Looks much better. Now, that new layout will have implications in tectonic movement.
That amount of ocean floor means the continents have been moving away from each other for a couple of hundred million years. How do you explain that they are still touching on the northern part?
Option 1:
Can you make them move with a euler pole that they actually rotate, spreading in the south and colliding in the north? This forces the sea the have more of a triangle shape (narrow in the north)... Would this imply too many changes elsewhere?
Option 2:
The north is actually a separate plate, that slid side to side with the western plate, passed on top of the oceanic dorsal (subducting whatever ocean floor there was and shutting down magma extrusion there) and is now colliding with the eastern one.
Thanks ... Going a little back , I woudl really like to preserve the rift thing , eventually about ur second option how about something like that ?
I am more keen to rework the undersea bathymetric soil than the upper landscape because everytime on the first I have to redo tons of hours of erosive work in several programs :p ....
so if I can simply segmentate adding anew plate and keep going with the generic shape then better ... hopefully ?
or any other segmenting sugestion is welcome.
Arrgh another big stop ...
I just projected my world in orthographic and I see that the big continent on top is too short for my liking and that the central southern continent is too big ......
I went back to Fractal terrain stage and redid lol ... now I have to trash most of the world machine , photoshop and wilbur work , lukily Ienstablished a sort of workflow stage plan to follow to regain similar results .
I have managed to get pretty interesting shapes and riverflows , but the other big issue is ...
The mountains look nice and all but seem out of place I mean too big and too few detailed for beeing a satelite seen image, they look more like a local descriptive map like perhaps a map of Italy or a map of some large islands , but continentally wise the moutnains seen from space are just flat blobs , you do not even see much inlets or the like unless you get in close , most of what is seable its just flat grounds .
So the decision I have to take is now go still for a realistic approach , so mostly flat continents, very thiny lines of mountains that can't really be "wilbured" or "Worldmachined" but eventually just slightly painted in , oruse a more "Fantasy" approach , making stressed in height mountain ranges beautifull to see but then if I shoudl use to zoom I shoudl completely redo the mountains because I would only zoom on inclined supersized flat surfaces .
here a sample of the changes I think to do ... Also elnarge the top contnent east and shift the continent of south east to east and creata a sort of fracture vertical sea inside wich make flow the oceanic dorsal ....here is what I mean .
Here instead the sample of how looks the 3d view part of the continent ... seems too large no? Or is acceptable as a "fantasy" approach?
It seems massive for me, but yeah, we can suppose a planet like three times the diameter of jupiterNo, for real, it's ok if this not suppose a problem with your labeling detail you have in mind.
Well I will see : ) in moment I have redone the basic map and reexported, I have giustified the earlier Pixie issue he rised with a MAssive Meteoric Impact that caused the Extinction of Dinosaurs ^^ ... so I can keep a sea there and one single oceanic dorsal , I also have simetrized some areas , reduced others , reshaped coasts , split the southern continent into 3-4 plates etc ... so far I am more satisfied
Now exporting ... here the new fixed map ....
Oh, Naima, I see it so clearly now!
Each plate has its own movement, defined by an individual euler pole. In fact, because movement of the plates is always relative to other plates, scientists even use separate euler poles, within the same plate, depending on the pair of plates they are studying. Definitely not the same pole for all plates.
Originally Posted by Pixie
Oh, Naima, I see it so clearly now!
Each plate has its own movement, defined by an individual euler pole. In fact, because movement of the plates is always relative to other plates, scientists even use separate euler poles, within the same plate, depending on the pair of plates they are studying. Definitely not the same pole for all plates.
SO for each Plate I have to use one euler point or something like 3 -4 for all ? Also how's looking as is now even if I used only mainly one point? and having the relation from plate to plate to have a motion friction and speed description I think its going beyond the "visible" plausibility but it woudl be like defining even also how's the inside of the core, the magnetic field, gravity anomalies etc etc no?
As far as its working and realistic I am fine though .
er... no, I don't think you need to work out the physics of the planet's interior
Use one euler pole per plate. (Imagine it is the euler pole relative to the magnetic pole, which doesn't depend on tectonics, if you need to understand the reasoning)... This way you have plenty of flexibility to decide the direction of each plate.
ok so in theory I coul deven use one, or twist the actual plates arrows to better suit the mountain ranges rather than follow exclusively the paths I traced based on one euler single point? Wich means keep the same plate subdivisions, subductions and procede foward?
Yes, keep the plates you have, they're fine and fit the general landmasses very reasonably. But, changing the direction of their movement to better fit the mountains (which is something you should do, it would make it much more plausible) will also change the position and orientation of the divergent boundaries, mainly at the oceanic dorsals.
Anyway, it seems to me you are devoting a lot of energy into this, so if I had to guess, I'd say you already figured out all this by yourself.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
