Eriond style in Krita

[Revock]

test1.png
I'm trying to convert the Eriond style for Krita. Either my colors are wonky or my mountains are wrong.

Here's the grey map after processing in Wilbur.
test.png
Any Ideas?

[Revock]

test.png
This is the grey map before Wilbur.

[Falconius]

I'm not sure exactly what the problem is? What doesn't look right?

[Revock]

I'm not sure exactly what the problem is? What doesn't look right?

The mountains look paltry to me, either because of size or the gradient mapping, perhaps I'm being over critical of myself. *Shrug*

[Falconius]

I guess it depends on the scale a lot. If the peaks were not so scattered, and were a more smooth and homogeneous height up to white they'd probably look bigger or form more impressive erosion.

[Revock]

right I'm trying the mountain process over.

[Revock]

Saben.png
Latest work, still not impressed with my mountains enough.

[Falconius]

Looks like a good start but you may want to expand the bases if you want them to look large. It should go from a large base smoothly up to small peaks, right now all you have is the peaks. If anyone was standing there on the ground looking at the mountains they'd be looking pretty much at vertical walls.

[Caenwyr]

Yeah, I get why you're not overly impressed by the results. But don't give up hope. Wilbur is a difficult programme to master. I myself still refer to my experiences with it as "struggles" where I sometimes come out on top, but usually end up eating dust and having to start from scratch. But I'm also convinced that that is mostly me.

After tons of trials and almost as many errors, I decided to leave Eriond-style manipulations to the better Wilburly endowed and whenever I need a terrain map now, I just draw the entire terrain by hand and use Wilbur only for some erosion passes and a few veeeery delicate tweaks here and there. It's a pretty time-consuming method but the results are far more gratifying and the process less frustrating. Here's my most recent example using that particular series of techniques. If you want, I can explain it to you from A to Z with easy to follow steps.

If I sound in any way unkind towards Wilbur, I'm not! I've just gotten convinced that I lack the je-ne-sais-quoi required to use it successfully.

[waldronate]

...whenever I need a terrain map now, I just draw the entire terrain by hand and use Wilbur only for some erosion passes and a few veeeery delicate tweaks here and there. It's a pretty time-consuming method but the results are far more gratifying and the process less frustrating.

I heartily endorse this position! Wilbur can be good at adding some additional details, but it's extremely limited in its range of plausible outputs.
Trying to make a physically-accurate map with Wilbur is virtually impossible because the processes used in Wilbur really aren't anything resembling physically accurate! Wilbur gives good results from about 1m per pixel up to about 30m per pixel. Trying to get a continental-scale map with Wilbur as the primary processing isn't going to look particularly good. Applying an exponent to the basic map fresh out of Wilbur can make the map look more continental scale (flats get flatter and points get pointier), but it never quite looks right. Going for a more artistic style using something like Filter>>Morphological>>Erode to remove noise can reduce the appearance that you were going for an "accurate" sim. It still won't look quite right, but maps are abstractions and most people don't look at a map enough to make a difference.