 25, 2004 10:47:50 GMT -5
Thanks for your words of appreciation, Dazo. Obviously, I agree with you on this one... but here's a little question for you... Someone shows you a picture of the Anargo sector and it's actually in the wrong galaxy. Was that a question? Then... yes? Like Dazo says, there are no completely accurate maps of the galaxy anyways, since no one has obviously gone far enough away to take one. Thus, all pictures you find on the web are horrendously rough estimates. Yes, mine might be in the wrong galaxy (are you sure that it is?) but it looks so similar to our own that it doesn't really matter, to me. Better looking, actually, but anyway. Like I said: feel free I've spent too much time on this to start over. Technically speaking the GW map in the book is a tad more accurate... That is, if we can be sure that they based it on a realistic map in the first place. Which I would not put money on. That's completely and totally ok, Kage. As long as you or someone else is willing to pick up the gauntlet, there's really no problem. Obviously, I want the best for the project, so if someone can do a pretty AND more realistic map, I'm happy.
|
|
|
Post by Dazo on Aug 25, 2004 11:46:04 GMT -5
To be honest I think GW made their own map, most probably based on a close approximation of a galaxy similar to our own, so unless we use a blank GW map we will have to find our own. To date the one CELS(and thanks for your words of appreciation by the way) found is as close to the one GW have used and is I think the best one for the job.
In terms of information the DM map is obviously superior but it looks crap, it really does. So a hybrid of the two different maps would in my humble opinion be best for the project in the long run.
Iwould suggest holding off until the new map is published so we can all have a good scootch at it and see what GW have done before we try and finalise ours.
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Aug 26, 2004 2:49:38 GMT -5
We can only call CELS' map a 'temporary map' at the moment, then. Perhaps I was too strong in my dislike of it for just being the wrong galaxy (and rather bright delineations of the segmentum) but it just rubs me the wrong way to have it in completely the wrong galaxy. We are, unfortunately, stuck with the same problem as the 'temporary subsector' maps... we need a way of making these look much, much better. Indeed, I am no longer able to create the temporary subsector maps or alter the ones that remain on my computer since the trial period has run out on the program in question, and it really isn't worth my while spending that amount of money on a program for such a use...
Further, if all we're showing is how the segumentum are divided and where Anargo is in relation to the others we must really question whether it is necessary to show it's position in definitive art/schematic form? Rather to merely describe it as being (from an Imperium perspective) "35,000 light years from Holy Terra, and 3,000 light years from the []segmentum[//i] capital"... ?
And, yes, we've all spent rather large amounts of time on things that haven't found specific favour.
|
|
|
Post by CELS on Oct 17, 2004 13:53:17 GMT -5
Right. Here is the galactic map from 4th Edition. As you can see, it's quite detailed, and quite different from my map. Now, what do we do? 1) Ignore the old fluff about the reach of the Astronomican, increasing it to cirka 80,000 light years so it reaches Ultramar 2) Say that Ultramar and even Kar Duniash (the Segmentum Naval Base) is out of reach from the Astronomican 3) Relocate various Imperial worlds so that they are closer to Terra. I vote option number one, personally. With option number 3, which I used for my map, you contradict the fluff by relocating a whole bunch of worlds. Ultramar is suddenly far away from T'au and the Eastern Fringe, etc. With option number 2, I feel that we make no sense at all. With option number 1, we contradict the fluff from WD#139, but everything else fits, I think. PS: Ultramar is in the blow-up box near the edge of the galaxy, where the lowermost Hive Fleet is invading. Hive Fleet Behemoth, I believe.
|
|
|
Post by Dazo on Oct 17, 2004 14:47:49 GMT -5
As do I, CELS as do I *cough*toldyouso*cough*
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Oct 18, 2004 20:33:21 GMT -5
Strike one up for GW revisionism... If you want to go with the new map, then fair enough. As with all things GW it is pretty, even if it doesn't make sense with the original material. Ah well. Extended Astronomican it is then. It just means that we will have to reinforce the 'porous' nature of the Imperium and not go with the horrendously naive approach that the Imperium actually controls all that space. The Imperium subsectors become 'candles in the dark', which is an intriguingly powerful image... If, on the other hand, it was suggested that the Imperium controls all of that space... then that is not something that would be interesting. Of course, one could point out some interesting... quirks... to the map. Consider, for example, that the Astronomican does not appear to be represented on the map (e.g. otherwise "Holy Terra" would, or should be, in the centre). Indeed, one might also point out that it might be worth investing in a compass (the one with two points!)... Get parental permission before using it on the computer screen (! ) but then jab one point onto the position of Terra and then take it to the centre of the galaxy. Now sweep that around on the point that is in the centre of the galaxy and you'll find that, roughly, it reaches to that little blue line that some might argue is the extent of the Imperium. Don't alter the distance between the points, and jab on back in Terra and sweep it around and you'll find that, roughly it reaches to just beyond the Halo Stars... ish. So what could you make of that? Well, remember that the real galaxy is meant to be 50,000 light years in radius or 100,000 light years in diameter. But hang on, if Terra is at 27,000 light years (about halfway between the centre and the edge of the galaxy) and the 'extent' of the Imperium defined by that blue line - if that is the extent, but it would seem to be given the arguments about Ultramar - then we've got around 23,000 light years of galaxy missing. The Halo stars are a little better, so that's one good thing... Is the picture consistent with the 'fluff'? Perhaps. It has been used to suggest that the Imperium covers, in essence, the entire galaxy and now, with artistic revision, it arguably does so. But does that hold up with the numbers? No. The galaxy is missing 23,000-odd light years and around, erm, ?40-50% of its volume... What happens here? Personally at this juncture I really don't give a fig. My energy is being sapped by numerous things at the moment, whether real life or on this board (even though I'm posting less on the subsector boards at the moment)... All I ask is that, as always, people think about the ramifications and the fact that it is meant to be set in our galaxy...
