PDA

View Full Version : My New Terra ...



Naima
07-18-2014, 09:57 PM
Hello , now I want too to give a try to make My earthlike world :) ....

My interest and idea is to make a more similar to Earth as possible new land , not meaning by the shape of continents but by how those are arranged , how much sea / land proportion and to make the shapes AS much as possible realistical in order to later work on possible tectonics ...

The main requirements for my map was to mimic the Old memory I have of a Continental map I did when I was Younger , wich is the A section showed in the image .
This shoudl be a sort of Mediterranean world surrunded by different cultures on the shores and center of a Romanolike empire .
To the Section B instead is a Kind of Asia region .

The Two main continents are separated by a LArge Chasm , that its covered in Sea in the actual worlld but the idea was to make it something else perhaps a dry sea of silt or the like surrounded by endless steppes .

The rest of the continents idea is to mimicise possible contact between culture and experiment possible human evolutive lines so not completely isolated as were in past Americas.

65839

Let me know what you think and all possible to do changes in order to create belieavable tectonics .

:)

And yes I still have to find a good name :) .

The old one was Helium but not sure if to keep .


Updated Version :


Here the Final Geographic map with the Oceanic dorsals traced and theTectonics ...

66006

66007

66010

Red = Oceanic Dorsals
Blue = Convergence zones
Orange = Transformation zones
Purple = Rifts

Pixie
07-19-2014, 06:52 AM
Well, Naima, I was kinda of curious to see what you would come up to, after a couple of weeks of obvious research and time investment. Not a bad outcome at all. I didn't spend much time trying to resolve your tectonics (that's your job, isn't it ;) ). But I could see some obvious marks - here's what I think:
65840

A and B parts of the main north central continent are splitting - you said it you wanted that as well, and it's pretty clear.
Under A, there is a continent with a northern mountain range - it could be a north moving continent, "eating up" the sea between it and A.
South of letter B you have a clear ocean region, with island chains to the west and the east, so it would be something like I scribbled - dunno about its south boundary.
The Ocean west of B is closing on its northern half (both continents B and the one of the West have significant mountain ranges next to the ocean, that hints subduction), but it could still be opening on the south half (the question marks indicate that it will depend on the movement of those two continents)
The continents on the east side of the map appear to be a kind of recent split, as they still fit very well. Therefore, it's a natural place to install a divergent boundary.

As I said before a lot of times, these are free-to-take-or-ignore suggestions. Just hope it helps the kick off ;)

Naima
07-19-2014, 07:39 AM
Well, Naima, I was kinda of curious to see what you would come up to, after a couple of weeks of obvious research and time investment. Not a bad outcome at all. I didn't spend much time trying to resolve your tectonics (that's your job, isn't it ;) ). But I could see some obvious marks - here's what I think:
65840

A and B parts of the main north central continent are splitting - you said it you wanted that as well, and it's pretty clear.
Under A, there is a continent with a northern mountain range - it could be a north moving continent, "eating up" the sea between it and A.
South of letter B you have a clear ocean region, with island chains to the west and the east, so it would be something like I scribbled - dunno about its south boundary.
The Ocean west of B is closing on its northern half (both continents B and the one of the West have significant mountain ranges next to the ocean, that hints subduction), but it could still be opening on the south half (the question marks indicate that it will depend on the movement of those two continents)
The continents on the east side of the map appear to be a kind of recent split, as they still fit very well. Therefore, it's a natural place to install a divergent boundary.

As I said before a lot of times, these are free-to-take-or-ignore suggestions. Just hope it helps the kick off ;)
Heeheh...Thankyou really helpfull :)...

The fact is that the only bits I remember from my map are from the "mediterranean basin in A , surrounded with the Square ....
lol and not even very well .
I was wonderng if the Lands do look "natural" in the shapes since I made most of them by hand , Glad that the mountains do have a meaning :) . I can add and remove mountain ranges as well according to how they shoudl be moving or the like ... I will highlight in blue the areas who's shape I am not convinced if look natural ..
by natural I mean like real life geography coastlines and shapes, . For the moment I want to keep the Tectonics at the very preliminary stage like thinking just of possible split/crush areas and possible plaques , then in the second phase decide what and how should be improved them to efine :) ...
I will post here my new edited map , no geographic changes though yet :) .

65841

The blue circled areas are regions I am not sure if I shoudl completely change , remove or just reqork the coastlines
the Purple arrows suggest a possible rotation of those areas ( to be done by hand , not relative to the tectonics ) for making them look better
The red lines I called striped lands .. I dunno how to call them but by remembering how the real Earth is done I refer to areas like the Aleutine islands the connection between Kamkatcha and Alaska , those kind of small island circles or Australia - Indonesia or Antarctica - South America

The other doubt I have is if I put too much land , I want a proportion of 70% but since I hand painted most of it I amnot sure so I was thinking to move also G continent toward more west or eventually Flipping it on horizontal side? Move C toward west .... D to follow a kind of circular shape and become a sort of tail of the northenr Continent , Flip B and rotate to give a northern concavity , As for E I wanted to give a sort of tectonic shape resemblance of the south incavity of H .
What worries me the most though its the western coast of A and F , that it seems to me kind of innatural for some reason , also perhaps couse seems I can't paint well on the north pole ....

