Reply With Quote
The colours are good now. Still, it would be easier to understand if you only keep the precipitation over the landmasses.
I'm working on something, take a look at this:
btw, it's for January
Attachment 74949
Well I redid the rainfall, and this was the end result. This looking a bit more right?
The colours are good now. Still, it would be easier to understand if you only keep the precipitation over the landmasses.
I'm working on something, take a look at this:
btw, it's for January
Attachment 74949
Alright, got rid of the unneccesary stuff that was over the water. So yeah, there's what is January's rainfall - presuming that I did it properly this time.
Do you have a key to show those of us less acquainted with the model what each colour means?Originally Posted by A Blood Red Fox
Here, I made a version with a simple legend showing what the colors mean. If it just shows the elevation colors (green, orange, etc) then it's "Dry".
It could be better. In January, it's summer in the southern hemisphere and it's supposed to be hot and rainier at some places. For example, I expect the est side of the south western continent to receive a lot of rain,like Brazil in the same time of the year. And the north short of the northern continent should be much drier since cold air is usually very dry too.
I've really kind of burnt out on this climate work. I came back to it and tried speeding ahead and doing temperature and then seeing what would happen climate wise... and I'm noticing that when I figure out what the climates are, the rainfall doesn't vary enough between seasons to actually produce very many climates. In fact some areas I have difficulty finding a climate for because they're too static.
Not sure where to go from here. I don't see how I'm going to produce anything by continuing with this method. I suppose I'll have to use what work I have, and use that to make some wild guesses. Not sure what else I can do.
It is also a matter of guessing, really, as nobody has ever been to your world. Even Earth climate is terribly difficult to model - only a few supercomputers, programmed by superbrains, are recently doing it...
And this is not a bad thing but actually a very good thing.
If you want realistic cartography then you want realistic biomes' distribution.
To get that done you need VERY few biome types, not many.
From that follows that you don't want to bother with seasons and/or Koppen diagrams because that's too complex and time consuming. Besides chances are high that you'll get it wrong (for a specialist's eye) anyway.
My advices in climate/biome matter have always been : keep it as simple as possible unless you're in it to study physics and biology.
A very simple model would be :
- use annual averages only. Forget seasons.
- use temperature and precipitation only
- use only 2 classes of each
- this gives you on a map only 4 possibilities : hot-wet, hot-dry, cold-wet, cold-dry.
- Put those on the map where they are obvious (f.ex hot-wet on equator)
- Places that will stay unalocated (because you are not sure) will be filled up by continuity.
This workflow can enable you to design a realistic biome distribution by hand in 4 hours maximum.
Well, I focused the map a down a little bit to an area I want to focus more on. I did the Koppen Classifications earlier for pretty much all of this particular area. So long as there isn't anything too obviously wrong with these climates, I'm going to go with this for understanding my climates. Does it look alright? Please forgive the crudeness of it.
Posting Permissions
