I like the landmass shapes. Counting 3 rather large lakes/inner seas but other than that it's looking good!
I could fill them or open them to the sea.
Last edited by Azelor; 08-27-2013 at 11:46 PM.
Here is a picture of the temperature, I did some modification because I had too much landmass, more than 36% of the map according to my calculation. Now it's less than 33% and that is without consideration with inland water, wich should make for the remaining % to get a ratio similar to earth. I will post the others soon but they are too big right now.
custom climates (tundra and alpine are grey and it seems to be a problem)
all made with fractal terrain using hammer projection.
Last edited by Azelor; 08-28-2013 at 12:23 AM.
Be sure to take FT's rainfall and temperature results (and the climate information derived from them) with a pound of salt. FT doesn't model any kind of water or air transport (and their associated heat and rainfall), so the results are not even close to "realistic".
My hope in providing the rainfall, temperature, and climate tools was to allow users to paint them in as they needed, but it seems that very few users attempt anything like that.
And the Gaia coloring is completely ad hoc, based on nothing at all (the rainfall and temperature adjustments have asbolutely no impact on that particualr shader). If there's one feature that I would have left out of FT, it's the Gaia shader.
Don't worry I already know about that but the map do look pretty good even if they don't make any sense. Gaia show the wet places in yellow while it's a color associated with deserts.
I might eventually do more realistic maps of this world, I just need to know what people think of it so far since it's supposed to be a community project.
The first attachment in your post doesn't seem to show.
Anyway, is there much reason to actually stick with the generated land elevation data? We could simply flatten the map to show only the coastline, then place features such as mountain ranges and rivers where we want them.
It's possbile and very easy. I just have to put one color for the land over the sea level.
You mean to flatten and then make all the elevation with FT ? Im not sure how to do that
Here is the actual terrain elevation:
Edit: Ok it's possible if I combine FT with Wilbur to flatten the land and then import it back to FT. It's true that the program tends to put mountain ranges at weird places.
So, based on the following map, where should the mountains be located? It's like asking: where are the tectonic plates ?
(this is not the flattened version, it's the same map but uses 2 colors only)
Last edited by Azelor; 08-28-2013 at 11:47 PM.
I did some modifications. Finally I was able to flatten (equalize) the land to make plains but it's rather complicated. That's why the ocean and the land are in 2 separate files. So the ocean is not just 1 meter deep.
That's because I used the grayscale map to modify it in photoshop. I lowered the landscape at some places and increased it at other in odre to craete plateaux.
Yes it's pixelized, I have found a way to improve the rendering of the coast but I will use it later.
If the general elevation is alright I might consider adding some mountains or just increasing the roughness might do. I am not sure if it would be best to put some more. Then I'll do the rivers and add some lakes for less monotony.
Your comments are welcome.
Last edited by Azelor; 09-10-2013 at 12:13 AM.
Tags for this Thread