This map shows

Naima
07-19-2014, 02:15 PM
Sigh ! Seems I have to trash the whole world as its unrecovereable ....

I have not saved it in ftw format and now I can'tedit it anymore in FT ... SO I have to start over ... gotta have to redo all the work by scratch and eventually the world will look completely different since anyway I only focused on trying to reget the Seazone in the red square ... I will try to make a new one also according to the new knowledge though .

Naima
07-19-2014, 10:16 PM
Ok I had to redo all from scratch and here is a new version also handmade in FT3 , this time I made sure to save in the right format .

Opinions? Better than the old version or worst? what sugestions for tectonics etc? Any shape , continent not looking belieavable or to cut?
Perhaps remembers too much real earth?

65856

Eilathen
07-20-2014, 08:06 AM
Hi Naima,

What a shame you lost the first map, i really liked the continental-shapes. It's not that your second try is bad, not at all, but i for one liked the first version better. Be that as it may, i'm looking forward to seeing this map develop.
I don't think that it does look too much like earth. And some resemblance can even be cool, depending on what you want to do with this world.

Naima
07-20-2014, 09:09 AM
Thankyou ....

here is the further Evolutio of the second map .

Geography

65861

How a bout new refining?

Here a possible preliminary plaques subdivision ... Ideas thoughts?

Wrong segmentation? Too many plaques? where to place oceanic dorsals? :) Sugestions very welcome ....

65862

65863

Weiße Rose
07-20-2014, 09:57 AM
Your map is very impressive and I like the shape of your continents. Good Job with that!
The tectonic plates are overall good, but look at your continent on plate H. The mountain range there is young and ought to be on the border of the plate, but you placed it in the middle.
If it's an older mountain range, it should be shorter and less pronounced. I would do a quick check for this kind of things. The amount of plates is plausible (Earth has 15 major plates, you've got 16) and I like what you did on the border between C and D.

(Remember, I'm not an expert, but this is what I would do)

Pixie
07-20-2014, 10:49 AM
I agree with Weisse Rose. Those mountains in plate H look like an Andes type of feature (oceanic crust sinking at the border with the continent). I would make the coast close to the mountains and consider the ocean area between H and A a separate plate (it would be like Nazca plate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazca_Plate))

I also think C and D fit just right as they are, but I strongly disagree with the place where you placed the boundaries between D, S and M. The middle of that ocean is a great place for an oceanic ridge. From the middle up is plate D (moving northward), from the middle to the south is plate S (moving southward) and plate M meets plate S at the mountains (currently within plate M).
Plate D could also be extended eastward into plate E, and the long island exactly under the letter E would be in its boundary with T (this would almost/completely cut plate E from the ridge).

As for other obvious mid-ocean ridges (divergent boundaries). The most obvious location is right along the center of plate F. So, scrap that plate. The nothern half is fresh ocean crust part of the north polar plate (G) - which makes this the source of movement for that plate. The southern half would be part of I, L and H - this could implicate adjustments in those plates (also, it would make all of them move southwards).

Plate P also looks like a good place for a mid-ocean ridge, but I would first take this map into g.plates and find out the direction of movement for plate Q so that it fully justifies those beautiful island chains with P and with R.

..Uff, so many letters. I hope I didn't mix them up and that you can follow my descriptions.

Also, don't forget - the amount of ocean crust on both sides of a ridge is roughly the same if the continents are spreading away from the ridge. To make it asymmetrical, one of the sides must be suffering subduction (again, like Nazca plate - compare with Pacific plate)

Naima
07-20-2014, 11:17 AM
....

..Uff, so many letters. I hope I didn't mix them up and that you can follow my descriptions.

Also, don't forget - the amount of ocean crust on both sides of a ridge is roughly the same if the continents are spreading away from the ridge. To make it asymmetrical, one of the sides must be suffering subduction (again, like Nazca plate - compare with Pacific plate)


Hehe thankyou , i have yetto place names ... :) ...
do u have time to show me on the. Map yuour ideas , I kind of think to understand what u mean but I am not sure what borders Nd exact locations u mean .... Also where unwould place the oceanic rifts? I tought between the A And the west but I tought that this is perhaps colliding worlds , perhaps as u say an center nazca plate could have a kind of eye shaped double dorsal?

Pixie
07-20-2014, 11:59 AM
Sure, I don't always have the time, but today it's a good day to ask me for directions. ;) Here's a map kind of covering my previous thoughs:

65866


As for eye shaped dorsals - they aren't stable. As the center part (the eye) grows, it will eventually shut down one of the dorsals from its magma source, hence closing down that rift. They can exist in the earlier continental rifts, and the present African Rift is one exampe, but will not remain in place all the way to the point that an ocean has already formed. You can read about failed rifts to understand it better - a good example is the Newark basin, as shown here:
65867

Naima
07-20-2014, 12:36 PM
Cool thanks :) My world is stil so young lol so I can shape continents a lot :) I even tought of completely redo the west parts to not make them resemple too much Americas ...

in meanwhile I tried a test to Draw by hand inside FT a Oceanic Dorsal ... Trying some techniques, not sure how of the outcome though , how it looks?

65868

Not easy to use those FT tools in general , but I think are extremely powerfull to create a whole world hand painted inside FT .

