Are these realistic placements of mountains?

[3l3phant]

Every time I sit down to start working on a map the very first thing that makes me stop in frustration is trying to get an idea of mountain placement. I've been looking at things like Google Earth in 3D to look at mountains in the real world but I'm just not "getting it." Most of the tutorials on YouTube seem to be more about how to draw maps as opposed to where to place them. I was wondering if what I've got here is along the right lines of something realistic? Or is it too many/few mountain ranges? I'd really, really appreciate any feedback.

[eepjr24]

Disclaimer: There are others here who will probably chime in with better ideas and reasoning.

I don't think you have provided enough information to tell whether the mountains are well placed or not. They depend greatly on the location of the tectonic plates as well as glacial movement and volcanic activity. There are several threads on here that go into it a bit more. Please don't think I am talking down to you here, I am very new to this as well. Check this link:

https://www.dkfindout.com/us/earth/m...ntains-formed/

I know it's for kids, but the link above gave me a good idea of the basic types and a 50,000 foot view of how they are made. From there I started reading Wikipedia (I know, but it's a decent summary) and then followed into some of the references there. It got over my head pretty quickly, but I think I finally got enough to say that the way I laid mine out was at least possible. Here's an example of one of the references:

https://books.google.com/books?id=jd...page&q&f=false

Also, this tutorial gives some insight into how to start with the plates and continents and has helped me a decent bit:

http://www.online-tabletop.com/art/fantasy-map/

- E

[waldronate]

Without a scale and without a context, it's impossible to make any guess at "realism". What's realistic at the scale of a local map might not be realistic on a continental scale. The kind of mountain display that you're using is intended to be representative rather than realistic, which makes things even harder to judge. Also, many historical maps in what we would now classify as an "artistic" style just weren't very accurate.

I'll drop into one of my common rants for a moment: what is a map? I like to define a map as an abstraction of a place done for a client's purpose and fixed in a particular medium. Someone drawing a quick map for themselves in their own blood on the skin of a deceased friend in order to find a grave again is something quite different from a map commissioned by a king of the finest materials to hang in his throne room to impress upon visitors the greatness of his empire. A military map for planning a battle is often quite unlike a map in a child's book, which is quite different from a tax map, which is quite different from a survey map. All of these maps would be very different in the sorts of things included on the map, in the detail level, and in the accuracy. The simplest map might be a few lines with rough distances. A published map might have decorations, advertisements, scales (sometimes multiple units, each for a different client), compass roses, and any number of other things.