There and Back Again - Please, share your opinion.

[joaodafi]

Hello Everyone, I'm starting this thread because I start drawing a map, literally from scratch and would the feedback of you during the process.

Well ... Actually, it will not be a completely new but a new version of the map, say the next step of this:

First concept of this map, in December 2014
PytNP3N.jpg

In late January 2015, then did it:
dL3wwv5.jpg

I think it was in the month of April, using the Tutorial "Ascension atlas style," I got this result:
FXetWYw.jpg

Finally based on the tutorial "Eriond - A Tutorial for GIMP and Wilbur" by Arsheesh, this week, I did this:
HgFZLXy.jpg

Right, For this new version, the goal is to create a very realistic map and foremost, must be geologically and climatologically accurate. To this thought I'd start sketching the Plate tectonics but honestly do not know if this is the best place to start ... So please, tell how you think I should start this remake, considering I want an end result that has a landscape similar to the fourth image but does not have to be exact, especially the islands.

[GreatWhiteNorth]

I don't know enough of the nuances surrounding plate tectonics to incorporate them into my maps (at least beyond "mountains are here, so there must be plates!") but I know it is quite an undertaking to create a world from scratch, as it were. You've got a good start, keep it up!

[joaodafi]

** First update **

The Tectonic Plates
Troa Tectonic.jpg

Plate Boundaries
Troa Plate Boundaries.jpg
Yellow - Convergent Boundaries.
Green - Transform Boundaries.
Blue - Divergent Boundaries.

Next step is to design the coastline and mountain range.

[Pixie]

Hi there Joaodafi

(Oi, tudo bem? Falo português, por isso, quando precisares, podes deixar mensagem

Not only but also because you are a fellow portuguese speaker, I decided to drop a line or two with comments and general ideas. But, one thing led to another and I ended up doing more about your stuff than I antecipates (and possily more than you want to). Still, let me show you..

I took your original map and superimposed on it your notes on tectonics. From there, I scribbled some notes about what could fit and what wouldn't. It was only later that I realised you were going to redraw the coastline, which means that my notes and suggestions are for the one you did before. With that in mind, here's what could be:
joaodafi.jpg
Fist map is your own with some weird mountains on it (my addition, to make it easier to "read" the ridges). Second is your notes. Third is my notes on your stuff. Fourth is a suggestion for tectonic plates.

One thing that is very important to do, if you want to have a go at it with more detail, is to decide on the scale of the continent. I considered this bit of land to be more or less the size of Australia/S.America... This matters because the bigger it is the more you have to take into consideration that the movement is on a spherical surface, on the other hand, on smaller maps, plates are few and "large" (relatively) and their movement is nearly/mostly linear.
Either way, I think this what you should do first - decide where on to place your continent on the planet's globe. This will also (obviously!!) influence the climate in a great deal.

[joaodafi]

But, one thing led to another and I ended up doing more about your stuff than I antecipates (and possily more than you want to). Still, let me show you..

more than I want ? No, more information and criticism, better the map will be.

I took your original map and superimposed on it your notes on tectonics. From there, I scribbled some notes about what could fit and what wouldn't. It was only later that I realised you were going to redraw the coastline, which means that my notes and suggestions are for the one you did before.

Thank you very much, your opinion is very important to me, because -> This Map <- is my main inspiration, for this part of the process, your notes will be of great value. Honestly, I have to study more about it.

One thing that is very important to do, if you want to have a go at it with more detail, is to decide on the scale of the continent. I considered this bit of land to be more or less the size of Australia/S.America... This matters because the bigger it is the more you have to take into consideration that the movement is on a spherical surface, on the other hand, on smaller maps, plates are few and "large" (relatively) and their movement is nearly/mostly linear.
Either way, I think this what you should do first - decide where on to place your continent on the planet's globe. This will also (obviously!!) influence the climate in a great deal.

Since you brought it up, the size of the continent is roughly the territory of the image below. But the planet's size is about two and a half times the size of Earth, with an inclined axis in eleven degrees. And the continent is in the Northern Hemisphere, and the equator not appear on the map because it is far to the south, (or the continent is far to the north, if you prefer that).
Tamanho Aprocimado de Troa.png

(Na próxima vez que eu for a lisboa, te pagarei uma cerveja, por essa ajuda)

[jbgibson]

So if Earth is about 13000 km diameter = 40 000 km circumference = 510 million sq km. surface

2.5x the diameter = 32 500 km diameter = 102 000 km circumference = 3.3 billion sq km surface

2.5x the circumference would be the same

But 2.5x the surface area (about 1 and a quarter billion sq km) would be only 20000 km diameter or a bit over 63 000 km circumference.

So which way do you want it 2.5x bigger? The reason I ask is that the smaller portion of the whole surface that your Africa+Europe sized continent is, the more plausible it would be for it to all be on one tectonic plate. You don't *have to* show a bunch of intersections and work out their activity. All on one present-day plate would not have to mean a featureless plain - there could be numerous old collision or subduction-volcano / uplift mountain ranges. And depending on your planet's amount of erosion activity, some could look young and rough, others old and worn down.

[Azélor]

Gravity could be a problem at that size.

[joaodafi]

So if Earth is about 13000 km diameter = 40 000 km circumference = 510 million sq km. surface

2.5x the diameter = 32 500 km diameter = 102 000 km circumference = 3.3 billion sq km surface

2.5x the circumference would be the same

But 2.5x the surface area (about 1 and a quarter billion sq km) would be only 20000 km diameter or a bit over 63 000 km circumference.

You're right, I should be more specific. And yes, the planet has 2.5x the surface area of the earth. The continent has, from north to south, approximate 11 200 km from east to west and 7 500 km.

So which way do you want it 2.5x bigger? The reason I ask is that the smaller portion of the whole surface that your Africa+Europe sized continent is, the more plausible it would be for it to all be on one tectonic plate. You don't *have to* show a bunch of intersections and work out their activity.

I know I do not need to, as you said, "show a bunch of intersections and work out Their activity" but I think that is a good theoretical and creative exercise.

All on one present-day plate would not have to mean a featureless plain - there could be numerous old collision or subduction-volcano / uplift mountain ranges. And depending on your planet's amount of erosion activity, some could look young and rough, others old and worn down.

Good idea, so it is possible to simplify the tectonic part without losing the possibility to create geographical diversity. Thanks.

Gravity could be a problem at that size.

Why could be a problem? I mean geographically.

[Azélor]

It's mostly a problem for those living on the planet. Although, higher gravity could possibly affect the height of the mountains and the atmospheric circulation.

It might not be a problem, my initial calculation gave me 1,02G but I'm not sure I got it right. (by using a radius of 16250km)

Apparently, you need the mass and the radius of the planet compared to Earth. The ratio of mass your_planet/earth is probably greater than one. I think larger objects tend to have a higher density but not always if there is more % water than on Earth, for example.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_gravity

[joaodafi]

It's mostly a problem for those living on the planet.

I could answer that by saying "Relax, it's just fantasy," but to have a valid argument, I say "The living beings on the planet are fully adapted to the conditions of the planet, remembered the life of the planet is original from there, not living beings land on another planet. "

Although, higher gravity could possibly affect the height of the mountains and the atmospheric circulation.

Well... Fantasy!