Btw posted u a question on the african rift on the tut forum , I am a bit confused by it .

Pixie
07-20-2014, 02:04 PM
in meanwhile I tried a test to Draw by hand inside FT a Oceanic Dorsal ... Trying some techniques, not sure how of the outcome though , how it looks?

Looks good, looks really good and you might be taking FT in a direction I never seen it before! But don't make anything final as the actual direction of the movement isn't likely to be exactly East-West (horizontal) throughout the ridge.

Naima
07-20-2014, 02:18 PM
Thankyou ...
Yes I did it on a test version ...tough so far can work only on vertical splits ,as I can't do a diagonal brush ... I am now experimenting new continetn shapes yet ... I will post some different variations of the world shapes for some continents and post them here to read your opinions and then decide wich one finalize ... the idea is to reach the most "belieavable shapes" and then apply on the the whole tectonic things ... but

The other point is when to apply erosion modeling over them , befoure or after tectonics?
Its important to note that by the moment I decide to work on flows and erosions out in wilbur the map won't be possible to be changed again and all changes must be in photoshop or the like .

Naima
07-20-2014, 10:11 PM
Hello , back with some updates ....

What do you think of this new Shape , refining etc ... plus I added the Dorsal possible location ...

65874

and here the New Plaques?

65875

I am still not satisfied by west continent and the too much India look of the east , need to rework those ...

Pixie
07-21-2014, 07:32 AM
Naima, I think it's time you take the map to g.plates and see the how those plates move. It will be extremely helpful at this point, to figure out the movement of the plates and what sort of boundaries you will have in each location.

Naima
07-21-2014, 07:41 AM
Oh I tought I had to decide befoure the location of dorsals?

ascanius
07-21-2014, 08:08 AM
Hello I took a look at your map and there are a few things I noticed. First it looks like your trying to get the majority of you mountain ranges to line up with plate boundaries. I suggest you reduce the number, not every mountain range needs to be explained by current plate tectonics some of them may have been the product of past plate interactions. Second in a few places you have divergent boundaries becoming convergent most notably between plates R, N, and B, this does not happen. The southern pole needs work, when you change its projection to that of a sphere the boundaries are all going to go to a point. I find the movement of plate G dubious it seems to be spinning in place with no real reason to be.

And lastly I think getting rid of the colors of the plates and letting the terrain show through would help lessen the confusion, right now I'm switching back and forth between the to two.

As an observation I noticed that you have an almost 50/50 percentage of land to ocean.

Good luck and keep at it.

Pixie
07-21-2014, 09:33 AM
Oh I tought I had to decide before the location of dorsals?

Yep, you do, but it seems to me you already have some dorsals outlined.. it's a matter of checking if they work.

Naima
07-21-2014, 09:42 AM
Ok thankyou indeed you are right on all but I am not sure how to place non border tectonical mountains? Sample of thise in Real?
How bout general continent shape? Also hiw can I do to calculate how much land I have compared to sea? I want to go fora 70 %?

Naima
07-21-2014, 09:01 PM
Ok i finalized the shapes mre or less , still not 100% happy but Iguess I will never be ... I started to port to g plates but I am stuck at the final part I made all the circles from pole along the planet but then? I pressedlay andmy continent disappeared , also do I have to do that for each plate ? How I decide the direction for each plate or us it decided by gplates?

ascanius
07-22-2014, 01:56 AM
Umm what do you mean you pressed lay? But yeah you have to do that with every y plate if I understand you correctly. As to direction you kinda have to play around and see what makes the most sense.

Naima
07-22-2014, 07:31 AM
Ok I have reached the drawing lines and dots point, but honestly I dunno how to simulate any motion onthat sphere in gplates, I can understand that I can "guess" directions and use the dots to draw lines in a more curved way , but how I do get the "working" movements? How do I know that my decision to make flow a continent on a direction is right or not?

I am posting the new and possibly latest version of my world , geography plain , with plates and the G plate sample .

Silouette
65891

does it looks enough different from earth and natural ? How can I calculate the % of sea?

Geography

65892

where are the mountain ranges, I have reduced some and scattered a bit mor from having all on a single coast side

The largeness of poles are due to projection they are actually smaller island / continents , wich will be covered in ice anyway .


Plates

65893

here are the possible idea for the Major plates, I redraw reducing thenumber trying to get first the major plates and later the smaller ones ... I haven't added directions yet , but only possible openings dorsals because honestly I am not convinced at all on how I segmented the world .
Please feel free to "redraw" the plates I did as I am not convinced at all if are right ...



In Gplates

65894

So is gplate only usefull for "deciding" how to draw curved lines and see where the continents go on a sphere?


Projection

65903
Here perhaps is better to see the curvature and the equidistant projection .

After calculation the % of sea is 70 % just as I wanted .

perhaps this can help to identify better possible plates?

Pixie
07-23-2014, 05:51 AM
I think you are missing one important detail about the tutorial on using g.plates (and you may be missing a key point in plate tectonics as well, so I'll explain).

Each plate has its own "euler pole". That's the point on earth that serve as axis for the rotation of the plate and does not have to be (it never is, unless by freak coincidence) the north or the south pole. We discussed Euler Poles starting with groovey's map on page 4 of his thread (http://www.cartographersguild.com/regional-world-mapping/27111-wip-unnamed-earh-like-planet-4.html).

