(Q - sfk: the second map, you said that there is no problem in using a recent map as long as we still remain at the scale required of us?)<
/i>
MB : you are talking about the impact of scale in relation to dimension transfers, is that what you want to tell me?
(Q - sfk: possibly)
MB : and what else? If you want a precise answer you have to ask me a precise question.
(Q - sfk: concerning a report, that we could actually transfer, that we have odds more or less in one way or another, that we could find it on this card- there, obviously we are on a 1/25000 or a 1/200000 it is not quite the same thing.)
MB : I don't remember...I don't know the answer formally, you will tell me if you remember, I don't remember, it was never recommended this or that card at the start of the game.
(Q - sfk: so for the 989 we were told...)
MB : 989 corresponds to what was commonly used at the time, although when the puzzles were designed at the time, it was not in 1993, it was more like 78,79 or 80, I don't know nothing, at that time it was not the same edition of the map but in any case it turned out that on the 1993 map, what we can see there, it works.
Afterwards I heard that there were alignments that were no longer quite the same, things that had changed from one edition to another, hence his concern to remake a 989 from 1993.
But apart from that I don't remember that a second map on a precise scale was recommended. We're talking about a map of France at 1/1000000, that's what was used at the time, that's what everyone used, so it's a reference, a base, ok fine, until then we were designing, even if it wasn't specified, so Ok it's the reference card that we were almost obliged to use at that time.
On the other hand, if we are talking about a map or the detailed map of the area, I do not remember that there was a scale, ... I know well that there was 1/25000 I I read it, I read it, I see it clearly, but I don't remember that it was imposed, advocated, recommended from the start.
(Q - aladore: not from the start but on the other hand Max made it clear, because Max specified that a second map was needed which gave the area, and he said a more precise map, afterwards there were a lot of questions, what level of precision and he specified this level of precision by citing 3 or 4 models of maps at 1/25000)
MB : I'm laughing because it's all Max Valentin, I don't want to give you one I'll give you 4, you shouldn't either...
(Q - aladore: they all had approximately the same scale at 1/25000, so, a bit like the 989, it was said that or taken into account that the second card made it possible to find the area on a 1/25000 map)
MB : I think that what is important to consider on the detailed map is that all the elements you need can be found on this single map, that it is not too local and that you are missing a piece of something to help you find your way, for example. That's all, that's the only thing to worry about, that's that depending on what you find, what you think you need, once there you have to have everything on the same page. map, it seems logical.
I believe that this is the only concern, I would say that the scale for me does not appear to be fundamental, in the current state of my knowledge, I must remain cautious.
(Q - aladore: the difference between the cards of today and those of the time, in terms of what is on them, it is true that there was a addition of information since that time with a little more precision, remarkable sites annotated on the map and also the big modification is not at the level of the scale, it is at the level of the format, it is that is to say that at the time the card was more on the height and today, to reduce the number of cards, in my opinion, they took this card plus the one next to it and they made only one map, which makes a larger map in fact, but it doesn't change the scale (I agree with you.)
MB : The main thing is to have everything in front of you when you need it. But you see you are telling me that in the madits, Max responded on different, 3 or 4 types of map which were all at 1/25000 we agree, so he implicitly introduced a notion of scales?
(Q - aladore: he said we need a second, more precise map)
MB : I corroborate this information, completely.
(Q - aladore: and people, like more precise maps there are many, there are at 1/20000, at 1/25000, at 1/50000, at one point there are It's said that it's true that I still have to give them the stuff, because they have too many choices in fact, either they'll go to a menu that's too specific where there will be too much stuff, either they will take a map at 1/50000 where my construction or the benchmarks, for example I take an example at random, the benchmarks on the 1/25000 will not be on the 1/50000.)
MB : that's it and then if the map is still detailed, you risk not having all the elements on the same, so we can logically consider that he opted for 1/25000 considering that on a map at 1 /25,000 of the area, we had all the necessary elements within sight.
(Q - apollo: so he never talked about 1/25000 but said "the most precise map".)
(Q - immortal tofu: the cards he cited were those that were just in the trade without saying this one rather than that one...)
MB : we have come to consider that the scale is accessory. on the other hand what is not incidental is the cutting of the map so the 1/25000 should correspond, you should not stray too far from that.
(Q - sfk: for many players, at the 500 level, we find the Michelin map, but by the mega it is a million times less and at the same time in this sentence we have the "ma, me, mi, mo, mu", with the missing "mu" and using the micron, the Greek u, we divide by 40, and we arrive at 1/25000. is perhaps one more coincidence for us owls that we found.)
MB : it could well be a coincidence, once again I don't have absolute conviction, that would require..., but I don't have a memory, that's what I'm basing myself on, I don't I didn't see any mention of a precise scale on the detailed map, from memory I didn't record that but it might be worth taking another look.
(Q - sfk: for our part in the game, it was made clear that the card number is not specified, is not encrypted in the game, and indeed, you say to yourself s 'there is a specific card number?)
