# Thread: WIP- unnamed fantasy world

1. ... not wanting to hijack the thread ...

Each plate has it's absolute Euler Pole, but they also have relative velocity to each other and that movement can also be shown with a single euler pole they share. Looking around, it seems to me the maths is terribly off-putting and I honestly don't think it's necessary at all.
(On a linear one dimension scale, relative velocity is easy to understand, A moves at 10km/h and B at 11 km/h in the same direction, 1 hour later, B will be 1 km ahead of A, thus, their relative velocity is 1km/h)

As I wrote on another thread, the rotational movement around a point can only be properly shown with stereographic projections of the map. Hence, an equirectangular projection like the one you are showing, ascanius isn't appropriate to figure out the movement at the poles (something I suspect you found out already). Like groovey suggested, use G.projector to transform your map.

2. Originally Posted by Pixie
... not wanting to hijack the thread ...

Each plate has it's absolute Euler Pole, but they also have relative velocity to each other and that movement can also be shown with a single euler pole they share. Looking around, it seems to me the maths is terribly off-putting and I honestly don't think it's necessary at all.
(On a linear one dimension scale, relative velocity is easy to understand, A moves at 10km/h and B at 11 km/h in the same direction, 1 hour later, B will be 1 km ahead of A, thus, their relative velocity is 1km/h)

As I wrote on another thread, the rotational movement around a point can only be properly shown with stereographic projections of the map. Hence, an equirectangular projection like the one you are showing, ascanius isn't appropriate to figure out the movement at the poles (something I suspect you found out already). Like groovey suggested, use G.projector to transform your map.
Yeah I'm reworking the map. Getting lines to 'line up' on the stereographic projection on G.projector is a pain. I started to draw, check, rework, rinse and repeat. I'm going to try using 360 degrees of a circle to line up everything instead, when in doubt use math

Thanks for the info bye the way

3. Yes, I found it a pain too to make the lines "line up" and having to check each time on G. Projector, so what I did was create a layer with a simple 100% straight line cutting through the whole image, and then I'd place the straight line where I felt I wanted the two points meet, so I would have a visual guide to know where the lines in both sides had to end to meet in the projection. It made it much easier.

4. ## Ok here is an update.

Ok I redid the entire map and fixed the poles. It looks weird drawing long horizontal lines at the poles while keeping the shapes globular nearer the equator. I think I got a nice shaped plates, I hope.

below are 6 images showing 360 degrees, along with 90 degrees of the poles.

starting at 0 degrees latitude going to 270 degrees

The poles starting with the north first then south second.

Lastly the flat projection with divergent boundaries and one with the general plate movements.

Now I have a few questions. there are three areas I am unsure about, areas A,B, and plate 15. I read this and subsequent posts WIP: unnamed Earh-like planet which leads me to believe such things are possible, maybe not with plate 15. But I don't know if these spots are in fact possible nor am I sure what would be happening here if they were. Area B also assumes that a divergent boundary can form along continental crust which I don't know if it is possible. With plate 15 I don't know what would be happening here, what would be the general direction much less if it is possible to have divergent boundaries along two opposite sides of continental crust. It would seem that the plate would get squished. I think most of this is easily changed so no worries if I'm being unrealistic.

Also do you think there is a good mix of sizes small medium and big.

Thanks for all the help and advice.

Edit: Is it possible to change the thread title to WIP -unnamed fantasy world? Or should I just start a new thread?

5. From where I stand, your plate movements seem quite ok. But I wonder how you will turn this 100% continental/100% oceanic crust system into a land map - that will be the key. Size wise the map is nice too, although I think you don't need so many ridges and trenches in the middle of the central ocean - but maybe that was the only way to make it work. As for areas A and B, I think you can get away with it, as long as you place the adequate indonesian / caribbean archipelagos as well as some arc-chains.

Some parts of your map will be interesting, like the huge transform line between plates 8 and 19 and large archipelago on area A. On the other side, are you sure about having the western boundary of plate 15 being a divergent one? - everything around it points to be a place of subduction of oceanic crust.

6. From what I understand, to change the name of the thread you have to ask a Community Leader, like - Max -, for example. In my case I sent a PM to Max, precisely, to change it, but I see sometimes if they see a request like yours in a post they do it too. For quicker results I'd just ask a Leader.

From my humble opinion: your plates look fine to me, they don't look forced or anything like that. Like Pixie, I'm very interested to see what the map will look like once you work on the land masses.

Also, you don't represent the plates rotation anymore? Just curious.

Ok I tweaked things a little and tried to make my landmasses into a puzzle, hope it worked. First I removed a few of the plates in the central ocean leaving a gigantic ocean plate in its stead. then I went and added landmass. This was tricky. The thing I found to work the best is to map out a single smallish continent. From there it was all about trying to imagine that continent as part of a whole. Working backwards gave me the basic shapes and locations of other landmasses based on plate movement with a good helping of artistic license.

First map is landmass w/plates

The second shows how the continent broke up into what you see along with general mountain ranges (very general)
The dots show start and end points for the movement of a continent.
The arrows indicate direction.
Yellow indicates older plate/continent movement while red indicates newer movement.
Orange lines indicate newer mountain ranges while dark brown is older.

Last image with labels.

I don't know if the islands work especially areas B and C. the islands in B look, well cramped. With area C I'm not sure if I should increase the density or leave them as they are.
I tried to stay true to the term 'island arc' but getting them to create an arc became pointless after a while. I think I need to rework the islands but I'm not sure on a good mix of density and size.

Edit: Thanks Pixie and Groovy for the help and input.
Edit:Edit: @Groovey, I have a layer with the rotational directions and for the landmasses I used the rotation trick a little, mostly to give me a idea of where they should be located. I tried making one super-continent and the breaking it up with the rotate tool. It works but it got confusing which layer was for which continent. In the end I just free handed the continents and used the rotation tool to adjust things a little bit

8. If you are even interested in a honest but mostly visual appreciation, because Pixie is the expert who would know what and what not would be plausible, I'd say that the density of islands in those areas you mention (and area A too) is a bit overwhelming perhaps? Specially in area B. In area A there are a lot too, but are least they are more spread around. I like area C a lot better. So my personal non-expert opinion is that less is more in this case.

9. ## Island arcs

Great maps ascanius!

I agree with groovey concerning the visual aspect. What I try to do is look at existing island arcs / archipelagoes on Earth (e.g. Indonesia, Vanuatu, Aleutian Islands) and mimic the placement of the islands. Looking at the contour lines on a topographic map of a small mountain or hill range can also help in figuring out the islands' possible locations.

If the island group feels too "packed" you can also delete a few randomly chosen islands, or spread them out a little.

Cheers - Akubra

10. Yeah, I'm with you fellows on this one. Way too many islands, ascanius. Use google maps satellite view to get a better view of island-arcs. Also, the islands formed by subduction almost always line up neatly and most of the times, the trenches are so deep that only a few volcanoes manage to reach above-sea level. These very small islands will barely show in a map like this one (look for the Marianas trench or Tonga trench to see good examples of this).

Page 2 of 9 First 1234 ... Last

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•