The NextGen OTL Worlda Series
- Thread starter hadaril
- Start date
Never verified it to an absolute level, but I did use a resized part of a Worlda to do a Qbam and they matched perfectly
If you need something in between Worlda and QBAM, @michaelk156 did start the World-M thread. I, with their permission, wanted to start a collaboration thread, but it got nowhere.
Here it is.
They do, more or less. They are both pseudocylindrical projections, but they aren't simply re-scaled versions of each other.
[my usual essay about map projections omitted to save space]
Yes, but vertical distortion will fix that. So as long as they're similar projections you can tranlate from one to the other.
Of course we still can't figure out where to put the continents in the worlda...
Vertical distortion alone won't fix the issue. They also either use different ratios for length of polar line to length of equator, or have the last few degrees of the poles cropped off (it's really hard to tell which with any certainty). Either way, that means simple vertical re-scaling won't produce a match.
If it weren't for the half-decade worth of pre-existing worlda resources, I would've started with a new basemap. But at this point, I feel we're stuck with the worlda whether we like it or not
. However, for what it's worth, even with its flaws the worldA does a decent job at what it's meant to do: provide a high level overview of a timeline, rather than the detailed and more accurate larger base maps.
If it weren't for the half-decade worth of pre-existing worlda resources, I would've started with a new basemap. But at this point, I feel we're stuck with the worlda whether we like it or not
However, for what it's worth, even with its flaws the worldA does a decent job at what it's meant to do: provide a high level overview of a timeline, rather than the detailed and more accurate larger base maps.
We should move over to a new bsaemap over time, but it needs to be way slower than just "boom new basemap"
Oh, and does anyone have a map of zealandia? I might need it for a time-lapse in my tl
I feel like if a completely new map is going to get made and adopted, it would be through a single person making the basemap and a huge set of historical/informational maps without posting anything about it until it's all done, so you'd be able to compete with worlda right out of the gate. If the map launches with a fairly complete set of resources, you avoid the association of "that new basemap that looked interesting but doesn't have enough resources for me to use it."
The big downside is that you lose all of the benefits of collaborating on a massive project, and it would probably take years and years of work to get everything made working solo, and there's no real guarantee that people would use it.
The big downside is that you lose all of the benefits of collaborating on a massive project, and it would probably take years and years of work to get everything made working solo, and there's no real guarantee that people would use it.
I mean, if we all started now and didn't post anything we could complete a new basemap within the month. Although, I am a fan of terraforming so I'd probably be locked up doing sea level maps.
I mean, there's the 2K bam which could be a good alternative, and there's already a 1700 map made by Drex and a 1914 map made by me (lacking internal subdivisions and with some inaccuracies), with a ful river map too. We could work on that, the thread which it is in is XK-Bam thread
As for the 2k bam: Personally I'm not a fan, but it's based on personal preference.
I feel the worlda is a great size for overview maps, and that the 2k is a somewhat uncomfortable middle-ground between the worlda and the qbam. The projection is also not commonly used, which means finding otl maps for basemaps becomes more difficult, and adapting projections is quite tedious when tracing otl maps of different projections. Also, I feel it's a bit overly detailed with its geography, leaving a lot of "specs" across the map along rivers.
I think if a new basemap is going to be made, it should be a overhaul of the worlda, fixing geographic errors on it, rather than making a new one from scratch.
I feel the worlda is a great size for overview maps, and that the 2k is a somewhat uncomfortable middle-ground between the worlda and the qbam. The projection is also not commonly used, which means finding otl maps for basemaps becomes more difficult, and adapting projections is quite tedious when tracing otl maps of different projections. Also, I feel it's a bit overly detailed with its geography, leaving a lot of "specs" across the map along rivers.
I think if a new basemap is going to be made, it should be a overhaul of the worlda, fixing geographic errors on it, rather than making a new one from scratch.
My comment on yout opinions:
Do not take any of this personally please, just my opinion.
Agreed
For that matter, Worlda's projection is really specific, and the only reason that is not a major issue, is that its size makes it easy for translating borders into it. Equirectangular is a recognized projection and there are some projection converters that work with Equirectangular.
The river specs can be annoying, you are right, and considering a 2KBam River map was made right from the beggining, they are probably unnecesary.
Yeah but that wouldn't be a new basemap, just Worlda.
Do not take any of this personally please, just my opinion.
Honestly, I think getting rid of worlda would be like getting rid a bit of the site. It's a unique projection crafted by the site for the site, self contained within it. It's part of our history. It's a shitty argument for keeping it, but I can say even if we get a new basemap I'll continue to use worlda. Odds are a few other people will also
Last edited:
The worlda is basically the best map for world maps. It has just enough detail and doesn't become unreadable due to the site's compression.
However, the QBAM is better for regional maps of say, Europe, and there are even bigger maps for political boundaries within countries.
Last edited: