I made a mistake: I drew a world map, giving only cursory thoughts to plate tectonics, and am now left with the task of trying to have the plate tectonics make sense. The map below is my attempt; any suggestions on how to improve it?
Retroactive mapping of continental plates
I made a mistake: I drew a world map, giving only cursory thoughts to plate tectonics, and am now left with the task of trying to have the plate tectonics make sense. The map below is my attempt; any suggestions on how to improve it?
I can relate to this. Decided to use a pencil sketch map for a worldbuilding project, only lightly thinking on plates, now I'm in a mess myself.
They look good, but consider the oceanic plates, and continental plates. Like the pacific plate being heavier, and sinking below the South American Plate creating mountains with volcanoes. When two Continental plates collide, like india and the eurasian plate, they create plateus and very tall mountains. It can be a lot.
My attempt is below, erased all the plates and started over.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
For my work in progress I knew three pieces I wanted for land masses (VERY vaguely) and spent 4 months agonizing over trying to get plates to work with what I wanted. I empathize with the struggle.
First your continents look very pretty. It looks like nice world; with good context even my obsessive mind would ignore worrying about the plates. Retroactive is a lot harder and a lot more likely to be 'unrealistic' if that is your thing. But here's my two cents:
You have several land masses ripping apart for seemingly no reason, most notably the blue plate in the center, as well as the northeast landmass with the blue/green split down the middle. The bottom magenta plate (that touches on the southeast and southwest) seems to be both pulling away from and running into it's partner yellow. The small island on the southwest is breaking apart at the barrier between red and yellow. Conversely you have several divergent locations have islands as if they were converging.
Those were just my first pass thoughts. I think you might be better off starting with deciding which are your 'newest' mountains and drawing a line there, and maybe sacrificing a few mountain range heights for being older (like Appalachian mountains) so they do not have an active ridge along them at all. These few lines might help for where to start. Additionally, from there I would make the landmasses more in the middle of their respective plates. especially the eastern 4 masses. (not sure if the middle right between yellow/blue/teal is supposed to be connected to the western large continent or just near it in the north). But separating these and not putting ridges through all of them might also help a bit for a second draft.
Final thought, so long as hyper-realism is not necessary, in addition to the masses more in the middle of the plates, perhaps more smaller plates instead of fewer large plates. Less realistic but might be more reconcilable with the map you already have spent so much work on.
I hope these thoughts help a little.
Wouldn't divergent boundaries also have islands of volcanic origin (e.g. Iceland, Azores)?Originally Posted by Aileron
For ease of discussion, I'm labelling the plates:
I've been thinking about dividing them into clearer continental/oceanic plates as well. For example, might plate C be better if it was made into a clearer oceanic plate, with a new plate being created for the equatorial continent that's currently divided between C, F, and H? Likewise, I'm wondering a bit about the "lowland/plateau between mountain chains" that's seen on plate B, the equatorial continent (plate C), and the antarctic continent (the large lake between plate G and H). What is the most suitable way of explaining these formations?
One thing I've noticed with many tectonics tutorials is that they mostly seem to concern themselves with mountains created at the edge of plates, while glossing over older mountain chains that are the product of previous orogenies and often situated away from plate borders (e.g. the Appalachians, the Urals). How common should such mountains be? Or, more to the point: how many mountain chains can you get away with having without needing to add borders between plates?
For easier reference, here's a general elevation map, without the plate boundaries:
Would this be better?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
