Aerth

[Shikotei]

Thanks for pointing me to the Wilson Cycle theory, it's been very helpful in understanding things more.
After reworking most of the plates, and some more, and then some, it seems there's just no single combination that would reasonably explain the formations on my map.
If I understood the WC correctly, to form one of the mountains on the center continent it would require:
- any plate large enough to stay 'intact'
- a small plate the size and shape of the mountain to collide with the above plate
- This small plate would then need to subdue the other plates that collide into it and keep rising
Basically, it's a chain collision where the first few pieces are smaller than the (resulting) mountain and where the last plate forms the land as it is now.. This would be a maze of tiny plates that somehow become a coherent one (not unlike a tiny super-continent)
This either makes no sense or is so unlikely that it would not happen a second time 'nearby' (some 900km away) and a third time (also some 800-1000km) all on the same continent...

If these mountains make no sense after this, it might be time to remake the map(..)

Sadly, this may have been the inevitable result of using a generated method.

The above maps represent my latest attempt at getting most of the existing formations to make sense. Not everything can fit, so I've accepted that I will have to make the map again, but this time based on tectonics. Effectively I would have to recreate the height map (which I will do using the existing one).

Just to stress this: ignore the rendered features, I'm starting from scratch. The left image is only posted to give an impression.
The coastline and a desire to keep some of the features intact (either on the same location, or re-located) are all I will use.

As for the new what's-what:
- the grey smudge would represent the 'logical' formation of mountains.
- the purple numbers are there to easier identify the plates

Now for the descriptive reasoning behind the choices and what's happening where:
Plate 1 is colliding with 4, having filled the now-gone water basin, it created a mountain range on the south side of plate 1. Plate 4 is being subdued.
Plate 2 has done the same thing plate 4 did to 1, creating a mountain range on the north of 5a. 2 is subdued here.
Plate 3 is drifting away, creating a rift near 5a, 6, and 7. The hot-spot created a chain of volcanoes (of which only one is still active).
Plate 4 is rotating clockwise, colliding with 5a and drifting from 5b. 5a is subdued. The hot-spot on the southeast created islands.
Plate 5 is breaking apart into 5a and 5b at the point between 5a, 5b, and 6. Plate 2 is pushing it southward while plate 9 is pushing it northward. The large fault line [and its splinters] are the result of this breaking. The center of 5a has a large caldera (super-volcano maybe?)
Plate 6's collision with 5b created a range of mountains in (again) a way like 1 and 4, and 2 and 5a. 6 is being subdued.
Plate 7's collision with 10 did the same. 7 is subdued.
Plate 8 is a new plate (broken from 5b), currently expanding between the rifts that [4 and 5b]'s drifting created. Active volcanoes expand the land even more.
Plate 9's northward drift (and oceanic character) causes it to be subdued by plates 5b and 10.
Plate 10 is drifting over another hot-spot, slowly creating more islands.

It could be that the mountain ranges created by the collisions of [1 and 4], [2 and 5a], [5b and 6] and [7 and 10] (is merging)/(has merged) the plates together, reducing the number of plates.
I may also should have drawn the plate boundaries between [1 and 4] and [7 and 10] closer to the sea-side of the subdued plate.. I'm unsure of this.

[Pixie]

Far better. It really shows you went and learnt a bit on tectonics.

Like you said, you need to redo a little bit of the coastline. My take is that you need to aim at getting the convex/concave aspects right, to coincide with these boundaries that you established. Here's some addition to your descriptive reason (feel free to ignore, or to take as is, or to change, as you wish):

- plates 4, 5a and 5b were part of the same plate moving (kind of) southeastwards.
- plate 1 and 2 were part of the same continent, pushing south. The plate shatered in two as it met the large 4,5a,5b continent. Plate 1 kept moving south-soutwest, plate 2 is stuck in continental collision. (I'd move continent 1 a bit to the south and make its southern border much like Sumatra southern coast, and have plates 1 and 2 not so far apart)
- plates 3, 6 and 7 seem to have bits of land that originate in that triple point - this is the part that seems a little odd to me, such a big ocean with a mature rift, where did all the land of the original continent go? did a huge triple point rift develop right in the midde of an island-continent standing in an old oceanic bed, instead?

