|
Post by Tynesh on Aug 6, 2004 1:42:49 GMT -5
If we do a map all that need be on there is Terra/Mars, Cypra Mundi, Kar Duniash, Hydraphur and Bakka.
These are the 5 Naval bases in the 5 Segmentum, they should be shown along with apropriate segmentae.
Eye of Terror and Maelstrom should be on but maybe not marked.
Too much stuff will detract from the purpose of the map which is to let people know where the Anargo sector is in the galaxy.
It is NOT a redo of the GALAXY MAP;)
|
|
|
Post by Dazo on Aug 6, 2004 1:50:59 GMT -5
Luckily for us shouty pants we don't need to do a new map GW are doing one for the new release of the 40k 4ED rules, and i must say what i could see of it looks rather good
I want to go on record as saying i disagree you need more than five points of reference in somthing as big as the galaxy, but hey i'im not doing the work CELS is so whatever he decides to put on the map is fine by me
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Aug 6, 2004 14:49:00 GMT -5
It would be useful for the 'local area' around the Anargo sector, though. Kind of a 'zoom' version perhaps? Don't worry... I know the feeling. *cough* Eldar *cough* If and when the time comes that such a detailed map is requested, I'll reconsider. They're not... there seems to be a 'singularity' and the rest is 'corrupted space' which mixes the two realities. So, not one big portal at all... Depends on whether you're discussing the primary phenomenon or the results of that phenomenon.
|
|
|
Post by CELS on Aug 8, 2004 9:03:55 GMT -5
Well, it will be interesting to see the 4th edition map in a month or two. And I agree with Tynesh, we don't have the same aspirations as DarkMillennia, so at the moment, I'm more than happy with just knowing where the Anargo sector is. I'll worry about Ultima Macharia and Fenris later.
Now... I'll add the five naval bases of the respective Segmentae. Maybe later, if the size of my picture is large enough, I can do a zoom-in of our region of the Ultima Segmentum and see what famous planets are closes. Probably not a lot, but we'll see when we get there.
Well, how would you propose that I show the Eye of Terror then? As it stands, I'll make it a little blur of light. Nothing that immediately draws the eye. Does everyone else want to see a huge ellipsoid the size of Segmentum Solar?
|
|
|
Post by Dazo on Aug 8, 2004 11:32:41 GMT -5
Make the blur a pretty colour CELS, but also keep it small, as i think for once we are in agreement about something, its to big and looks naff on the DM map.
|
|
|
Post by Tynesh on Aug 17, 2004 21:43:58 GMT -5
The new 40k rulebook contains a very nice map of the Imperium, arguably the best they have ever made. It shows a fair deal of important locations but not that many. It does though put Ultramar close (but not on) the edge of the outer arm in the east of the Milky Way. This is not where many of us think it should be. It is however not on the brink of the utter void. It is also too big (ultramar) in terms of realism ie covers maybe several thousand ly across!!!
|
|
|
Post by Dazo on Aug 18, 2004 1:04:18 GMT -5
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury ,I rest my case Anargo can be put where ever we want on the map, according to how we think the galactic map should look, but as to every thing else...
I can live with that compromise
Well we can all agree thats wrong, Ultramar only consists of about 8 planetary systems, so 10 LY max would be my estimate, possibly less.
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Aug 24, 2004 9:56:22 GMT -5
Well, for some reason I blanked one of dazo's original postings of the rulebook map out of my head. I actually brought out my 'copy' of the rulebook and had a look at the map and realised, self-evidently, that the map is consistent with the 'fluff'. It is not at all strange that the Imperium looks the way it does. All we have to do is find an image (surprisingly hard to do; CELS suggestions was apparently on a galaxy which wasn't the Milky Way)... I've found one but it's not that pretty...
|
|
|
Post by Dazo on Aug 24, 2004 10:10:12 GMT -5
Ah glad i could be of service ahmm now, I also looked at that map again and it is with *taste of bitter ashes fills mouth* humility that I am now forced to agree with all of you. The rule book map has the outer arms covered by text, with ultima clearly extending to the fringe of the first spiral arm not the fringe of the galaxy as i had so vehemently insisted, I was wrong, and i'm man enough to admit it
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Aug 24, 2004 10:45:39 GMT -5
Now if I could just figure out how to shrink the DM worlds onto a map of our selection everything would be peachy! Incidentally, the best that I could find that was actually our galaxy was:
|
|
|
Post by CELS on Aug 24, 2004 22:43:22 GMT -5
Trust me, I've probably seen 99% of all galaxy map images that can be found on the net by using search engines. I kid you not. Obviously, this means I've seen the map you posted, Kage, and it means that I chose not to use it. First of all, this is because I didn't think it was very pretty at all. Second of all, it was quite inconsistent with all the other maps I'd seen, so I didn't quite buy it. Third, it had a lot of text on it, which I didn't care to carefully edit away (such a small job takes such a long time). I hate to sound condescending, pedantic or unyielding here, but I have put an awful amount of work into the map I did, and I did do an awful amount of research, for a single map. Now, I had a small suspicion that the map I used wasn't actually of the milky way (which I believe I mentioned earlier). My point though, is that this galaxy is so similar to the Milkyway, that it doesn't make a difference, because the Milkyway doesn't really look like that OR like on the picture Kage posted. Of course, if Kage or anyone else feels like rejecting my map in favour of something new, feel free. But I've spent enough time on this single map to start fresh simply for the reasons mentioned above. Especially now that I'm out of time and don't have nearly as much computer time as I did before. In other words, best of luck to you people, and count me out
|
|
|
Post by Dazo on Aug 24, 2004 23:26:51 GMT -5
Well now that i have seen the errors of my ways i say go with the map you were doing as its the best looking map i've seen so far, I don't like the perfect circle galaxy just looks naff. I don't think kage like's the circlular galaxy one either, it was just the only one he could find of our galaxy. So lets just stick with the one you were doing CELS
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Aug 25, 2004 6:38:44 GMT -5
You are, in many ways right: you were patronising and condescending ( ) 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. In many ways, despite all the work that went into the Dark Millennia map (which I presume would be much more), it has the same problem there. They selected the wrong size, you selected the wrong galaxy because it was 'cool'. Alternatives must therefore be looked into. Possibly even to extending the GW map somewhat and altering it sufficiently that it would be a 'new piece'...
|
|
|
Post by Dazo on Aug 25, 2004 6:57:25 GMT -5
Well firstly CELS did very well in finding a pretty map. Secondly their are no truly accurate maps of our galaxy as there is to much dust in the way to get a proper look, so it is the case that similar sized and shaped galaxys are used to give us a basic understanding what the milky way actually looks like. You can continue to search but I doubt you'll find anything better than those suggestions already made.
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Aug 25, 2004 9:42:43 GMT -5
Technically speaking the GW map in the book is a tad more accurate... Ah well, just wanted one of the first sights of the ASP to be of the correct galaxy, showing roughly the correct information, etc. And while I disagree with you daz0 I really have neither the time nor the inclination to argue the point of a 'pretty' (but fairly accurate) map.
At this juncture it seems best given the level of information presented on CELS worthy creation to work on a variation of the rulebook version since it shows the same level of information, the correct galaxy... etc.
Maybe I'm being overtly pedantic. Maybe... And maybe the idea of showing the position of the ASP in relation to 'everything else' is invalid since it could be done relationally anyway.
|
|