(from the center of the Terrain Hex to the center of an adjacent Terrain Hex).

[msoya]

On each page of the world mapping system, I'm being told that, for example:

World Hexes are divided into constant size Terrain Hexes.

Each Terrain Hex is 100 km in diameter (from the center of the Terrain Hex to the center of an adjacent Terrain Hex).

All the way down to:

Local Hexes are divided into constant size Single Hexes.

Each Single Hex is 1 km in diameter (from the center of the Single Hex to the center of an adjacent Single Hex).

But it's not. It really obviously is not. For whatever reason, the measured hex size is set up to be point to point, and hexes don't have adjacent hexes on their points. This is trivial to see and measure, and also the reason a lot of people measure hex sizes between the flat sides. So many neat little pages of forms and map templates and it turns out they're all designed by someone who can't handle a fundamental aspect of mapping on hexes correctly? Sure, it's not a problem if you don't care about using multiple maps or having them be consistent, but it's nails on a chalkboard territory for me. I can't use these and will need to make my own.

Unless I'm missing something really obvious, which I hope I am.

 

[Wol]

I am pretty sure these are side to side distances not vertex to vertex.

The vertex to vertex are I think 2*sqrt(1/3)*nominal diameter, or a bit bigger anyway.

See the picture p42. Vol 3.

regards

 

[msoya]

Looking at the diagram on page 42, that large hex is 9 and two half smaller hexes across point to point. The smaller hexes are 100km across measures side to side, which clearly matches up with the scale. Unfortunately, this makes the larger hex 1,000km across point to point.

The text claims the larger hex is 1,000km across measured centre-to-adjacent-centre, which it clearly isn't, as centre-to-adjacent-centre is based on edge-to-edge, not point-to-point.

Basically whoever decided to rotate the internal hexes at each step messed up.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Sorry, I don't see the problem?

The diameter seems to be the inner diameter = distance from side to side = distance from centre-point to centre-point (T5.10 B3 p41):

Or do you mean that the hexes are not the same size because of the imperfect spherical projection?

Looking at the diagram on page 42, that large hex is 9 and two half smaller hexes across point to point. The smaller hexes are 100km across measures side to side, which clearly matches up with the scale. Unfortunately, this makes the larger hex 1,000km across point to point.

Thank you, now I see what you mean.

 

[msoya]

That's one of the world triangle maps - check out the hex maps on the following pages and you'll hopefully see what I mean.

I'd offer up a diagram with red scribbles all over it, but phoneposting makes that difficult.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Basically whoever decided to rotate the internal hexes at each step messed up.

Yes, but it looks good?

Obviously, a ten times bigger hex should have 100 times the area and be divided into 100 smaller hexes.

Something like this:

 

[msoya]

Yes, but it looks good?

Obviously, a ten times bigger hex should have 100 times the area and be divided into 100 smaller hexes.

Something like this:

Shuffle it a bit to the side so it's evenly-aligned on the corners and yes, basically. Then it actually does scale properly.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Yes, it took me a bit too long to see that...

This both looks better and works better than the rotated 75 small hexes per large hex model in the book.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

A single world triangle (size 5).

Yes, that works. Sorry, its bit rough, did it by hand...

 

[Wol]

Ah I see, Diags 4 and 6 align, but 5 and 7 rotate the hexagons 30 degrees screwing up dimensions of alternate hex scales.