@Pixie, interesting, I had assumed (big mistake when it comes to science in general) that in oceanic/continental boundary it wasn't necessary to watch out for that like with continental/continental, but it does.
Just curious, since I noticed on the boundaries' map I kept a bit of boundary 5/15 on the west convergent, but in the South pole projection I had it all in yellow, when you guys say the south pole is ok as it is, how do you mean, 100% transform or with the little convergent zone?
Hello Cuin, thanks for dropping by. Long and I guess very repetitious thread indeed for newcomers just looking for results, can't blame them. I hadn't considered an inert plate at all, I didn't even know/remember about that trait of the African one. I wouldn't have minded 14 being inert if it meant simplifying things, but there must be some specific rules or conditions for a plate to be inert, wouldn't it? I guess you can't just say, this plate is inert so it doesn't rotate or move, or can you?
I agree I might have gone a bit overhead with the number of plates. My original idea was to have about 12-14, but then one need lead to a certain situation, which required new plate divisions and micro-plates... and well. Plus when I had just about a dozen of them the model looked too simple, like a facebook game (no offense, I've played some in the past for a bit) compared to a robust PC game. Look at ascanius, Akubra or Pixie's projects, they have about the same volume of plates and their models look amazing. Of course, they have a level of understanding and execution I don't have, so they make it work and look realistic while I probably just make it look crowded and unnecessarily over-complicated. I guess that my point is you might be right in my case, but having 20-30 plates can work if you've got the skills, so it's not always a negative thing. EDIT: I'm not sure anymore why I'm "arguing", since you never say having more than a dozen plates over-complicates maps in general, just mine in particular, to which I'm actually bound to agree since I can't pull it off too well.
Lastly, unfortunately, I abandoned any aspiration for visual realism a while ago, as it's too much for me to handle. I know divergent boundaries are not continuous, but to be honest I opted not to do them because (please read in 100% casual informative tone, because it might sound defensive, but it's not meant to):
1. Takes more work and time, that's why I use circles instead of triangles.
2. They don't really add much more information to my purposes, the boundary is mainly divergent.
3. My tectonic map is not really meant to add to my still empty gallery, it's 100% for information and terrain purposes to myself, so I've accepted it'll look ugly and rough, but as long as it fulfills its purpose I'm ok with that.
Thanks again for sharing your thoughts.
Reply With Quote
