If there's one in GIMP I've not found it yet.Yes, but there should be an equivalent tool in gimp and pdn. The process works more or less the same way.
If there's one in GIMP I've not found it yet.Yes, but there should be an equivalent tool in gimp and pdn. The process works more or less the same way.
If there's one in GIMP I've not found it yet.
No, PDN doesn't have one, which is why I can't do this.Yes, but there should be an equivalent tool in gimp and pdn. The process works more or less the same way.
I've never figured out how that works or what it's for.I have found Cage Transform to work in that manner.
I've never figured out how that works or what it's for.
Thank you!So you first make a square (or other shape)
View attachment 442133
Then you move the boundaries of that shape. It's recommended to do this to a separate layer as just using the tool lowers the quality of the whole layer. It's not perfect but it works
View attachment 442134
Are they in the OP? I can only find the deprecated versions.February 21st, 2019:
- Added updated 117, 150, 250, 300, 400, 1250, 1300, 1350, 1400, and 1444 AD maps.
- Revised 100, 200, 476 and 500 AD
If anyone wants it, here's a redone map of the world's uninhabited regions:
View attachment 442767
Basically, an area was considered uninhabited if it met the following criteria:
A - There are no permanent settlements.
B - The area is not used for agriculture.
C - Nomadic peoples do not use the area regularly.
In gray:Do you think a second color could be added to the map signifying regions where nomads live but no permanent settlements exist
Looks great. Could @hadaril add this?View attachment 442901
Messed around in the middle east and Libya plus Albania and the caucuses mostly based on this map here
Like what, exactly? I've always thought you should show uninhabited regions as blank on maps showing polities, sunce there's nothing there.May I suggest the old dark/lighter color convention? Darker for unhinabited, lighter for nomadic lands
Added!Messed around in the middle east and Libya plus Albania and the caucuses mostly based on this map here
Looks great. Could @hadaril add this?
I should also point out that "borders" are very overused in worldas. The southern border of Ottoman Turkey in 1914 was not where it's usually placed but actually in southern Arabia. A border is not the limit of control, but rather what the international community agrees are its borders..
In general the Rashidis were supported by the Turks and the Saudis switched between suzerainty and fighting the Rashidis. It depends on when the map in question is set.You're referring to the Anglo-Ottoman conventions of 1913 and 1914?
That's true, but the conventions were somewhat confusing in that they acknowledged Kuwait as a part of the Ottoman Empire but also a British protectorate in practically all respects but name/formally. Nejd and Jabal Shammar (the interior areas of most of the Arabian peninsula) were also only sporadically under the control or influence of the Ottomans depending whether the Saudis and Rashidis (respectively) desired to curry favour with Constantinople or not (like when the Saudis conquered Al Hasa from their nominal suzerains, the Ottomans). At best the convention borders should be shown as claimed borders I think.
In general the Rashidis were supported by the Turks and the Saudis switched between suzerainty and fighting the Rashidis. It depends on when the map in question is set.
I believe Kuwait and Qatar were formally detached from Turkey by the convention, but the British were not allowed to have a formal protectorate over them.