In the tutorial, did you notice this image:
65921

On the right upper corner, you have to enable pole, to make the white arrow (on the globe) visible and movable.

The small circles are then drawn with the center at the same location as this pole.
(hope this helps)

Naima
07-23-2014, 07:22 AM
ok but what's the point then if I put it in same place of the pole? Earth is like that? and apart that then the circles are only usefull for getting alignement of dots? then I shoudl move manually the continents?

Pixie
07-23-2014, 07:29 AM
right... let's go step by step... :)

1. from what I can gather, you understand what the euler pole is.
2. g.plates can make the plate rotate around the euler pole that you define
3. so, yes, you move the continents manually

So, what are the small circles for...

1. since the small circles are centered at the same pole, they represent the rotation using that euler pole
2. that rotation is exactly the movement of the plate
3. the dots are there to help you transform the information in g.plates (which is drawn in a sphere) into your rectangular map

Was this helpful?

Naima
07-23-2014, 08:18 AM
Yes ok ... so I actually use Gplates as a mapping reference rather than actually make it do the job of shifting my continents , wich is what I understood befoure ... How I do tthen to place correct belieavable opening dorsals in the world ? Always by hand? I mean always at my own judgement and then see how that looks in gplates?
I actually tought that I woudl have seen my continents move , shift and crush against eachother :D ...

Anyway ... if u have time can u sugest me a new platization of the surface ? Mine doesn't convice me at all ... :) , I am almoust getting ready to draw the dorsals and drop FT to go into wilbur :) ...

Pixie
07-23-2014, 11:09 AM
So, while watching the Tour de France, I also had a look at your map and tried a quick attempt at "platization" of the surface (I like the word, don't I know if it exists though)...

here's what I came up with:
65931

Red lines are divergent, black lines are convergent.
The way I work this stuff is starting with a couple of divergent boundaries in the larger oceans and then work out masses of land that have moved away from there.
Also, there are some white arrows and white numbers, these are notes from g.plates, just to give you an example of how to work it out.

There's still plenty to do, of course, and this is a suggestion that may not see itself through. It's always a tricky puzzle and sometimes you just want to throw the towel to the ground - I'm sure you read groovey's thread among others.

Naima
07-23-2014, 11:44 AM
Thanks :) ... I have a planned workflow between Fractal terrains-->Gplates-->FT-->Wilbur-->Worldmachine-->Photoshop :) ....

Hopefully I will get where I am heading too possibly I want to draw as much as possible inside FT befoure dismissing it because I love the offset prescale tools ... right now I drawed a kind of Nile/Colorado river , I painted dry climate to obtained a kind of Desert Region so to have only one big river ...

Pixie
07-24-2014, 09:51 AM
Ok, so you've got a lot of work ahead. I am very interested in seeing where you get to.

A work of advice about carving rivers and painting mountains:
Tectonics IS the mountain building mechanism.. the sole one, apart volcanoes. And tectonics doesn't only tell where mountains are, they also define the orientation of the mountain ridges and the orientation of faults/peaks. When using automated erosion in FT or Wilbur, this is overlooked and what would be a "ridge with sort of parallel lines of peaks becomes something without visible patterns". Mind this as you work on elevation, to get a more realistic look.

Naima
07-24-2014, 11:17 AM
Ok, so you've got a lot of work ahead. I am very interested in seeing where you get to.

A work of advice about carving rivers and painting mountains:
Tectonics IS the mountain building mechanism.. the sole one, apart volcanoes. And tectonics doesn't only tell where mountains are, they also define the orientation of the mountain ridges and the orientation of faults/peaks. When using automated erosion in FT or Wilbur, this is overlooked and what would be a "ridge with sort of parallel lines of peaks becomes something without visible patterns". Mind this as you work on elevation, to get a more realistic look.

what do u mean? In painting I tried to draw the mountains in the kind of stripes trying to follow the movement of the possible plate like if it was a cover over a table and someone pushing on a side ... then I applied wilbur and other erosions ....

Not sure if it looks good but here is the result after my tests ....
The sea is completely to redo anyway by using a mask over it and start over in FT .

here is an example of after erosion of my kind of imitation of ...


Himalayas
65950
Mediterranean
65949
Africas
65948
Amazonas
65947


Anyway those are tests , I took a lot of time to do because of the time it takes wilbur to erode etc then make several tests and so on ...

Basically I saw that the general shape is coming satisfactory but it cant get the exact detail shapes of real mountains on large scale continents as seen by space , I would say that a good approximation of the mountain shapes can be reached on a regional level , like if working on large sizes of continents rather than the whole planet but thats not possible in most region editing softwares and usually the biggest level possible is 8192 sizes ...

I have to go back to the original fractal world though because I have first to define the plates in order to :

paint the dorsals directly in FT possibly ,

redraw the coastlines fundals with proper plate dependant oceanic shelves

and fix some minor details

Also its important to keep the fractal world to paint in all the climates and temperatures so I guess that befoure eroding definetively I also need to evolve the painting pf proper climates ... I was also trying to make a new climatic image texture for the FT , but will see eventually after on .

Naima
07-25-2014, 05:40 PM
Update:

Here is the tectonic map , I used a single euler pole ... not sure if I could use more than one for each continent but using only one this is more or less the result ... I had to make a few corrections to allow the movements.

