07-28-2014, 11:34 AM
Wilbur allows export of all kind if maps , from river layers to heightmaps to silouettes to custom ones , the one I am looking foward to try is dreinage map , though the tests I did seem that FT gets much better at river showing , despite waldronate write its the same code. Still testing , as for pa I am starting to think about some direct gand editing on the heightmaps in wilbur...
Originally Posted by groovey
07-30-2014, 07:23 AM
Cool, will have to check that when the moment comes.
So, today I worked on the height-map a bit more, using the cloud rendering layer to try to add more random bits of green light (1000-2500m), instead that unintentionally lead me to revise the original big green light shapes on most continents, so they look more random and so, so which one do you like the most, the old one (image of the left), or the new one (on the right?
I think I'll give up trying to get more random smaller bits, because I find it oddly frustrating, I don't like how random "bloby" the look in the middle on anywhere.
07-30-2014, 08:06 AM
personally I like the one on the left the most. the distribution of the mountains seems more uniform and less random. The one on the right gives you too many large continuous plateaus in my opinion. I think the one on the right would work better if they were broken up with the lowest level in places.
07-30-2014, 08:16 AM
I prefer the one on right , if you are going to erode it , it will give a better base to start from , also the world on left is too flat and the mountains look more "planned".
07-30-2014, 08:18 AM
I'm with Ascanius on this : the left one has my preference. I think it has a more natural feeling (if it means anything).
07-30-2014, 06:11 PM
Hmm... something "in between"? I agree the one on the left looks more "natural", but the second, while being a little too chaotic, will look much better after some sort of erosion process.
Either way, if your purpose is purely schematic so you can get into climates and then on with your novel, I abstain from this vote, both are fine for me.
08-02-2014, 05:37 AM
08-02-2014, 10:58 AM
Hi groovey, just got time to read your last few posts before I buzz off again. Your map looks promising, but I have one question: in some areas the 1000-2500 m. level meets the coast. Does that mean that the land suddenly drops to sea level from those heights? These heigt differences seem a bit strange, especially if you take into account your continental shelves. You would expect them to be very near the coast in these regions, but that's not always the case. Here on Earth, I don't know any comparable places. I do remember seeing the cliffs at the Great Australian Bight. At 70 m. high they were already very impressive. Angel Falls, the highest continuous waterfall in the world drops off a tepui in Venezuela, a sheer fall of almost 1000 m., but that is the highest cliff I know of. If that's the way you meant it, you have some extremely impressive coastlines. Too bad we won't be able to visit them in real life...
Cheers - Akubra
08-02-2014, 06:50 PM
Akubra, you are maybe forgetting the point that a single pixel in a map at this scale is a significant distance.
But at the same time, you raise a very good point, how some coastlines have a tectonic background that doesn't allow those steep coasts.
Some of your shorelines, groovey, must be very old. The southern coast of Picsë and the eastern coast of Acubrä are pretty old, even if you have plateaus close to them, erosion would have leveled a great deal of km's inland. Have a look at the Brazilian coast near Rio de Janeiro and south of it, as well as Angola/Namibia on the other side of the Atlantic - plateaus, reasonably high, but very eroded towards the coast.
08-04-2014, 05:43 AM
Very good point guys. I agree I've abused the frequency of bestial steep coast. The only place were I really need it is in the mountain range that separates the two crashing continents on the east: Swifendlia/Swefendlea* and Ascanta, as I need it to be almost an impossible barrier (physically + culturally) to cross by land for the people on either side, so I extended the light green right to the coast. So even though the height-map is mostly orientative, I'll make the green light level retreat a bit from the coasts.
And though most of you preferred the old height-map version, I must say I feel more inclined towards the new version, so I'm torn because I appreciate your opinions a lot, since you guys are much better at this mapping stuff and I trust you must know better which version could work best.
* (I write the names differently now because I had a major Sudden Clarity Moment a few days ago, Akubra, if you want to know what happened so you avoid the silliness with your conlang let me know in private?, since I'm not sure I should talk about the conlang here, seems a bit out of topic, though it does relate to the map's names).
EDIT: I took care of the abuse of steep coasts, I think? How is it looking now? Somehow convincing enough? Please note I haven't corrected the spelling of the labels yet.
EDIT 2: I've started to play with the ocean currents (since I couldn't bring myself to have a go at the winds), following Pixie's tutorial, which I found quite easy to follow in general. Please bear with me, this is my very first attempt and I hardly know what I'm doing. I have no idea of how to solve the poles and the closed basin areas, any suggestions? The second once has the latitude lines divided in 45º squares.
I'll work on the aesthetics once I got a model running.
Last edited by groovey; 08-04-2014 at 08:39 AM.
Tags for this Thread