Reply With Quote
Looks good to me , eventually if you want to refine you canturn it into a blackand white heightmap and refine in a program like wilbur.
Assuming my tectonics are more or less plausible, I've moved onto elevation and river placement. At the minute, I am trying to make an 'informative' map giving an overview of the terrain and rivers, rather than a fully detailed elevation map. However, I am finding it difficult to create such a map while also making it aesthetically pleasing.
My attempt so far has basically been to shade in mountainous and elevated areas by hand, but I'm not sure if this style works. Any tips/criticism/comments welcome as usual - especially any ideas on what would make the terrain features go better with the map overall (i.e. are they too dark, fuzzy, etc?). Thanks!
Looks good to me , eventually if you want to refine you canturn it into a blackand white heightmap and refine in a program like wilbur.
Wise decision, I think. Your tectonics are simple yet plausible and you could move on. Before river placement, you might want to give some thought into climate... because, you know, rivers don't fare well crossing deserts (unless it's the Nile)Originally Posted by davoush
It doesn't need to be a fancy, complex simulation, but at least, signal your tropical areas, where inland deserts, what's temperate and where's colder than temperate.
Because you want it all in one swoop, that's why. It's better for to make plenty of maps - those that are ugly, but informative to you, and those you create afterwards, "artistically".
Thanks Pixie, I agree a climate map will help with river placement. I soon realised several of the rivers in my first attempt would be flowing through a large desert.
Mountains/elevation are my main problem at the minute. I am unsatisfied with the smudgy look of my earlier attempt, but I am using a Mac and don't intend to use Wilbur. This leaves with me either doing an elevation map by hand, or using a more 'artistic' form of mountains.
I have started a climate map - my main question is, how does elevation affect climate? At what heights do you start seeing quite different climates? I have indicated mountains in white, but they are not all the same height.
I am mostly concerned about the areas in 30+ latitude of this map, I am unsure when/how to transition from subtropical/temperate/oceanic.
In the part I labelled 'a', I imagined as a mediterranean-type climate (West coast, 30-40 latitude). Would it extend that far? If not, what type of climate would it transition into?
b) I imagine this would be continental cool, being further to the East.
c) Does continental cool transition directly into subtropical?
d) This is a very big desert area - would it be unreasonable to give the East coast of this part a different climate (even if just hot steppe)?
(Edit: Will be doing climates later)
Last edited by davoush; 07-22-2017 at 07:31 AM.
I put this together awhile back...
I had done a bit of researching on similar questions and decided to put the info I found into a simple graph I could put next to/overlay on world maps I was trying to figure out such stuff.
It's just a rough sort of estimate with some notes, and may not be truly accurate [ it's not my favorite area of mapping to work in] but you might find it useful.
Thanks Chashio, that is very useful!
I was wondering what exactly you meant by 'in mid latitudes there is a 100-200 metre difference between north and south facing slopes'? The ranges on my map tend to be north-south ranges, so I imagine this difference will be limited as the slopes face east/west?
The highest mountain range in my map is the large range indicated in white which runs from approx. 20-40 latitude, followed by an Andes-style coastal range on the equator. I think the very top of this mountain range may receive more rain on the west-facing side as the westerlies hit it, leaving a drier continental interior?
Last edited by davoush; 07-17-2017 at 04:31 PM.
Yeah, I was about to come back and explain that.Good question.
The 100-200 metre difference is much more local in scale than what you're probably going to focus on with the world map. It's not so much for a full range as it is a single mountain. The side facing the equator gets more sunlight and warmth, and that affects the local elevation climate by about 100-200 metres, so on the cool side [away from the sun] climate zones are about that much lower than the warm side. Make sense?
Thanks - that does make sense. It is something I should keep in mind when thinking on a more regional scale.Yeah, I was about to come back and explain that.
The 100-200 metre difference is much more local in scale than what you're probably going to focus on with the world map. It's not so much for a full range as it is a single mountain. The side facing the equator gets more sunlight and warmth, and that affects the local elevation climate by about 100-200 metres, so on the cool side [away from the sun] climate zones are about that much lower than the warm side. Make sense?
A further question I have is: On the eastern landmass, there is a large mountainous area (an old, now un-active collision) with a plateau at around 20-40 latitude. Below it is a large, flat desert, which I imagine would transition into a cold desert as the plateau rises? Would it be reasonable for this transition zone to contain pockets of more temperate zones (maybe mediterranean-like)? I imagine it is kind of similar to the Sahara, with a large plateau situated to the East and slightly north. I will upload a picture tomorrow to illustrate this.
You're welcome. I'm glad it came in handy for someone else.
Of your other question concerning climate particulars, I don't know enough about it to have an answer for you, but I'm sure someone else will. There are a bunch of members who've made a more thorough study of the subject.
Posting Permissions
