World Pictures

[Airith]

"Following is the Mean Temperature map, and then the average Rainfall (light green = driest to orange=wettest.)" - NK

"Extra facts:
Circumference: 25,200 miles
Highest Peak/Lowest Ocean 30,000 FT
Axial Tilt 20 degrees (can change to whatever, this affects of course temperatures)
Temperature based on Earth Orbit (base appears to be around 59 Degree Farhenhiedt)
Average Rainfall is 51 inches per year." - NeonKnight

[Airith]

These look great NeonKnight, without you this project would still be in the thought process

[helium3]

"Following is the Mean Temperature map, and then the average Rainfall (light green = driest to orange=wettest.)" - NK

"Extra facts:
Circumference: 25,200 miles
Highest Peak/Lowest Ocean 30,000 FT
Axial Tilt 20 degrees (can change to whatever, this affects of course temperatures)
Temperature based on Earth Orbit (base appears to be around 59 Degree Farhenhiedt)
Average Rainfall is 51 inches per year." - NeonKnight

How did you produce those maps?

[NeonKnight]

How did you produce those maps?

Those maps were produced by myself with ProFantasy's Fractal Terrains based of the wonderful WILBUR software by fellow Guildmember Joe Slayton (Waldonrate).

[waldronate]

I was comparing the FT output with a sample Google Maps output. I learned not to believe the !@#)(*& perspective globe projection that Google Earth uses.

Comparing the world map with an earth map shows roughly European area in extent.

I also did an image with the original blocks overlaid on top. It was instructive (I recall that it's been discussed before in a general way). The blocks are about 435 miles high. The bottom of blocks on the bottom row are about 370 miles wide. The tops of blocks in the top row are about 190 miles wide. The original estimate of 600x600 miles per block was way off assuming an Earth-sized world.

I'm not sure that this matters in absolute terms for this effort, but it could lead to issues if the effort is expanded using the same globe.

[Sigurd]

I was comparing the FT output with a sample Google Maps output.

Thank you so much! I was finding the 600mile square really daunting. I'd rather we stick to whatever accuracy we can keep.


Sigurd

[waldronate]

There is some shape distortion in a conformal and/or equidistant projection compared to the original base map, meaining that things don't look as you might expect when comparing the maps to the globe. Ah well, write it off as measurement error and/or systematic cartographic bias (which is what it truly is).

[jfrazierjr]

I was comparing the FT output with a sample Google Maps output. One was a position comparison to determine rough climatology (it's hard Arctic ice at the north down to about Moscow at the southernmost latitudes - the area mapped is that little bit above Norway on the globe). The other was a size comparison with a map of Europe rotated over the area of interest to get an idea for roads and nation size.

Then I did an image with the original blocks overlaid on top. It was instructive (I recall that it's been discussed before in a general way). The blocks are about 435 miles high. The bottom of blocks on the bottom row are about 370 miles wide. The tops of blocks in the top row are about 190 miles wide. The original estimate of 600x600 miles per block was way off assuming an Earth-sized world.

I'm not sure that this matters in absolute terms for this effort, but it could lead to issues if the effort is expanded using the same globe.

What are the different colors in terms of height? I just took area 5 and am having some trouble coordinating the various overviews due to the resolutions.

Joe