My map, first revision (WIP)

[TheRedNightmare]

Hello, everyone. I've already posted a map here about a year ago, but I wanted to revise it based on some feedback I've gotten for the first one. You can take a look at the old thread here.

Below are some projections of the current revision of my map. There's an orthographic projection:



A Braun stereographic projection (I used this instead of an equirectangular projection because this projection was more aesthetically pleasing to me.):



And, finally, a Winkel Tripel projection:

(Pardon the grey areas at the polar regions.)

Now, I want to ask for some critique on what I've got. Before I start adding more details, I'd like to ask how the landmasses look. Could they be plausible? Also, I'd like to ask for any advice on how to add tectonic plates to my map. I feel that would give me an easier time adding mountains to my map. Finally, have I improved from my previous map?

[waldronate]

Any collection of squiggles can qualify as plausible. For example, if I want a triangle that spans most of the distance from equator to pole with a hook at the bottom and a teapot spout at the top, that's perfectly plausible. If I want a large sea completely surrounded by land so that it looks like a mutant duck, that's also plausible. If I want a ring of islands with a big dome of ice occupying the space between the islands, that also is plausible. In fact, if those things were to occur here on Earth, we'd probably give them silly names like South America, the Mediterranean Sea, and Greenland (that last one because it's almost entirely covered by ice - that's just how humans work).

How you fill in those squiggles with mountains, rivers, and biomes will have a much bigger impact on plausibility than the raw shapes. Any underlying physics adjustments and the history of how the squiggles got there would also play a huge role in plausibility because they could potentially play a huge role in the aforementioned locations of mountains, rivers, and biomes.

If you're asking "are these squiggles pretty?" then that's a completely different question, and it's not one that I'm particularly well-equipped to answer. Do they meet your needs for the stories that you want to tell? Only you can answer that one.

About the only advice I can give you will probably be less useful than you might hope: it's much simpler to start from a set of tectonic maps that represent the time history of the planet and then generate the topography than it is to start from some squiggles and try to retrofit your desired state from that.

The less-helpful part of my brain needs to ask one question: do you truly need a whole-world map for the stories you want to tell, or would a rough map with simple symbols serve your purposes equally well?

[Azélor]

Any collection of squiggles can qualify as plausible.

Could not have said it in a better way.

[Pixie]

Unless you are already enfatuated by your coastline (which is as plausible as any - not really "as any", but as "almost any") you should ready take this important piece of advice: define your tectonics before or at the same time as your landshape. Tectonics demands a lot of thinking and science, you either know this and are willing to put the effort or you might just ignore this worry. It sure is rewarding when it is done, but a lot of folks give up before they get something plausible.

Just a friendly warning and welcome (gotta say, I am one for tectonics plausibility and all it entails!)... by the way, read the very long threads by Akubra, groovey and ascanius about their worlds - it will illustrate my point.