The yellow dots are the position of the euler poles

the arrows indicate the directions

the red lines are oceanic dorsals
the dotted black lines are oceanic subduing zones
the blue lines are land convergences
the purple lines are forming rifts .

What do you think ?

Btw the arrows on poles regions look more strange couse of theprojection .


65990

I used this (http://montessorimuddle.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Tectonic_plates_boundaries_detailed-en-conv.png)as reference ... I see there are lots of more plates actually than the main ones usually displayed in tectonic maps ...

Dixi Pripa
07-25-2014, 07:42 PM
Ok I had to redo all from scratch and here is a new version also handmade in FT3 , this time I made sure to save in the right format .

Opinions? Better than the old version or worst? what sugestions for tectonics etc? Any shape , continent not looking belieavable or to cut?
Perhaps remembers too much real earth?

65856

Way better tectonics than the 1st one, but try creating some more plateaus like the one in the SE continent(?). Also, in the region at N of the "A" you could bind the 2 mt. ridges. Again, slightly adjust the heights of what are now really low, almost marshy plains by rising them.
P.S. This is constructive criticism, i don't mean to offend you or your really good map(it is really good).

Naima
07-25-2014, 08:04 PM
U referred to last map ?

Naima
07-26-2014, 09:24 AM
Here the Final Geographic map with the Oceanic dorsals traced , unfortunately I can't seem to work other notn vertical or horizontal ones directly in FT so I willprobably rely on some Nasa basins heightmaps ....

What you think of the final shapes of contnents and the above showed plates segmentation?

I will later make a better map for it possibly ... I have tested all plates with a single euler pole and they move accordingly , not sure if I coudl use more than one .

66006

66007

Naima
07-26-2014, 01:33 PM
Here the Final Tectonics ...

hope is good .


Red = Oceanic Dorsals
Blue = Convergence zones
Orange = Transformation zones
Purple = Rifts


66010

Pixie
07-28-2014, 10:19 AM
It's very good. Honestly, it seems to me you got the hang of it pretty quick.

But... I see a couple of issues. They're minor, but let me point them out:
- two of your seas do not have the oceanic dorsal centered - this only happens when the oceanic crust is being destroyed at the same time on the shorter side, which isn't the case
- the larger continent on the west side of the map (the one closing the "mediterranean" sea from the south) is shown to be subducting under the old oceanic crust, it should be the other way around, and there would be a ring of volcanoes in the continent coast - alternatively, the sea could be shallow continental crust, in which case there isn't subduction, just bending and overthrusting, like it happened in the Alps/Apennines.

Also, to make the coastlines much more believable I would get rid / smooth up the coastline on the passive continental coasts (those facing the oceanic ridges), since they have been suffering continuous erosion for millions of years - get rid of most (say... 2/3) of the peninsulas, spiky capes and inland bays that have no obvious geological origin.

groovey
07-28-2014, 10:41 AM
Wow Naima, your are very prolific and efficient. I wish I had your energy and your ability to work with FT and Wilbur so well, and you got your tectonics almost done in a blink, that's very impressive. You even seem to have the height-map done too, are you a robot?

I'm very interested to see how you take the work in those programs to Photoshop.

As for your land masses, I like them quite a lot, so congrats on the good work and keep it up, though I can hardly catch up with you, which is a good thing because it means you are getting a lot done.

Naima
07-28-2014, 11:18 AM
Thankyou guys for the compliments :) ...

Pixie wich seas you refer to ?
As for the continent u mean the south africalike one? Should be subduing? Or transform? I used that xouse I saw a map with the mediterranean islands subduing ... ILl get rid of the peninsulas on est west dirsals :) , the ideawas to have though an appalachilike old mountain on the same area of new rising one ... Coincidence Ijust gotto see a tectonic focumentary on tv :D ...

Naima
07-30-2014, 10:05 AM
3d Test from Inside wilbur .


66153

Pixie
07-30-2014, 05:46 PM
Naima, that's way too many ridge shaped young mountain ranges inland for tectonics to explain... can you do localized erotion in FT or Wilbur and bring them down a great deal?

Also, I never got round to explain to you what I meant by assymmetrical oceanic crust... here's a drawing explaining my point in one of your seas - actually, it's the major "implausibility" I find in your map.
66162

The way I see it, the best solution is to have both rifts still active, as they do not coincide exactly... it would need a little of messing about with direction of boundaries and land shapes in that area. That is, of course, if you want to be bothered about this scientific accuracy thing.

Naima
07-30-2014, 06:03 PM
Thankyou ,For the Continent showed in the pic ( the africa like one ) yes the ridges are a test , I wanted to exagerate to see them in the projection and to be sure that the "big" rivers get in the right direction , I can erode them more after ...
I wanted to also have "old ridges" on the rest of the continent and two main ones , one from the forming rift and one from the northerneast border .... would that work?

As for the picture u posted ( I call those Americalike continents for the moment lol ) you sugest to make a "failed" rift in the water and leave the tectonics as they are or to shift the rift west more or have a secondary plate in between?

Pixie
07-30-2014, 06:22 PM
... having the two active dorsals, that's what I suggest. The one on the eastern basin needs to be moved slightly westwards to be centered and the other one should be more or less where I have the orange dotted line. This would add a subduction zone where those islands are.

