Terra Aurum Pilgrimage--Very Realistic

[Peter Toth]

Hello Guild Members,

Thanks to a few Guild members whose works have provided ample inspiration and tutelage, I am showcasing my latest project, depicting a pilgrimage route through a vast and diverse continent known as Terra Aurum (Gold Earth). The file started out as an automatic Wilbur fractal rendering, vastly modified to create the final piece. Thank you Arsheesh for your wonderful tutorial.


For those interested in scientific details, here are the specs for the home planet of Terra Aurum, which I've situated somewhere in the Scutum-Centaurus Arm of our galaxy:

Radius: 5,607 km (the planet's size is roughly between that of Mars and the Earth)
Density: 5.877 grams per cubic centimeter (due to larger iron core by percentage)
Mass: 0.7236 Earths
Gravity: 0.936 gees (which would make the topography easier to traverse!)
Percent Iron by mass: 38.8% (Meaning a significant magnetic field also given the rotation)
Age: 3.76 Billion Years (younger than the Earth)
Rotation Rate: 26.187 hours

[Azélor]

I don't think the elevation red line is right. Most of the time, it looks way too high. At point for for instance, it says hills but the altitude is almost 6000m. Most mountains on Earth do not even extend that high.
I could assume that since the gravity is lower, the mountains might be higher than on Earth, such is the case with Mars after all. But that would still be pretty high.

Others like point 12 look like it's just right on the coast but is actually 4000m high. That is a lot higher than what to map suggests.
Also, it might be more logical if the road crossed the mountains in valley, not at the peak. Unless there is a specific religious reason. Maybe it's not the case but the numbers you used give me the impression that the road goes right through ridges.

[Peter Toth]

Hello Azelor,

I admit my obvious error in calculating the altitudes on the red curve; thank you for your efforts checking and verifying that particular aspect.

The altitudes were calculated by reading the values (0 to 255) from a greyscale PNG map, then scaling the maximum (255) value to about 9,700 metres and all the other values to the same relative proportion. I arrived at the number 9,700 using the simple equation 1/g (in my planet's case being 1.07), which I multiplied by the height of Everest (8,800 metres) and then randomly added about 200 additional metres, reasoning my planet's younger age and consequently more robust tectonic vigor would raise higher mountains than the Earth.

My mistake, however, was forgetting to check the altitudes to make sure they were logical, especially considering point #12. It is situated near the coast yet soars up to an altitude of 4,000 metres! So clearly illogical. If I could redo this map, I'd temper the scale next to the red curve by about a third.

In my next map, which I will produce with unfettered enthusiasm, I will aim to address these errors.

Thank you for your honest criticism; it has provided me with one additional pitfall to steer clear of.

Cheers,

Peter