Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Pixie
the earth lights in the portfolio look like the hires map i released but turned up to FULL brightness and saturation
I'm not using a linear scale. I don't have the file with me, but on top of my mind, it's something like 0-100-200-300-500-700-900-1200-1500-1800...
The way I have the file setup, it's fairly easy to change the coloring and match an existing gradient of a topographic map of Earth - I might do that one of these days and post it here.
the earth lights in the portfolio look like the hires map i released but turned up to FULL brightness and saturation
--- 90 seconds to Midnight ---
--------
--- Penguin power!!! ---
Oh, shame on him if it's a rip off of your work. I don't always understand your sentences (as english isn't my native language), but it seems that's what you are saying, isn't it?
On a side note, I made a low-res image of Maward heightmap with a color scheme similar to an Earth's map and then pasted both into an image file, for comparisons sake. Here it is:
comparison_altitudes_dec2015.jpg
This comparison shows a few areas I should work on, particularly redoing altitude in eastern Palamb (the eastern continent) and further "lowering" equatorial Krasia (the western continent)... and some others.
But really, in terms of altitude, what comes to your mind, from looking at this?
Greenland elevation took in account the ice-sheet. Otherwise, it would like more like an archipelago.
Yeah, I know Greenland looks like that because of the ice-sheet. I have been toying with the idea of doing just that for the land around the north pole, which, at this point, is bare.
This is a really old thread to ressurrect, but the fact is that work on this map is a never finished task.
It's now just over 3 and 1/2 years since I started this. That's 42 months of "often interrupted work". I can't count the hours spent on this project, and while it's incredibly difficult for a sane adult to justify this investment, I can't help feeling proud of the direction it's taking. I say it's taking a certain direction because it's very much a Work In Progress. It's far from finished. In fact, some areas might be up for complete devastation and remake, as I grow increasingly unsatisfied with some tectonic aspects in the background.
In the meanwhile, this project has generated a number of spinoffs:
A joint work with Azelor and others on climates for a conworld. Interesting discussions with several members on culture and technology diffusion. Daunting (pointless?) exercises on tectonics with so many newcomers. A couple of tutorials for the Guild. A starting-to-become-detailed history of the world, from Neolithic to Present (although I didn't even reach the Iron Age). A series of detailed modern atlas maps.
Ramblings aside, I'm writing this post, basically, to share the current state of the world map.
currentstate_20170616.png
(Yay, long live large attachments! - click to enlarge and have a look at it further zoomed in)
Like I said, I am truly pround of this, and yet, I know it has so many faults and improvements to be made. May I ask for thoughtful feedback, fellow guilders? I know some of you don't care for realism that much, or prefer pictographic maps to heightmaps, or are here for the dungeon stuff only.... but, if you can, could you have a look at this and tell me - which parts look realistic and which parts just unnatural? where does your imagination take you when looking at this map?
Lastly, some time ago we discussed here at the guild about using a part of this map for the monthly competition. Which part would you like to map? (and why?)
Many many thanks for the feedback!!
Cheers
Last edited by Pixie; 06-16-2017 at 03:19 PM.
Nice to see another update on this thread!
Your map is definitely a source of inspiration for any mapper interested in creating realistic-looking topography based on tectonics and such. As for your questions, tbh I don't see any area that inherently "looks unrealistic", though I guess maybe there are some areas that could be improved with the tectonics map itself if you feel your map of plate tectonics is a bit outdated (I know the feeling, having first made an initial tectonic map which I considered accurate, and then later realizing that it had quite a lot of room for improvement!).
However, it might be helpful if you put the elevation key in the map itself, since that would make it easier to compare the elevations to Earth (and identify possibly problematic areas).
Edit:
Btw, regarding your earlier discussion about Greenland with Azelor: you may already know this, but it's worth noting that the present-day "de-glaciated" topography of Greenland is probably not wholly representative of what it would be like if the glaciers melted, because the weight of the ice is causing the land to sink. If the glaciers were removed, Greenland would experience considerable uplift: a process called post-glacial rebound.
Last edited by Charerg; 06-16-2017 at 05:17 PM.
This particular image looks to me like it might be a map of the world's watersheds. Is that its intent?
I'd expect a map which provides a view of the planetary surface as it might appear from space to have quite different coloration, for example.
I'm asking because I'd expect somewhat different coloration i: deserts, rainforests
Selden
None of it looks unnatural to me, but I'm not an expert! I really like all of the fiddly little islands - especially the long ridges of islands on the far left! It would be neat to think about the different cultures which might develop - so close and yet divided by water.
As seen from space, I'd expect the poles and mountain tops to be white with snow and ice, for example, with deserts downwind of mountain ranges (like Chile) and in large inland areas (similar to central Australia). Also oceans tend to be quite dark, lightened by atmospheric refraction.
However, developing the appropriate climatic coloration is at least as difficult as producing a reasonable tectonic layout.
Last edited by selden; 06-17-2017 at 12:19 PM.
Selden
Posting Permissions
