View Full Version : Could I get an opinion on these rivers?

Sam Conifer
03-18-2011, 04:01 AM
I made these rivers by making a gimp file with spray painted terrain, opened it up in Wilbur and made rivers in it, then brought it back to Gimp. Once in Gimp I made a copy of the Wilbur terrain and threshed it (thresholded isn't a word it seems) to get the shape of my lake and major rivers. I then bumped a new white layer with the Wilbur terrain and threshed that as well. This second endeavor is to get the river tributaries that were left out by the lake and river shape, however this didn't automatically turn out as nicely so I had to white out random speckles, join water pathways that seemed like they should be joined, and fill in large water pathways which were so wide that they left blank space in their midst. Lastly I had to set the tributary layer to darken only before merging it with the lake shape layer.

Anyway, the reason for my post is just what my title says. Are these good rivers? Are there any problems with them?

Steel General
03-18-2011, 07:27 AM
I don't see any obvious problem with them, they seem to have the 'tree-like' appearance I would expect to see.

03-18-2011, 08:35 AM
Since the tributaries are not that long I would expect the main branches to be thinner, otherwise okey dokey. A scale would help to know more, though.

03-18-2011, 10:32 AM
Like Ascension says, it seems like the main rivers should be thinner, or at least narrow more as they head towards their source. The layout itself looks great, though.

03-18-2011, 10:52 AM
It reminds me very much of the drainage systems you get in swamps, wetlands and mangroves; many small tributaries leading into broad rivers.


Sam Conifer
03-18-2011, 04:12 PM
Thank you for all the valuable information. I wanted to make a forested lake and river terrain. Here is a version with a scale included. I'll have to get used to drawing up a scale early on. If it is useful I have included the Wilbur file from which I am deriving my rivers from.


I do want to have wide rivers, so based on the opinions above that must mean I need longer tributaries, and due to the lack of space available that might mean I need less rivers. Does that sound right then? I expect it would be hard to see the way tributaries actually look within a forest.
Hah, actually looking up the amazon river width I have to change my statement about intended river width. I want the rivers to take up plenty of space on the visual map, but at the same time I want to work with the scale I have included. The Amazon River is like 7 miles wide. I don't want anything like that. :)

I think I have to refigure my river width or scale.

03-18-2011, 04:25 PM
Oh, so these are feet. So the whole area is only a few hundred yards across. At that scale I would expect to see lots of creeks and not a bunch of streams/rivulets. The thing that strikes me, then, is that they have a pretty similar width (roughly 30 feet across) - not that it's wrong or anything but maybe make one thick, one thin, and one medium with a bunch of hairline streams. Personally, at only a few hundred yards I'd expect to see far fewer streams/rivers/etc. unless this was a swamp. All that said, if you like it then go with it. I'm just offering up opinion and there's no real right/wrong here.

03-18-2011, 09:48 PM
For that scale, it has too many tributaries, unless you are doing a swampy area, which it didn't sound like.

03-18-2011, 10:59 PM
I recommend poking around in something like Google maps and finding some areas vaguely similar to what you're looking for in order to see how the rivers / tributaries work themselves out. I picked a spot roughly similar to what you described ( http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=35.679984,-88.011174&spn=0.006362,0.009602&t=h&z=17 ) and noted that it has much fewer tributaries then shown on your map. Wilbur really works better for regional and world maps than it does for tiny battlemap-type things, I think.

03-18-2011, 11:12 PM
I think they are a little too wet, maybe a little drier?

Of course, I am just kidding, I think they look just fine, but the final scale (i.e. east/west map distance in miles) would go a long way defining the rivers.