Also another question , in Wilbur my max elevation its 10000 and minimum -11000 , I guess I can rescale them as I did once but I forgot the tool , but when I save and import in FT the heights are different and I get ranges of up to 35000 m in highest and - 35000 lowest , what's happening?
nvm I forgot to change the metric units .
Do u think a system like the one described in pixie climate page could be implemented in FT ? Making the whole thing more precise and automatic?
It's possible to do just about anything in software. All it takes is time and money. FT is my third-priority project for my free time and only gets attention intermittently. There are a whole lot of things on the bug list to do for it before getting to significant new features, unfortunately.Originally Posted by Naima
Btw , I also wanted to make an enlargement , as you said I was able to do , but , my problem is that I woudl like to split more the mountain ranges, whenever I apply further flow or erosion they tend to just take the same areas and keep carving in there , I woudl like to preserve the main mountain ranges as a "direction for mountain groups, but give them more realistic appearence like if it was a zoomed in area now ... Not sure if I expressed myself ... Is there a way to achieve that in or out of FT and wilbur?
Imagine see the Earth from space then make a zoom on Mediterranean sea and europe .. mountains woudl look more detailed, more valleys more rivers, more plains etc ... while from space they woudll look like a single main mountain chain, only large flat areas woudl be visible etc... also flat areas when zoomed become flat huge areas missing any local detail there ... but I fear to add other noise for not breaking the already fragile river flow patterns for the main ones ...
As far as zooming goes, there are pretty serious limits on how far you can do a zoom while maintaining consistency with larger-area maps. As you pointed out, the biggest problem is the river network. For correctness, a river-finding algorithm needs to run at a fairly constant scale. In the real world, this scale is on the order of micrometers and the larger elements form from smaller ones. In FT and Wilbur, it's the native (editing) resolution of the world. Nothing outside the map can affect the rivers, so they need to be calculated on a whole-world basis. And in FT, the projection is not really suited for the task, leading to oddly-routed rivers with inappropriate numbers of them in the polar regions. I know some techniques that I could use to get better results, but all of them involve user intervention and/or a massive rewrite of FT's internals.
Because river-finding is so context sensitive, it's important to have the information from off-map when trying to cut a finer-detail map. This information is potentially available in FT if rivers have been found, but FT never tries to use it because the erosion operations are a whole-world activity at editing resolution. It's like dynamic fractalization of rivers: it's a possible thing to do, but the practical implementation (e.g. self-intersection avoidance) is difficult to get balanced between usability and quality of results. Note that this off-surface information just doesn't exist for Wilbur at all. What's on Wilbur's map is all there is.
So so its not possible even in Photoshop to apply some tricks?
Assuming the question is about zooming in on river flows, then I'm not sure what tricks would be applicable. The problem is that there isn't enough information on a zoomed-in area to generate flows that are necessarily consistent with the flows of the world at large.
If the question is about climate generation, you can get the high and low pressure things in Photoshop from a land mask and a sea mask using a shapeburst stroke layer style (it's only good up to 255 pixels, but that should be enough; climate models don't generally need to be a high-resolution thing). The hard parts are getting the flow gradient directions around the highs and lows along with intensity. It's easy enough to do with an external program, but I'm not sure how to do that directly in Photoshop. Then those wind and ocean current directions need to iterate a few times to get useful amount of heat transport. I don't think that it's something that can be easily point-evaluated in isolation.
Mm, no I meant more to break the pattern of mountains , but keep the main river shapes , in a way to introduce more different mountainrange nested in the previous larger ones.
None that I can think of, sorry. Without the larger context, it's pretty much impossible to get rivers that carry across map borders in a reasonable manner.
Ok , thanks, btw I have exagerated with the erosion and did erode too much the coast with the precipitation , to fix the problem I have blurred and blurred the borders, but , didn't come out very well, the problem is I can't go back .... is there a way to fix too much rounded coasts that are vrey fragmented?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
