Reply With Quote
Both an equiretangular projection and a higher resolution (so we can decipher the green/black stuff on one continent) would be very useful. I promise I'll comment when you post that.
Here's some Rep for sticking with it and pursuing improvement!
*Bump* I'd love to hear any feedback you can provide. Thanks, sincerely.Originally Posted by PaxVeritas
Both an equiretangular projection and a higher resolution (so we can decipher the green/black stuff on one continent) would be very useful. I promise I'll comment when you post that.
Here's some Rep for sticking with it and pursuing improvement!
Last edited by Pixie; 01-30-2017 at 06:00 PM. Reason: spelling... :(
What kind of feedback are you looking for?
In a fantasy world, anything is possible, so the coastlines are plausible in that sense. Or do you want feedback on whether we like the coastlines? If so, I think you are yourself the best person to answer that question. Everyone has their preferences regarding what kind of maps they like (some people want big landmasses, others like lots of islands, and so on).
However, if you want the world to be plausible in terms of plate tectonics and such, that's a different story. In that case, you'd have to figure out the past movements of the continents, and decide which continents used to be part of the same landmass (and therefore where the coastlines should match).
Thanks Pixie!!!
Here is the Equirectangular projection you requested. Its not imporant to decipher the green/black stuff. This map is not a once-and-done, but rather it is a vector-created world that scales right down to the hamlet. Amazing. So the green/black stuff is data so intricate that it cannot be resolved on a world map at this scale. Zooming way into the area I'm able to craft local maps for games. I've been populating 2 continents for 10 years, and soon will move onto another one. I eastimate finishing this entire planet will likely take me about 20 years.
In terms of feedback---I will take any. Early on several brilliant cartographers here in the guild commented that the southern isles weren't reasonable, so I've thinned it out considerably. Overall, I'm interested in feedback on the overall layout of the planet. Any and all feedback is welcome, good or bad! My hope is to determine if the vast ocean requires another landmass? Someone said my previous maps were "too busy" so I removed several landmasses and redrew a few.
Thank you for your time and expertise--- see map attached (best resolution I can offer at this time).
Equirectangular.jpg
As promised, here’s a proper reply. Oh, and let me start by saying thank you, for thanking my “expertise”, but I’m far from an expert – I just voice my thoughts way too frequently
Here’s what I did with your world map. I traced the continents and colored the whole thing in a more basic style so I that my brain could work with less strain – and as I did this, I noticed you have quite a few longitudes where the ocean runs almost from pole to pole. So I made another slight alteration to your map, moving the center. Here’s the result, simpler to read, but with lots of detail missing:
newcenter.png
Tectonics-wise, I kind of see a broken Pangaea, but I won’t start with tectonics. First of, the overall feel: it’s balanced and the continent shapes are fine – your “oldest” continent, the one you have populated, looks less realistic because it’s a little.. squarish. The other point I have about this is the south-pole continent, do you need to have it? Try looking at the map without it… it wouldn’t hurt, right? On a polar view, that continent is just a small and round piece of land, far from every other piece of land – not a common thing, and hard to explain if you care about tectonics.
So, this takes us to tectonics. First an important word of advice: it’s completely possible to ignore tectonics and a lot of people here will tell you it’s a useless headache – or you can worry about some basic principles like where could mountains go, without dealing with the details – or you can go hardcore and spend the next month working stuff out, which would almost certainly force you to move about or reshape some of your continents. It’s up to you.
Either way, here are some simple ideas about tectonics, resulting from a quick look at the map:
idea1.png
This two-armed continent has a great shape that hints ocean-ocean subduction. Volcanoes on both arms and some rugged, Iran/Afghanistan mountainous terrain in between would be very fitting with that shape. The arm to the east could be a smaller continental platform, and then you’d add more mountainous terrain where that platform collides with the larger plate.
idea2.png
This second idea involves areas you have worked on already, so it’s a good opportunity to understand that sometimes worrying about tectonics makes you re-do stuff and also to ponder about how much you want to invest. The continent to the East reminded me of southern Chile, both in shape and location (although relative to the north-pole, instead of the south-pole). That shape is created with the continent moving eastwards, “eating up” oceanic floor. It will also create volcanoes. But making it move eastwards implies that C (your oldest continent) is breaking away in the opposite direction.
So that’s it. Overall, nice shapes, some obvious possibilities in terms of tectonics, some future issues with maintaining what you have if you follow that road. The map as it is doesn’t have to many archipelagos nor weird ones. The land/ocean ration is earth-like (which is very important if you want to preview climates and biomes). Carry on
WorldMapSept182017.jpg I went back to the beginning and kept only the refined poles, plus the two continents you said fit nicely together, I kept one other general shape and modified it a bit, then created all new contents. I tried viewing a number of ways for continental drift, sublimation, etc. and here it is asking for feedback please. I'd like any all feedback I can get. Your feedback is very important to me.
Thanks in advance.
Pax
Posting Permissions