MB : no, no, no specific card number.
MB : you are talking about the impact of scale in relation to dimension transfers, is that what you want to tell me?
(Q - sfk: possibly)
MB : and what else? If you want a precise answer you have to ask me a precise question.
(Q - sfk: concerning a report, that we could actually transfer, that we have odds more or less in one way or another, that we could find it on this card- there, obviously we are on a 1/25000 or a 1/200000 it is not quite the same thing.)
MB : I don't remember...I don't know the answer formally, you will tell me if you remember, I don't remember, it was never recommended this or that card at the start of the game.
(Q - sfk: so for the 989 we were told...)
MB : 989 corresponds to what was commonly used at the time, although when the puzzles were designed at the time, it was not in 1993, it was more like 78,79 or 80, I don't know nothing, at that time it was not the same edition of the map but in any case it turned out that on the 1993 map, what we can see there, it works.
Afterwards I heard that there were alignments that were no longer quite the same, things that had changed from one edition to another, hence his concern to remake a 989 from 1993.
But apart from that I don't remember that a second map on a precise scale was recommended. We're talking about a map of France at 1/1000000, that's what was used at the time, that's what everyone used, so it's a reference, a base, ok fine, until then we were designing, even if it wasn't specified, so Ok it's the reference card that we were almost obliged to use at that time.
On the other hand, if we are talking about a map or the detailed map of the area, I do not remember that there was a scale, ... I know well that there was 1/25000 I I read it, I read it, I see it clearly, but I don't remember that it was imposed, advocated, recommended from the start.
(Q - aladore: not from the start but on the other hand Max made it clear, because Max specified that a second map was needed which gave the area, and he said a more precise map, afterwards there were a lot of questions, what level of precision and he specified this level of precision by citing 3 or 4 models of maps at 1/25000)
MB : I'm laughing because it's all Max Valentin, I don't want to give you one I'll give you 4, you shouldn't either...
(Q - aladore: they all had approximately the same scale at 1/25000, so, a bit like the 989, it was said that or taken into account that the second card made it possible to find the area on a 1/25000 map)
MB : I think that what is important to consider on the detailed map is that all the elements you need can be found on this single map, that it is not too local and that you are missing a piece of something to help you find your way, for example. That's all, that's the only thing to worry about, that's that depending on what you find, what you think you need, once there you have to have everything on the same page. map, it seems logical.
I believe that this is the only concern, I would say that the scale for me does not appear to be fundamental, in the current state of my knowledge, I must remain cautious.
(Q - aladore: the difference between the cards of today and those of the time, in terms of what is on them, it is true that there was a addition of information since that time with a little more precision, remarkable sites annotated on the map and also the big modification is not at the level of the scale, it is at the level of the format, it is that is to say that at the time the card was more on the height and today, to reduce the number of cards, in my opinion, they took this card plus the one next to it and they made only one map, which makes a larger map in fact, but it doesn't change the scale (I agree with you.)
MB : The main thing is to have everything in front of you when you need it. But you see you are telling me that in the madits, Max responded on different, 3 or 4 types of map which were all at 1/25000 we agree, so he implicitly introduced a notion of scales?
(Q - aladore: he said we need a second, more precise map)
MB : I corroborate this information, completely.
(Q - aladore: and people, like more precise maps there are many, there are at 1/20000, at 1/25000, at 1/50000, at one point there are It's said that it's true that I still have to give them the stuff, because they have too many choices in fact, either they'll go to a menu that's too specific where there will be too much stuff, either they will take a map at 1/50000 where my construction or the benchmarks, for example I take an example at random, the benchmarks on the 1/25000 will not be on the 1/50000.)
MB : that's it and then if the map is still detailed, you risk not having all the elements on the same, so we can logically consider that he opted for 1/25000 considering that on a map at 1 /25,000 of the area, we had all the necessary elements within sight.
(Q - apollo: so he never talked about 1/25000 but said "the most precise map".)
(Q - immortal tofu: the cards he cited were those that were just in the trade without saying this one rather than that one...)
MB : we have come to consider that the scale is accessory. on the other hand what is not incidental is the cutting of the map so the 1/25000 should correspond, you should not stray too far from that.
(Q - sfk: for many players, at the 500 level, we find the Michelin map, but by the mega it is a million times less and at the same time in this sentence we have the "ma, me, mi, mo, mu", with the missing "mu" and using the micron, the Greek u, we divide by 40, and we arrive at 1/25000. is perhaps one more coincidence for us owls that we found.)
MB : it could well be a coincidence, once again I don't have absolute conviction, that would require..., but I don't have a memory, that's what I'm basing myself on, I don't I didn't see any mention of a precise scale on the detailed map, from memory I didn't record that but it might be worth taking another look.
(Q - sfk: for our part in the game, it was made clear that the card number is not specified, is not encrypted in the game, and indeed, you say to yourself s 'there is a specific card number?)
MB : no, no, no specific card number.