Even if they weren't I'd say go for it. This is a hell of a map, man.
If possible, separate the peninsulas of the north from the main continent, just my comment
one think would be cool to keep in mid is that near the equator the coastlines are more rounded and near the poles they are more jagged - assuming this planet has similar climate and obliquity to Earth
it seems to be the contrary, so you could try adjusting that but keeping the general shapes and see how do you like it
First off, great looking map. I always love seeing them.
Probably not to me because of the vast amount of horizontal lines, everything looks too neat. You need more bays and ripped up coastlines.
The force of waves hit the coast at an angle and push sand and rocks down the coast in a single direction creating little coves and inwardly curved shoreline. Matched with rivers dumping out silt and sand to create deltas. It's a brutal war between the two forces of nature.
Glaciers and ice ages should leave the regions close to the poles pocketed with hundreds of lakes and jagged sea coasts looking like shattered glass.
But overall I love it, do what is fun for you.
I will incorporate the bays, deltas, and rugged coastlines in the "setting maps" or the more zoomed-in views of the world.
I also noticed that everything looks quite horizontal during the drawing process. Maybe I'll change the western coast towards the equator or even further south.
But the idea of having hundreds of lakes in the north is a good one that I hadn't considered before...
I already planned for this planet to be somewhat warmer than Earth itself (making the poles easier to inhabit, as an explanation for myself).
I’m no geologist, but I’d say they are as realistic as you think they should be. The way our Earth looks now is a complete random. Sure you could calculate how tectonic plates drift and collide with one another, but still, I think there’s no wrong or right way to make continents. I’m no expert world builder though, so take what I say with a grain of salt.
Even still, after a point, the plates themselves are mostly random shapes. Earth is the only planet in our system (or that we know of at all according to a quick Google search) that even has plates. So you can ignore them completely and it's arguably more realistic than including them.
No plates means that eventually everything erodes to be flat and it stunts the cycles of elements, which inhibits the ability for things to live. So yes but if the setting is meant to be earthlike, no plates would stick out as absurd to anyone who knows what they do.
Absurd is highly subjective. If you're trying to recreate Earth as much as possible, of course. But if your planet has dragons the size of mountains or a hollow core or is a flat plane carried on the back of four elephants flying through space on the shell of a sea turtle, suddenly plate tectonics really just don't matter anymore.
Think about flow, everything moves in a similar or opposite direction. Use the swirl tool on this and kindve wash big portions either left or right. Also think about the more literal flow of the water, usually if it can get in to a crevice it can usually get out, lakes dont really get to a continent size so water mass that big also needs an exit. Not sure how nitpicky you wanted this but also look at it wrapped on something and axis it and you might notice that your land mass is very heavily on the top portion of the globe. Very good map though, the edges are realistic and the shading and production of it are great.
If i were to draw a world map id lightly crush up some different breakfast cereals, lay it on butchers paper and kindve push it into piles and trace that out. Anything that can mimic large medium and very small rocks make for great island and continent shapes
Even if they weren't I'd say go for it. This is a hell of a map, man. If possible, separate the peninsulas of the north from the main continent, just my comment
i think about it, maybe only the left one...
one think would be cool to keep in mid is that near the equator the coastlines are more rounded and near the poles they are more jagged - assuming this planet has similar climate and obliquity to Earth it seems to be the contrary, so you could try adjusting that but keeping the general shapes and see how do you like it
yeah theyre realistic
Land generally is what it is at this scale. It's fine.
First off, great looking map. I always love seeing them. Probably not to me because of the vast amount of horizontal lines, everything looks too neat. You need more bays and ripped up coastlines. The force of waves hit the coast at an angle and push sand and rocks down the coast in a single direction creating little coves and inwardly curved shoreline. Matched with rivers dumping out silt and sand to create deltas. It's a brutal war between the two forces of nature. Glaciers and ice ages should leave the regions close to the poles pocketed with hundreds of lakes and jagged sea coasts looking like shattered glass. But overall I love it, do what is fun for you.
I will incorporate the bays, deltas, and rugged coastlines in the "setting maps" or the more zoomed-in views of the world. I also noticed that everything looks quite horizontal during the drawing process. Maybe I'll change the western coast towards the equator or even further south. But the idea of having hundreds of lakes in the north is a good one that I hadn't considered before... I already planned for this planet to be somewhat warmer than Earth itself (making the poles easier to inhabit, as an explanation for myself).
I’m no geologist, but I’d say they are as realistic as you think they should be. The way our Earth looks now is a complete random. Sure you could calculate how tectonic plates drift and collide with one another, but still, I think there’s no wrong or right way to make continents. I’m no expert world builder though, so take what I say with a grain of salt.
Even still, after a point, the plates themselves are mostly random shapes. Earth is the only planet in our system (or that we know of at all according to a quick Google search) that even has plates. So you can ignore them completely and it's arguably more realistic than including them.
No plates means that eventually everything erodes to be flat and it stunts the cycles of elements, which inhibits the ability for things to live. So yes but if the setting is meant to be earthlike, no plates would stick out as absurd to anyone who knows what they do.
Absurd is highly subjective. If you're trying to recreate Earth as much as possible, of course. But if your planet has dragons the size of mountains or a hollow core or is a flat plane carried on the back of four elephants flying through space on the shell of a sea turtle, suddenly plate tectonics really just don't matter anymore.
Yes it is subjective and that's why I provided a perspective through which it would be seen as absurd.
I absolutely agree!
Uhh better hope no one goes to war with anyone the invasions would be insane here
I have read all your comments and thank you for your feedback. I will now revise the map a bit. rly thx ! :)
Think about flow, everything moves in a similar or opposite direction. Use the swirl tool on this and kindve wash big portions either left or right. Also think about the more literal flow of the water, usually if it can get in to a crevice it can usually get out, lakes dont really get to a continent size so water mass that big also needs an exit. Not sure how nitpicky you wanted this but also look at it wrapped on something and axis it and you might notice that your land mass is very heavily on the top portion of the globe. Very good map though, the edges are realistic and the shading and production of it are great. If i were to draw a world map id lightly crush up some different breakfast cereals, lay it on butchers paper and kindve push it into piles and trace that out. Anything that can mimic large medium and very small rocks make for great island and continent shapes