Eridia

[TT1]

Hey guys!

So, as I said in my presentation, 20 years ago I started an RPG scenario (at the time, AD&D): a planet called Eridia. I was only 13 years and together with a friend, we made a map drawn from several sheets glued together and we draw the continent in ink.

At the time I had no understanding of planet formation or continental formation, then the main continent of Eridia (a much colder world than Earth), was quite large. So 10 years ago I wrote all Eridia mythology and this year I felt a strong desire to write short stories in this world, so I decided to publish: I will actually write everything. I invited an expert friend in medievalism and another friend, specializing in fantasy and African culture and we will publish, write and publish as soon as possible. I also want to post online some short stories based on Eridia mythology.

Although my original map has sentimental value, I feel I can not go with it because it presents several classic and childish mistakes (I'm posting here as curiosity). So in my inability to produce a world around him, I decided to go ahead and create a world in FT, which pleased me enough. I only have the intention of using the island continent to my original continent, for now.



But too late, after reading quite a lot here in CG, I discovered that used the function "Ridged Multifractal", which I understand to be a discouraged function. I do not need a gorgeous map, since my goal is to use to describe the regions. If it is correct and pleasant, it is enough for me. So, I have some questions for you:

1) Looking at the map I created on FT, it's okay with it, or I should actually generate a new world with "Wilbur Ridged Multifractal"?

2) I'm clearly panicked and indecisive about what to do after generating my world in the FT, because of the huge amount of information available. There are many tutorials suggesting do several things as fill basin, erosion and incise flow. What is the most satisfactory method you personally use to shape the terrain?

3) What is the most satisfactory method you use to generate rivers?


Thank you all. It is a pleasure to share my journey in creating Eridia with you.

[TT1]

Huh... guys?

[J.Edward]

Sorry TT, it's been a busy week.
I'll try to swing back by here later today and take a longer look and comment.
Just quick, I like the land shapes in the color pic.
There's some diagonal lines that seem odd though.

[UltikanaRe]

Don't worry about realism, especially in fantasy. Maybe the Archwizard of the Titanic Pantheon decided he wanted a mountain lake in a lone peak floating above split rivers at the highest point in the continent. There are ways to explain everything.

[Pixie]

Oi TT1, benvindo à guild! Aqui, Lisboa. Quis dar-te este cumprimento em português primeiro, mas agora continuo em inglês.

1) Looking at the map I created on FT, it's okay with it, or I should actually generate a new world with "Wilbur Ridged Multifractal"?

2) I'm clearly panicked and indecisive about what to do after generating my world in the FT, because of the huge amount of information available. There are many tutorials suggesting do several things as fill basin, erosion and incise flow. What is the most satisfactory method you personally use to shape the terrain?

3) What is the most satisfactory method you use to generate rivers?

The question to all these three questions depends on how long you want to spend creating the geography of the world, how much you want it to look like an Earth-like planet and how deep into the details of geography you want to dive.

FT is pretty quick in generating a planet. If you care about tectonics, even if slightly, it won't automatically yield a believable set of continents. Still, you can raise and lower land in FT, as if painting, and I've seen some folks here using that technique.

If you want to decide tectonics, mountain placement, climates and all that, then FT isn't the way to go - in this case the only way to go takes a lot of time and a lot of effort and you can start by reading some long threads of people who are doing it this way (the harder way).

Rivers and terrain is naturaly shaped by erosion and the program Wilbur is the best to do this. If you are aiming for a continent only, don't bother with a whole world aproach - sketch a continent and learn to use Wilbur creatively (with a pinch of geology/tectonics for realism).

And a note of advice/warning from a fellow who is also recreating an imaginary world from his early teenage years... Decide early how much of the imaginary world of your childhood can be deleted to give way to coherence.

[TT1]

Sorry TT, it's been a busy week.
I'll try to swing back by here later today and take a longer look and comment.
Just quick, I like the land shapes in the color pic.
There's some diagonal lines that seem odd though.

Thanks man. I appreciate it.

Yeah, I hate those diagonal lines. I hate those diagonal lines. Should be the lines that people hate the original FT function.

Oi TT1, benvindo à guild! Aqui, Lisboa. Quis dar-te este cumprimento em português primeiro, mas agora continuo em inglês.

Obrigado pelas suas palavras, Pixie!

If you want to decide tectonics, mountain placement, climates and all that, then FT isn't the way to go - in this case the only way to go takes a lot of time and a lot of effort and you can start by reading some long threads of people who are doing it this way (the harder way).

These are bad news. I thought FT did all the work with climate and mountains placement correctly. It gives me a lot to think about.

Rivers and terrain is naturaly shaped by erosion and the program Wilbur is the best to do this. If you are aiming for a continent only, don't bother with a whole world aproach - sketch a continent and learn to use Wilbur creatively (with a pinch of geology/tectonics for realism).

I have to dig deeper in Wilbur. I only scratched its surface and there is much to move there, but this is not very didactic. I think I have a long way to go yet.

Since I could abandon my original map, I just need a process that runs a coherent map, with erosion, land and rivers, so that I can then work in the forests and details of cities and points of interest. I do not need to be a wonderful and beautiful map, since I will only use it as the basis of the creation of societies and people of my setting process.

It seems that is far more bureaucratic and inaccurate than I thought. I imagined that at this point the software would do a lot more and would work on creating worlds in more detail and with more customization options. That's weird .