If you choose this way, those east-west oriented peninsulas have no plausible origin and the coasts should mirror the direction of the rift(s) quite closely - it's a young ocean after all.
If you choose to have just the one original dorsal, then a lot of that sea with the peninsulas is submerged old crust and there should be mountains (not too tall, maybe turned into a line of islands oriented north-south, originating when that was a continental rift) along the line between the continental and the new oceanic crust on the western plate, but you can have a large sea bed behind it - a shallow sea, filling up with sediment which means lowlands at the coast as well.

Naima
07-30-2014, 07:43 PM
mmm at this moment its easier to me to change the oceanic dorsal rather than the mountain ridges, I can easily sink and rise peninsulas and islands but a whole ridge might be problematic ... how if I shift the ocean ridge?

Pixie
07-30-2014, 07:53 PM
If it is just one ocean ridge is easier. It just needs to be more or less equidistant to both continent margins, and they need to fit reasonably well. No peninsulas, but some small to very small volcanic islands are ok. In that case this would be like the Atlantic over 100 million years ago or the Red Sea another 50 million years into the future.

Naima
07-30-2014, 08:12 PM
Should the small islands be on coasts siding the rift or on the rift itself?

Also what if I add a secondary plate in between having so a double rift one passing for the break inthe land on right continent and another among the islands?

I kind of liked the idea of the islands in between the two continents, the idea was that it was once a big continent that started to sink in the middle and ripped apart n two directions leaving pieces of land here and there in between .

waldronate
07-30-2014, 08:49 PM
Unit2 (http://www.utdallas.edu/~pujana/oceans/northbasin.html) shows a cross section of the Atlantic between America and Europe. Note how the ocean depths drop off away from the rift itself. If the ocean is pretty shallow (that is, not very wide), then you might get something like Iceland (the rift breaks the surface there).

Oregon: A Geologic History - The Big Picture: Plate Tectonics and Hot Spots (http://www.oregongeology.org/sub/publications/ims/ims-028/tectonics.htm) is a good generalized diagram for the types of zones that you might get. A good back-arc basin and island chain like Japan might work for you, as might a set of hot-spot islands like Hawaii.

Pixie
07-31-2014, 06:33 AM
A secondary plate, which means two oceanic dorsals, slightly oblique, is the solution I suggested.


I kind of liked the idea of the islands in between the two continents, the idea was that it was once a big continent that started to sink in the middle and ripped apart n two directions leaving pieces of land here and there in between .

The thing with this is that the pieces of land are still attached to each other underwater as the continent is hundreds of km's deep in most cases... they would still move east/west with the rest of the continental crust, not left behind.
If they were left behind, that would mean multiple faults/rifts, and competing spreading zones become a single spreading zone pretty quickly (in geological terms).

Naima
07-31-2014, 06:41 AM
Unit2 (http://www.utdallas.edu/~pujana/oceans/northbasin.html) shows a cross section of the Atlantic between America and Europe. Note how the ocean depths drop off away from the rift itself. If the ocean is pretty shallow (that is, not very wide), then you might get something like Iceland (the rift breaks the surface there).

Oregon: A Geologic History - The Big Picture: Plate Tectonics and Hot Spots (http://www.oregongeology.org/sub/publications/ims/ims-028/tectonics.htm) is a good generalized diagram for the types of zones that you might get. A good back-arc basin and island chain like Japan might work for you, as might a set of hot-spot islands like Hawaii.

I will take a look thanks .



A secondary plate, which means two oceanic dorsals, slightly oblique, is the solution I suggested.



The thing with this is that the pieces of land are still attached to each other underwater as the continent is hundreds of km's deep in most cases... they would still move east/west with the rest of the continental crust, not left behind.
If they were left behind, that would mean multiple faults/rifts, and competing spreading zones become a single spreading zone pretty quickly (in geological terms).

So I could rise the water between the two continents and simulate a whole single continent with central part sinked but not under the shelf level ? then incise the two different rifts?

Naima
07-31-2014, 07:11 AM
66173

Here is reqorked ocean dorsal line between the two amerika continents, I rised the sea on the left replacing islands ... how bout that ? or what further changes there to add?

Pixie
08-01-2014, 10:14 AM
Looks much better. Now, that new layout will have implications in tectonic movement.

That amount of ocean floor means the continents have been moving away from each other for a couple of hundred million years. How do you explain that they are still touching on the northern part?

Option 1:
Can you make them move with a euler pole that they actually rotate, spreading in the south and colliding in the north? This forces the sea the have more of a triangle shape (narrow in the north)... Would this imply too many changes elsewhere?

Option 2:
The north is actually a separate plate, that slid side to side with the western plate, passed on top of the oceanic dorsal (subducting whatever ocean floor there was and shutting down magma extrusion there) and is now colliding with the eastern one.

Naima
08-01-2014, 10:54 AM
Thanks ... Going a little back , I woudl really like to preserve the rift thing , eventually about ur second option how about something like that ?

I am more keen to rework the undersea bathymetric soil than the upper landscape because everytime on the first I have to redo tons of hours of erosive work in several programs :p ....

so if I can simply segmentate adding anew plate and keep going with the generic shape then better ... hopefully ?