One thing I usually suggest people to map out (only in rough/draft) is the age of the ocean bed. If you can do this, then your tectonics are spot on. Here's how earth looks, in that aspect: Oceanic floor age

[Shikotei]

I appreciate the suggestions and the compliment

So basically the age is derived from the (permanently stored) polarity of the rocks in the seabed and Earth's (periodic) magnetic field reversal occurrences. Both are measurements and/or observations I do not have.
What I DO have, is a history of where the plates came from. In other words, the age of the seabed is also a (rough) continental drifting speed map.
Keeping this in mind, I've created the seabed age map.


Changes to the plates:

- plate 1 and 2 were part of the same continent, pushing south. The plate shattered in two as it met the large 4,5a,5b continent. Plate 1 kept moving south-southwest, plate 2 is stuck in continental collision.

I like the idea of this. It also fits with a minor reworking of plate 1's coastline (I've only done it rudimentary at this point). The lateral difference in position would be an indication of the amount of time plate 2 has been in collision with 5a and the loss of speed compared to plate 1's southward progress.
The age map also reflects this with the large difference in age near the borders of plate 1 and 5a.

- plates 3, 6 and 7 seem to have bits of land that originate in that triple point - this is the part that seems a little odd to me, such a big ocean with a mature rift, where did all the land of the original continent go? (..) did a huge triple point rift develop right in the middle of an island-continent standing in an old oceanic bed, instead?

It took me a while to understand the problem, but (once you turn back time) I think I got your message and will have to agree.
There could be two explanations for plate [6 and 7]'s source of landmass:
- There was a huge super-volcano that went sky-high and blew the entire continent to oblivion and resulted in a 3-point rift. Plates 6 and 7 then drifted accordingly.
- Plate 3 drifted very, very fast compared to plates [6 and 7] and the landmass is currently off-charts. Plate 3's source is volcanic activity, rapidly growing out of the once shallow water.

I chose the latter, not only because there's little evidence to suggest a super-volcano has the power to blast a rift into the crust, but because the latter is much more plausible.

So:
Plate 3's main source of landmass is volcanic activity.
The plates 6 and 7 could have once been the same plate that at some point in time broke in half due to the thinning of the seabed and the underlying convection energy. 6 continued westward to collide with 5b and 7 went south-eastward to collide with plate 10.
Both [6 and 7] were once connected with the (now off the map) landmass of plate 3. The age map reflects the incredible speed at which plate 3 is drifting northward (which would explain the lack of landmass).

Possible further adjustments:
- I may have to adjust the hot-spot that generates plate 3's landmass and change it into a group of hot-spots (3-4) that align north-south rather than east-west.
- The light-green band on the west side of plate 10 may have to be darkened. There's no rift nearby to refresh the old seabed.
- The band near the south (edge of the map) of plates 4 and 5b may have to be thinned (less broad) to indicate a more recent split. The same could be said about the age at [4-5a] and [4-5b].
- The general direction of plate 3 may need to be pointing more northward.

[Shikotei]

I thought it wasn't going to e too difficult to recycle the rendered height map for the new one, but I was sadly mistaken.
So after trying to get other (automated) methods to produce something I could use, I've resorted to draw this thing by hand.

Below is the result of a good 2 hours of fiddling with dual-brushes and twitching my way to something workable.
The original is gray-scale; I just used yellow to make it a bit more clear.

Does the ridge look mountain-y enough?

[Shikotei]

The map viewer has been updated and currently shows the height map (so far).
It works properly on FF 42, Chrome 46, IE 11.
The five buttons on the top of the page jump to the mountains. Much of the rest of the map hasn't had much attention.

There's a few styles of mountain chains and I'm not sure which one to use for the others, so I'd like your opinions on them.

[Pixie]

I had a look recently at your map and those mountains". Here's my 2 cents:

- use wilbur to get some erosion, if you have the time, do it in small steps in small areas at the time, so that the entire map doesn't look too homogenous,
- between every few steps in Wilbur software, go back to your painting program and add a little more white paint in the mountainous areas

This will make your heightmap much more believable, as it will have rivers and valleys and much less randomness. Also, plateaus are also allowed to exist, don't draw linear ridges only.