Orlos 2.0

[Arimel]

So I started to create an 'accurate' fantasy world based on earth's tectonics and wind systems etc. nearly 2 years ago. It was much more work then I had expected and I only just finished this last May. However, I now want to go back and redo it. Yes, I think I may be crazy.

The first time around I did not pay enough attention to my elevation map, a mistake that I intend to fix this time. I will also try to go a bit more detailed with my precipitation maps. Overall, I hope to complete this map much more quickly and any critique would be greatly appreciated.

[Arimel]

So the first addition to Orlos 2.0 is the new elevation map. I used g-plates to create a history of the plate movements (although I did not do this as well as I could have I do not want to go much further in). From this I marked approximate heights of where mountains could have been formed. I then used these to create the elevation map in the same colors as recommended by Azelor in his Köppen-Geiger climate classification article.

Orlos has a circumference of ~64,000 km. The canvas I am working on in Gimp is 3000x1500, meaning that one pixel is around 21km across. I hope that the scale of the mountains fits this slightly larger than earth scale. With this scale, each height layer only shows the average height in that area, not the actual individual mountain heights. Here is the base map/heights for the elevation map that Azelor posted.

Elevation map.jpg


Using the elevation map, I then went forward and made the ocean current map. Without there being any continents at the equator, I was not quite sure how to have the 0 degrees current shift north or south. However, I did create some water loops and assumed that the cold currents returning to the equator would create a vacuum to create a warm current leaving the equator.

Ocean Currents.jpg

[Jean-Abdel]

Your mountain ranges are too thin but the currents are great. The physics of plate tectonics and wind circulation might be difficult to adapt to a world 1.5 times larger than earth and probably much more massive, close to the limit of super-earth like planets, but it might have a tiny fauna with the thicker atmosphere and more greater gravity.

[Arimel]

Your mountain ranges are too thin but the currents are great. The physics of plate tectonics and wind circulation might be difficult to adapt to a world 1.5 times larger than earth and probably much more massive, close to the limit of super-earth like planets, but it might have a tiny fauna with the thicker atmosphere and more greater gravity.

I had actually considered my mountain ranges to be a bit too thick. I some research into the widths of mountains and mountain ranges and for several ranges (Rockies USA, Himalayas, Andes) the width seemed to vary from 200 - 400 km across (although I do not know how they would calculate that). I would translate this to around 24 pixels on my map. However, most of the mountains here range into the 30s in pixels across (just measuring the yellow part) although there are some parts that are thinner. So I would say that the mountains are actually a bit thicker then on earth and I would just put that off to the size of the planet.
Also, for the gravity, I was going to just assume it was, for some magical reason, equivalent to earth for these purposes. I dont think I would have the patience to go all out in deciding how a different gravity would affect a planets systems (tectonics and air currents etc.). However, when I leave the mapping side of this project, the effect of gravity on the flora and fauna would be very interesting indeed to consider.

-------------

The only thing that I've found to be wrong is one loop in a large bay in the south east.
Ocean Currents.jpg

I don't find the mountain ranges particularly realistic. A few intersect at angles and that is very unlikely to happen in real life.

I had originally drawn that current in that formation but had switched it so that it followed the equatorial currents flow. This way it entered from the east and then left to follow the current again to the west. Is there a particular reason it should be the other way around? I would think it would be a bit more difficult to re-link it to the other currents if it was the other way.
ex 1.jpg

Or perhaps it would make sense to link it into the south-heading current to the east. What do you think?
ex 2 .jpg



About the mountains: I presume you are meaning the right angles in some, particularly the two largest continents. I agree that that is something that I should at least touch up.
Here is a rough drawing of the plate boundaries:
plate boundaries.jpg

and this is what I would propose to change the mountain ranges.
ex 3.jpg
For the top continent is is just shifting the intersection a tad bit to make it 2 ranges jointing at an acute angle rather then 90 degrees. I would also thicken the mountains in that area a tad bit. I think this would be appropriate due to how the one plate is being squeezed by the other two in that area. I could also lower the height of the mountains at the very tip where the 3 collide because that area would probably be under slightly less pressure due to a transform boundary.

For the bottom continent, I would make that entire area more mountainous, make a 'triangle' of mountains where the plates are colliding. This would increase the height of that area by a good bit.

Not sure if this would solve the problem. Let me know!

[Azélor]

The only thing that I've found to be wrong is one loop in a large bay in the south east.
Ocean Currents.jpg

I don't find the mountain ranges particularly realistic. A few intersect at angles and that is very unlikely to happen in real life.

[Arimel]

So another week another update.
Here is an updated version of the elevation map. I think that it should be a bit more realistic and remove the two major right angles that stood out.

Elevation map.jpg

Additionally, here is an atmospheric pressure map and the associated wind maps.

January
Jan. pressure.jpg
Jan. Wind .jpg
July
July. pressure.jpg
July Wind .jpg


As always, let me know what you think!

[Jean-Abdel]

For the pressure map, the small inner seas in the south probably wont have any effect on the pressure so keep the variation only for bigger oceans. The winds seem correct.

[Jean-Abdel]

What I meant by thin is that here is usually a very wide area around mountain ranges of lower mountains about a 1000m high, I don't know the altitude corresponding to each color on your map but there should more plateaus and hills like on Earth.

[Arimel]

What I meant by thin is that here is usually a very wide area around mountain ranges of lower mountains about a 1000m high, I don't know the altitude corresponding to each color on your map but there should more plateaus and hills like on Earth.

Sorry! I misunderstood you there. Here is the color code that I am using (link to azelor's map post). The yellow section is 1000 - 2000 m and the light green 500 - 1000 m (which are the two heights I suppose you are looking for?.). I will extend them a bit further from the mountain centers. It does make sense for more plateaus and I was sort of wondering over how flat the continents were .

For the pressure map, the small inner seas in the south probably wont have any effect on the pressure so keep the variation only for bigger oceans. The winds seem correct.

I do not know the size of a body of water needed to create a substantial pressure system but I assumed that they would have been large enough. For example, the nearly completely surrounded sea in the southeast continent would measure approximately 4500 km wide at its widest point and more like 2000km wide on average (of course these numbers would be a bit smaller due to the equirectangular projection stretching that area but it should not be that much thinner). This width is similar to the atlantic ocean, which is big enough to hold its own pressure systems. However, in the July map, the two pressure systems located there might be a bit much. Does this make sense or am I being completely silly ?

[Jean-Abdel]

Well I don't know about it either, I think it's hard to calculate but I just base it on my observations of real world pressure maps, the Meditteranean doesn't seem to have an impact and it's already pretty big so I don't think any inner sea will.