I looked at that old thread and saw turnouts little visual making of a torus and I completely understand what you guys mean but there is one problem. If the world was a torus, the outside of the donut would wider than the inside. So if it is a torus, than the map would need to be wider in some parts and thinner in others to make the torus shape. Its just not possible to map a perfect square on the surface of a closed 3 dimensional object without distorting any distances which is not the case because subs travel the same speed on the entire map. Taking this into consideration, it is impossible to map the subterfuge map onto a 3 dimensional object if no distortions are taking place.

I think you're wrong, and by think I mean know and by wrong I mean not right.

http://forums.subterfuge-game.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1111

That was a sweet read, thanks.

That said, the only "proof" substantiating that the map is not spherical is the bogus argument about how the names should be upside down after half a turn ? Waow... an the fact that we can automatically adjust the screen display the right way up isnt taken into account ?
Both tori and spheres can be projected onto rectangular shapes, and getting equi-spaced outposts onto them can always be done. Nothing impossible.

you cannot project a sphere perfectly onto a rectangle. It's why maps always suffer from some sort of distortion whether it be size distortion or distance distortion. I can't say about tori, but I know it's true for spheres. although the thread z linked to wasnt even the one i was thinking of. im pretty sure there is another

You do realise you're saying the same thing as me earlier in this thread, right ?
So what about the distortion ? It's not like we have the reference sphere/torus. All that matters is our resulting projected map.

. So there isn't any distortion because the map obviously isn't a torus, its a flat map that is continuously joined on the computer. By the way the edges are joined, (top of screen rolls to bottom, left rolls to right.) the surface can be described a torus. A person moving on a theoretical subterfuge torus would see what we see when we scroll around.


. The reason it isn't a sphere is because there aren't poles to roll around. If I center on an outpost, and scroll up, there is another outpost that is directly opposite it. (You know, where the travel line switches from travel left to travel right, or vice versa.) You could then say that these two points form a 'pole' that the map orbits around. Of course, only spheres have poles. So it's a sphere then? No. Because if a sphere has a pole, no matter where you are on the equator, moving up will take you to the pole. Think of the arctic. If you stand on the equator and move forward, you end up in the arctic. If you move left along the equator, then move up, you still end up in the arctic.
. However, on the subterfuge world, if set two theoretical poles, go to the theoretical equator, and move up, I do not always end up at the pole. That's because the world is a torus, and the two poles I set aren't on opposite sided of a globe, they are on opposite sided of the cylinder. Think of a bagel if you can't visualize it. Hold a bagel, and stab a pencil through it. One outpost you selected is the entrance point, the other is the exit point. When you go from pole to pole, you're just going around and around these points. If you follow the equator right, or roll the bagel right, and then scroll up, you go around a new part of the cylinder.

. So, the map scroll functions as a torus, but there's no distortion because its not actually a physical torus.

Now are you absolutely positive its not a triangle?

On the topic of map distortion, Vox made an excellent video explaining why all 2-d renditions of 3-d object are distorted.

https://youtu.be/kIID5FDi2JQ

nojo34 wrote:On the topic of map distortion, Vox made an excellent video explaining why all 2-d renditions of 3-d object are distorted.

https://youtu.be/kIID5FDi2JQ

The video talks about how every map projection is distorted. I agree with this. Im just sayin that since no distortion happens on the subterfuge map, it cannot be a projection of a 3 dimensional place. If the map was a projection of a torus, it would still be distorted which it clearly isn't because distances are all proportional on the subterfuge map.

whos sayin wrote:Im just sayin that...

Who's sayin?

whos sayin wrote:Im just sayin that since no distortion happens on the subterfuge map, it cannot be a projection of a 3 dimensional place. If the map was a projection of a torus, it would still be distorted which it clearly isn't because distances are all proportional on the subterfuge map.

As I can agree to your reasoning, I must also interject. The map of the world does not look distorted to an ignorant onlooker, it is only after seeing the actual planet and understanding its shape that we can judge the distortion levels of our maps. We do not know the shape of the Subterfuge planet, hell we don't even know the distances between outposts, or the size of the map. We know it loops around in every direction, fine. But if it were distorted, we wouldn't be able to tell with our knowledge of the map. There just isn't enough information given to properly identify the shape of the world.
I think it would have to be three dimensional, since the map continues without interruption going in every direction, and no subs fall off the map like old-time explorers thought. But hey, maybe that's exactly what Ron and Noel want us to think...