4 different prototype terrain

Thanks for replying. These are just 4 fast examples that I have put together. I tried to mix the possibilities.

@ Samarkand

The forest hex is one of many. This one would be a very dense version. But you are right. It is a bit to crowed to tell what it is. Zooming in or out would not help much.
(Yes, I still can zoom in and out)

1. Sorry to hear that the centre is hard to tell. But then again, it proves to me that I need to adjust this.
The purple centre too can be bigger or smaller. But the hexes themselves are going to be 4 cm in sides, 8 cm in maximum diameter, that is about 3 inch. It is play tested and works best.
I could print these with word, 27% big, 1200 dpi. Very nice detail for a prototype. 6 on each A4.

2&3. Next time, I will be posting hexes with monochrome dots. (Need to fix the templates first before cutting out new hexes.
But what about the edge? It is purple too. Should it be different as well since the hexes are going to be put to next of each other? Black outer line, white inner line?

4. What about putting a box with numbers around the centre? Or would that be ugly? I personally thought of putting the terrain numbers somewhere in the corners. But I am still not sure if I am going to put big numbers in or not. The forest that you see there would have for example the code:

2700
900
0
6T0R

Using symbols wont work. For example, dots.
And putting the numbers in a manual wont work either. For example, you can't map out 200 magic cards either.

@ tuism
Which one is preferred amongst designers? And why?
What do you prefer?
Personally, I am diverting towards landscapes since they show more detail. But top down is more "map like". So I don't know. If I ever am going to publish the game, I will ask the publisher for new top down terrain. I am not an artist. I need to use pictures of others right now.

The basis of an hexagon are 6 triangles.
Each triangle consists of 3 lines.
In drawing programs, a line consists of pixels.
But these pixels are best considered very big indicators of the dots (or singularities) that make up the line.

Thus a line of 1 long has 2 pixels.
A line of 2 long has 3 pixels. etc.

Adding up 2 lines of 2 pixels and each 1 long. Would result in 2+1 in pixels. So a starting line is 2, then 1 gets added. A 2(+1)

Adding up 2 lines of 3 pixels and each 2 long. Would result in 3+2 in pixels. So a starting line is 3, then 2 gets added. A 3(+2)

I discovered that I made a mistake when making my hexagons. The basis that I used for half triangles was
15(+14) x 26+(25). With an expected accuracy of 0,07%, or panning a 1 meter map 60 degrees would lead to 0,7 mm mismatch.

But the real accuracy that followed is 3,9% or a 3,9 cm mismatch. Now every designer knows that having that big of a difference when panning a hexagon 60 degrees will result in maps not fitting each other AT ALL. Thus this needs to be fixed asap.

What did I do wrong? Apparently I went into the wrong direction with the shift in numbers. I knew I needed to use 15 with 26. But using 14 or 16 and 25 or 27 with it, I never thought of that and made the wrong choice. Instead of having 1 more pixel then the line, it was the opposite of what I wanted.

It had to be 16(+15) x 27(+26) with the real 0,07%.
And to top it off, this one has problems in paint when putting the lines together. Not only that, but this was a choice back then of an absolute minimum.

So I need to look for new possibilities (found them already though). And then...

I have to do my hexagons all over again.
At least I know exactly how much time this takes.
But knowing what to do now for fixing this is encouraging.

3 options are open for the moment. I have not yet decided.
When creating maps of 1 meter I can choose between a mismatch of 0,74 , 0,2 and 0,05 mm.

I am using my own templates.
I simply have to do them over.

I got a described approach about this in the Fed2k forums. Where I have more info about my progress.

Yet, I have not found time yet to complete several hexagons.

By pasting these hexagons together. I am able to make maps of 400 regions big. A big print none the less. But worth my time once satisfied.

And during the making of this plan, the codes that are going to be used on the hexagons are going to change.

I am now thinking about having them in the down left corner of each of the 6 side views.
And the rules about regions have changed once again, this due to the fact that unit size is now depending on the region and not the regions space size.

Well, you will figure it out when I create a new thread about my new regions. But it needs time, which I currently don't have. This project is still a hobby ;)

Getting close to a drawing is new for me. For the rest...bin there... done that. And yes. Top view is better

Awesome results in the examples.
I'll consider it.