Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Yes! Thank you so much for the prompt attention. (And I apologize for my previous public grouchiness; there are extenuating circumstances, but they’re not your fault.)
That is excellent news, Jill!
I’m just in the process of de-mothballing my massive project, and look forward to 2.0. (And please don’t hesitate to ask if you’re looking for a qualified beta tester.)
I love these examples, Jill — thank you! I had worked out the multi-stroke track trick and had a result very similar to yours, which looks really good, I think.
But the path-converted-to-outline example was a real jaw-dropper. Dead brilliant! But you definitely identified the problem with it: joining tributaries.
I’ve worked at it for a while and have come fairly close to solving the problem, but there are three difficulties:
- It’s too complicated:
- draw all rivers in advance as paths (no need for great precision)
- outline them
- apply a multi-stroke inner-clipped style
- combine>union
- convert>path
- Unlike combine>append (which really butchers the joins!), combine>union handles the joins brilliantly; unfortunately, it moves the points around a lot (and deletes some) — so a lot of manual readjustments are necessary.
- Headwaters really won’t work at all.
So, reluctantly, I’m concluding that the (far simpler) multi-stroke track solution is probably the best compromise. It does look pretty good!
Or perhaps you have further outline-ish thoughts? …
This was very helpful Graham, thank you.
Have you all seen John Krygier’s wonderful postings of Latvian map features from the 1920s? I’m still working out how to replicate some of these river and river-related features.
Thanks, Graham!
For the “0” case, I ended up just not using a “0” item — I’ll detach one instead & put it to use!
For the “32” case, I created 31 extra items (*not* detached, so they don’t add much overhead) & made them invisible.
But consider this a feature request, I guess!
— Erik
Hi, Pete!
> The problem seems to be with the first two points only.
Ah ha! Yes, I ran into this as well, and I wrestled with it for the longest time! The trick is in step #2:
1. Click (mouse down)
2. Drag — in order to create the first handle.
3. Unclick (mouse up) — your handle is in place.
4. Move your mouse to where you want your second point.
Repeat till done with your line.
(And FWIW, I think you’re absolutely right about using Ortelius to work from existing historical maps!)
Good luck!
— Erik
Perhaps the symbols you are using contain some transparent areas. Are you definitely clicking on an opaque part of the symbol?
This issue keeps reappearing for me; no other applications are affected. Quiting and relaunching Ortelius solves the problem — sometimes for days, sometimes only for minutes. Here are some screenshots from today (on Dropbox).
Most text anywhere within Ortelius is affected; note that drawing-layer folder names are not affected in example #1, but are in #2. OTOH, the toolbar icons in #1 are affected, but not in #2.
OK, now the whole interface is doing weird things. My list of layers, the word “Layers” itself, and the icons in the toolbar have all been replaced by black or gray pixelated blobs, thus:
[Interesting about my previous comment; I’d thought I’d commented on the 1.1.2 release, but I guess it was already at 1.1.3. Weird!]
A problem that was cropping up occasionally and inconsistently in 1.1.1 and a little more often in 1.1.2 is suddenly occurring a lot in 1.1.3. I can’t quite pinpoint the right chain of actions required — and it still seems to be inconsistent. But now it seems unavoidable.
Essentially, various large map elements in my document become mostly black or mostly gray when viewed at specific zoom levels.
In 1.1.2, my continental land mass would become entirely black when viewed at 1600% (but not at lower OR HIGHER magnifications). The land mass is “filled” with a tiling .jpg; changing to a different image would temporarily make the problem go away, but it always came back.
In 1.1.3, various of my source maps suddenly display as black or gray (or, I think, white) at various magnifications. I can vary the effect by showing or hiding other layers, too. The figures on the source maps are still visible, but they become very difficult to see on black or gray, and of course the black or gray plays havoc with what I’m trying to look at on lower layers.
I feel I haven’t explained this very well, but I’d be happy to answer any questions, provide files, etc….
Ouch! Point taken: don’t depend on undocumented features.
That said, is it likely that we’ll be OK if we use something no more complicated than a blur and a fill (as, for example, the “Grey blur” style that ships built-in with Ortelius)?
- It’s too complicated:
