Thanks for the criticisms, Pixie.
I did check the plates on Map to Globe, but I didn't see any obvious flaws as regards the direction of movement. Mind you, the arrows pointing the movement direction in the revised layout are primarily intended to show general direction of movement. Can you provide some detail as to which plates exactly have problematic movement?
Awesome resource concerning the "zig-zagging", btw. When I drew the tectonic map, I was mainly intending to portray the location of the ridges, rather than portay their shape accurately. Though if I ever figure out a nice way to animate the plate movements, I might try to make the ridges a bit more accurate. I did actually check your tutorial recently, but only managed to get as far as rotating a single plate around a pole. I don't think GPlates has enough functionality to actually simulate plate movement on world scale (at least not in the long run), since this would involve some plates getting larger and others smaller, plates breaking apart and so forth. That said, I might give GPlates another go, and see what the program has to offer.
As to the subduction boundaries, I did indeed try to give the "upward" side of a subduction zone a convex curve. But if you look at Earth's tectonics, you'll note that there are actually a few places where the convex curve is on the oceanic side. One such istance occurs west of Ecuador, second north of Venezuela and a third south of Peru. The "Juan de Fuca" subduction zone is also slightly convex on the oceanic side.
So, while the rule of "convex on upthrown side" generally applies, there are also instances where it doesn't apply. Namely said instances seem to occur where existing continental crust of a large plate meets oceanic crust. In areas where oceanic crust subducts beneath oceanic crust (forming island chains), the "convex rule" seems to apply almost always.
With that in mind, I'll try to check if there are any "weird instances" in my tectonics, where convex curves on the side being subducted occur where they shouldn't. Once again, if you have any specific instances in mind, that would be very helpful for me to identify the problematic areas.
And to your final point concerning landshapes: while I may make some adjustments on the land, particularly adjusting the island chains to suit the tectonic layout, the general plan is to arrange the tectonics in such a way to explain the present geography. Mind you, I can always adjust the shape of the under-water continental crust, which gives some playroom. Throwing some hot spots in the mix can also explain some island chains (indeed, the idea behind several of them is that they were formed in such a way). And in any case the forms of landmass have underwent drastic changes even on Earth since the Pangaia stage, so it goes to reason that the same would have went on in Aduhr. That said, if a situation occurs where a landshape absolutely must be changed due to the tectonics, I'm not completely set against the idea. But I reserve that option as a last resort, since it would involve some extra work.
EDIT: New Version:
I modified the previous tectonics, trying to take Pixie's comments into account. Major changes:
1. The Lokyarian plate has been removed since it didn't really fit into the "supercontinent cycle".
I also did several more minor changes. Note that some microplates are left out in order to focus "on the big picture" first. The basic tectonic history envisions the Eocidarian, Xeteyarian, Druegian and Tyandorian plates forming an equatorial supercontinent (as in Pixie's suggestion). The Menduleic and Anaparian plates formed a 2nd continent in the southern hemisphere, whereas the Urgaleonic and Rheadan plates formed a 3rd continent in the northern hemisphere. The present oceanic ridges between aforementioned continents are a result of the breakup of these "prehistoric" continents.
Reply With Quote