66194

or any other segmenting sugestion is welcome :) .

Naima
08-04-2014, 07:20 AM
Arrgh another big stop ...

I just projected my world in orthographic and I see that the big continent on top is too short for my liking and that the central southern continent is too big ... :( ...
I went back to Fractal terrain stage and redid lol ... now I have to trash most of the world machine , photoshop and wilbur work , lukily Ienstablished a sort of workflow stage plan to follow to regain similar results .


I have managed to get pretty interesting shapes and riverflows , but the other big issue is ...
The mountains look nice and all but seem out of place I mean too big and too few detailed for beeing a satelite seen image, they look more like a local descriptive map like perhaps a map of Italy or a map of some large islands , but continentally wise the moutnains seen from space are just flat blobs , you do not even see much inlets or the like unless you get in close , most of what is seable its just flat grounds .

So the decision I have to take is now go still for a realistic approach , so mostly flat continents, very thiny lines of mountains that can't really be "wilbured" or "Worldmachined" but eventually just slightly painted in , oruse a more "Fantasy" approach , making stressed in height mountain ranges beautifull to see but then if I shoudl use to zoom I shoudl completely redo the mountains because I would only zoom on inclined supersized flat surfaces .

here a sample of the changes I think to do ... Also elnarge the top contnent east and shift the continent of south east to east and creata a sort of fracture vertical sea inside wich make flow the oceanic dorsal ....here is what I mean .

66268


Here instead the sample of how looks the 3d view part of the continent ... seems too large no? Or is acceptable as a "fantasy" approach?

66269

Meriba
08-04-2014, 07:33 AM
It seems massive for me, but yeah, we can suppose a planet like three times the diameter of jupiter ;) No, for real, it's ok if this not suppose a problem with your labeling detail you have in mind.

Naima
08-04-2014, 01:37 PM
Well I will see : ) in moment I have redone the basic map and reexported, I have giustified the earlier Pixie issue he rised with a MAssive Meteoric Impact that caused the Extinction of Dinosaurs ^^ ... so I can keep a sea there and one single oceanic dorsal , I also have simetrized some areas , reduced others , reshaped coasts , split the southern continent into 3-4 plates etc ... so far I am more satisfied :) ...

Now exporting ... here the new fixed map ....

66277

Pixie
08-05-2014, 05:35 AM
Oh, Naima, I see it so clearly now! ;) Sorry, I could have noticed it earlier from your comments on other threads, but... You are in fact using only one euler pole for all the plates, which is wrong - it would be a coincidence with, say, 0,000001% probability.

Each plate has its own movement, defined by an individual euler pole. In fact, because movement of the plates is always relative to other plates, scientists even use separate euler poles, within the same plate, depending on the pair of plates they are studying. Definitely not the same pole for all plates.

Naima
08-05-2014, 08:26 AM
Oh, Naima, I see it so clearly now! ;) Sorry, I could have noticed it earlier from your comments on other threads, but... You are in fact using only one euler pole for all the plates, which is wrong - it would be a coincidence with, say, 0,000001% probability.

Each plate has its own movement, defined by an individual euler pole. In fact, because movement of the plates is always relative to other plates, scientists even use separate euler poles, within the same plate, depending on the pair of plates they are studying. Definitely not the same pole for all plates.


SO for each Plate I have to use one euler point or something like 3 -4 for all ? Also how's looking as is now even if I used only mainly one point? and having the relation from plate to plate to have a motion friction and speed description I think its going beyond the "visible" plausibility but it woudl be like defining even also how's the inside of the core, the magnetic field, gravity anomalies etc etc no?
As far as its working and realistic I am fine though .

Pixie
08-05-2014, 08:57 AM
er... no, I don't think you need to work out the physics of the planet's interior :D

Use one euler pole per plate. (Imagine it is the euler pole relative to the magnetic pole, which doesn't depend on tectonics, if you need to understand the reasoning)... This way you have plenty of flexibility to decide the direction of each plate.

Naima
08-05-2014, 09:46 AM
ok so in theory I coul deven use one, or twist the actual plates arrows to better suit the mountain ranges rather than follow exclusively the paths I traced based on one euler single point? Wich means keep the same plate subdivisions, subductions and procede foward?

Pixie
08-06-2014, 06:15 AM
Yes, keep the plates you have, they're fine and fit the general landmasses very reasonably. But, changing the direction of their movement to better fit the mountains (which is something you should do, it would make it much more plausible) will also change the position and orientation of the divergent boundaries, mainly at the oceanic dorsals.

Anyway, it seems to me you are devoting a lot of energy into this, so if I had to guess, I'd say you already figured out all this by yourself.

Naima
08-06-2014, 06:37 AM
Ok , Yeh I have added other directions and the mountain ranges evolve as I keep going on eroding and bumping , reshaping and drawing ... so its goo to know that however I change those ranges they will fit still by a slight change of arrow directions so justified by possible other euler poles .

as for the North pole I placed the one in the yellow dot showed in other pictures.

the other part I will have to do is Climate , I do not want to go exceptionally detailed there but I want to know and "force" the planet to have a Mediterranean climate in my closed land basin clearly seable above .
Also not sure if to give the planet one or two moons as thins coudl and would affect things I guess.