|
|
|
Post by Dazo on Oct 19, 2004 3:42:22 GMT -5
Isn't that the origional premise for 40k, I though that was how it was supposed to be from the begining, its also as you say Kage far more interesting a concept.
I think your right, theres a few arms missing isn't there. I should say in there defense that there are no real and accurate pictures of the milky way, every picture you see is an approcimation, personally I think the 3ed map looked a little better.
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Oct 19, 2004 5:53:03 GMT -5
Isn't that the origional premise for 40k, I though that was how it was supposed to be from the begining... Kind of. But if you check out the changes being made in the 'fluff' as we move from 1E through to (again presumably, but you can see it in 3E as well) 4E - sci-fantasy to heroic fantasy - there has been a shift away from the concept. You still get allusions to it such as the more pragmatic approach to the Tau, but overall it is something that we would have to reinforce. Again, we think about what a certain feature does and what ramifications it might have upon the 'balance' of the 'fluff'. 4E 'stands on the shoulders' of giants... we just have to make sure that it isn't kicking those giants in the teeth. ...its also as you say Kage far more interesting a concept. And a metaphor for the Imperium itself: it is from within that the truly interesting stuff happens. But a porous Imperium is fine by my, even one that is expanded, along as we don't take the route by which no aliens exist within the boundaries, blah blah. And remember that I would suggest that there is some difference between what Joe Imperium is told and what the 'state' knows as a 'truth'. I think your right, theres a few arms missing isn't there. Oh yes... and a significant chunk of the galaxy. I should say in there defense that there are no real and accurate pictures of the milky way... Nope, but we've got a fairly good idea. Furthermore, there is no getting away from the fact that we're missing something like 40-50% of the volume of the galaxy to the 'right' of the map. ...You could get away with suggesting that the map is an orthographic projection (or is it isometric? I forget) and that perspective is skewing everything. After all, there is the suggestion of 'depth' given by the shape of the blue lines... But given the shape of the galactic centre, I think that would be stretching things a tad. personally I think the 3ed map looked a little better. To be fair, they were both pretty... Again, though, I tend not to overtly influenced by artwork when they pass my "suspension of disbelief" threshold.
|
|
|
Post by Pudding on Nov 2, 2004 12:30:18 GMT -5
so i noticed that you guys are using 50k light years as the range of the astronomican; however, on pg 85 of the BBB, it says the Astronomican has a range of 70k, and that weaker astropaths are used to mark out shipping lanes etc.
so: 70k, not 50k, and you cannot extend the range of the Astronomican, but you can set up beacons.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Nov 2, 2004 17:25:33 GMT -5
The 50K figure comes from the first edition rule book.
Hmm, the BBB sound interesting... ;D
|
|
|
Post by Rogue Trader on Jan 4, 2005 13:56:22 GMT -5
I find it difficult to take GW seriously when they put out maps like the latest one... I looked around the net myself and found this approximation of the milky way, note; it's not another galaxy but an image based on different observations...
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Jan 7, 2005 0:24:32 GMT -5
You see... Now that was what I was after. Lovely image that could be prettily modified!
|
|
|
Post by CELS on Jan 7, 2005 5:11:00 GMT -5
Ok. Anyone up for it? As far as I can see, it's pretty, but it doesn't name any of the galactic arms, and it doesn't show the entire galaxy, so it's hard to get a sense of scale. But hey, if someone wants to have a go...
|
|
|
Post by Sojourner on Jan 7, 2005 6:16:09 GMT -5
If you look carefully, one of the spiral arms doesn't join to the core. Just find that feature on established maps and rotate the thing appropriately.
On another note, I'll try skewing it and getting it fully top-down. Watch this space.
|
|
|
Post by Sojourner on Jan 7, 2005 6:22:25 GMT -5
Well, I've fiddled about and now it looks more like a plan view IMO. Shame about the funny edges.
Blast. I don't have anywhere to host it.
|
|