Quote Originally Posted by waldronate View Post


I don't have an effective technique for handling inland basins and lakes, unfortunately. The process that I typically describe is actively hostile to them because of the basin fill operation. One way that might be useful would be to make a mask that has just your desired inland lakes. Every few precipiton steps and after each incise flow, load that mask as a selection and set the value to the desired lake altitude. This technique will have the effect of enforcing the lake constraints, but the rest of the landscape will continue to slowly reduce in altitude overall (the precipiton erosion filter is a lossy filter). If you'd like to keep the lake at a relative altitude, move the mouse cursor over the lake area and then set the lake altitude to that value.
Is it not possible that I simply draw a canyon by hand from the lake to sea so that the incise has to follow this road too ? Else I will try the mask method.

The Wilbur shader is a pretty ugly beast.
Ugly I don't know . But impossible to learn sure. The texture tab contains 16 items out of which 5 with multiple choices which open farther on sliders buttons and values. So I estimate only this tab at something like 200 + different individual settings. Perhaps all parameters and settings are not all independent what would increase exponentially the combinatorics.

The V2 shader is similar in many ways to the latitude and intensity portions of the Wilbur shader, but with a major difference: the V2 shader combines several parameters that then used to select a color from the color list, while the Wilbur shader uses parameters to select colors from different lists and the colors are then combined. Using the parameters to select the color gives a result that's quite different in quality from the Wilbur shader. It derives from the idea that altitude and latitude are closely related in terms of vegetation (mostly due to temperature). The visible range is defined using Map>>Map Info; with top=90 and bottom=0, the full range of the color list will be used. all coefficients are normalized to the range of 0 to 1. offset controls adjustment to the map info, altitude controls the contribution of altitude, slope controls the contribution of the local angle, and noise is a factor that breaks up the basic linear patterns.
This seems less than the numbers above but still too much for Learning by trial and error. For the time being coloring is where I am completely stuck. I can't use Wilbur so I tried GIMP but seem to have there the same problem that I seem to have with V2.
When I apply the gradient on the map I linked above, I get basically only 1 color in the gradient. That means that for Wilbur there is no altitude difference and for GIMP no black/white contrast what is basically the same thing.
I thought that when I apply a gradient on a map, then it is normalised so that the right edge is 1 and corresponds to highest altitude and the left edge is 0 and corresponds to the lowest altitude. That way, necessarily, the whole Spectrum is applied regardless whether the delta is 200 m or 20 000. Apparently it doesn't work like that and I am stuck now. I will link tomorrow what I get when I click on V2 shader with the map linked above. What does mean V2 btw ?

The maximum resolution in Wilbur depends on your OS version and amount of memory. There are very few (if any) hard limits built into software. The 64-bit version should handle multi-gigabyte surfaces without problem. The main limit is your patience.
Right. I found out what the problem with the white edge around the map was. My fault.

I stop at 4000ish purely as a convenience because my patience is limited. About 4 posts up from this one is an example that went to 8000 (it's the one with the cropped V2 shader images instead of whole-world images). To get larger images, it's just a matter of keeping up the scaling process and the rest of the processing loop. Save regularly because Wilbur will eventually crash when it runs out of memory or hits a system limit.
Yes, thanks, thought so. However the higher you go (in resolution) the more you erode/incise because you do so at every step so that the mountains are less and less apparent.
That seems to be also a problem - if you look at the map linked above, the mountains are hardly more that thin lines. The height contour map which I started with had a much larger mountainous regions .