I also need to find out the volcanic rings and the possible Sediment locations like where gold stays , where iron , were forests , were deserts so scatter also the animals .

Naima
08-06-2014, 05:04 PM
Finally my world is starting to take shape ... and at this point I notice that my "mediterranean sea is too big >_< ....

Anyway I have to decide now if to redo that smaller , if I can actually work only on that and then merge into the other maps or see what to do ... in meanwhile though how does it look as a semifinal geography ? how the mountain placements and shapes? how about the dimensions of inlets etc?

Notice that the coloring of the high whit areas is not precise as I have to tune down the mountain heights , the white will only be in the central massive largest masses and of few other areas so far those mountains are + 16000 m and will have to be scaled to 9000 m so all will have to be scaled consequently .

66352

66353

Btw pixie do u know what pattern / rule should I follow to place volcanoes and large calderas?

Naima
08-08-2014, 10:57 AM
Ok I think I have finally reached a shape and an arrangement I do like ... Now please give your comments, opinions , cricisism or else telling me what you think of this world map :)....

After this I will move to :

1 Consider volcanic zonesa and supercalderas
2 Consider Sea currents
3 Consider Climates
4 Spread vegetation and flora biomes
5 spread possible fauna
6 spread human races and migrations
7 make some historical maps fun

66401

66402

66403

66401

66404

66405

66406

groovey
08-09-2014, 01:29 PM
Hello Naima! Your planet looks great. Do you know what each color represents in altitude terms? From what I gathered by Pixie's post in Akubra's thread (http://www.cartographersguild.com/regional-world-mapping/27216-mapping-earthlike-planet-5.html#post248969) "In this you made a mistake I was also making in my early elevation maps. You have way too much land above 2000/3000 m. Have a look at his map - its choice of colors really makes the land above 3500 m stand out. On Earth, extreme highand happens much less than in your world. Old ranges have been eroded so much that they hardly reach the 3000m and they would also be very irregular in shape".

In the map he links in that post (http://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/smcd/emb/vci/images/Static/Elevation.png) you can see actual elevation above 1500-2000m is not so common, so I wonder if you had that in mind.

Naima
08-09-2014, 01:58 PM
Hi , Yes actually my heights reached 18000 m , befoure even 30000 , this is because I wanted to have enough land to erode and create erosion inside, I later depressed regions and scaled down with the maximum peak beeing 9000 by the test i did this brought up most of the land down , the mountain range in the Mediterranean like area with the dragon peninsula shoudl have a maximum height of 2000 - 3000 m the yellow mostly ranges on 500 - 1000 , where only the massive central one peak reaches 9000 m and the surroundings are at 4000 - 6000 m .
The issue is that the coloring is made in progressive euqual steps and I am not sure if I tuned them well having set up 12 different color tones .
Also considering that its a "fantasy Planet" I think stressed and exagered features have a good placing , like massive chasm on north , huge mountains etc . To also have more interesting zoomed in areas , without much of "flat lands" without many diverse features .

but in general yes I tought about that , to reduce most of the land down .

Naima
08-10-2014, 07:42 PM
Ok I started to work on the Climates and for this I started from the Currents and the tutorial by Pixie , I also referenced mostly to the real world currents to get inspiration as my continental disposition is similar .

What do you think ? Opinions , corrections etc?

66450

Red warm currents
azure cold currents
black main currents

for climate I will draw according to those some very generic and large climate zones, and then mix this with the one generated by Fractal terrain , correcting it painting inside it , then I will fix some parts by adding deforestation or similar things that created deserts .

then paint the Biomes according to this chart and the fractal terrain l
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7b/Vegetation-no-legend.PNG
66451

Naima
08-11-2014, 10:58 PM
Wind maps for January
http://s29.postimg.org/mrpjd6j9z/Winds_January.png
Wind maps for July
http://s10.postimg.org/8gm7d1edl/Winds_July.png

Naima
08-13-2014, 11:59 AM
Here Are the Temperature, Rainfall and relative Climates created out of FT , they do not take into consideration the high and low pressure locations neither the wind charts above yet ...

I am not actually sure on how to combine them to get a proper climate map .

66570

66571

66572

Azelor
08-13-2014, 12:20 PM
The shallow ocean makes you oceanic current map tricky. You can't have deep current in these areas, only the current at the surface. This might impact climates but I'm not sure how exactly.
But in general, moving large quantities of water is harder. This could limit the heat exchange between the different oceans.
Overall, I think it's not so bad.

Naima
08-18-2014, 07:41 AM
Thanks .
Here is a preliminary test I am doing for painting in directly by hand the climates in the hope tomake a realistic looking fround map ....

how does that looks?

this is supposed to be a Dry area kind of like north africa

66728

The painted in areas are Sandy deserts, savannah, rocky dry mountains and fertile fields .

Azelor
08-18-2014, 12:18 PM
It looks good but the green area should stick closer to the rivers when they advance inland. Just like the Nile. Unless there is a delta.

Naima
08-18-2014, 05:45 PM
yeh I wanted to make a Delta there , for the other regions I tried to copy the area of the Atlant mountain on mediterranean side . but nee to work more on that , well on most of it .

Naima
09-06-2014, 10:43 AM
Gotta have to change a bit the shape of the western minieurope part , the thersis sea that I have showed in the other thread...