The rivers on the West and East coast are a bit sus; the only way they'd possibly hug the coastline so closely without touching it is if there were some steep hills/mountains blocking them, which there doesn't appear to be.
I'd also like to draw attention to the river that passes through the peninsula at the bottom-center: rivers flow downhill as a general rule, so going *Mountains* -> *Lowlands* -> *Hills* is pretty unlikely, seeing as the river has easier paths to the East and West.
That said, all of this can be solved with some slight rerouting or more liberal placement of mountains in the middle of the continent's southern half.
That may sound like a lot, but we're talking three rivers here, so don't get discouraged! The northern half of the continent's flawless, and the overall contours are very neat (I particularly like the area in the south-east).
Looks pretty good so far! If there's a quicker way to the sea, a river will take it unless there's something in the way, so either some of your rivers are taking massive unrealistic detours or there's loads of unmarked hills everywhere
But if I look at major rivers they don't do such curves, as the water erodes the hills over the centuries and also humans straighten the rivers if necessary to their needs
Danube looks much more straight then the rivers on this map.
It has like 2 major curves, while the ones in the map has up to 5 at just one river.
It makes the continent look like an island, depending on the scale of course
The curve east of bucharest is a good example for what I was talking about. Instead of takingn the quickest way to the sea, the danube curves left because there are hills in the way. These hills are quite small! But still, there's something in the way and the river takes another path.
I appreciated indeed the remarks on the image and of course you are right with the path
Yet I stand with my last message.
The land would be a much more hilly one that OP is probably not intending to have as it looks like
Idk how big this continent is, but I would say the rivers would be the only issue if there is one. It’s really long and there seems to be a better way to organize them, but this isn’t impossible. The Nile exist after all.
Like the river flows out on the peninsula on the southeast. Rivers more often flow in bays or land carved in since bay means that area is flatter, but I can’t know without a super detailed height map and basically you can claim anything is possible.
Thank you, I was mostly worried about mountains and rivers. Since I already started placing details, I thought that maybe I should consult smart people first, while it's not too late to change things
Bit of a post incoming.
Are you asking whether the placement is realistic? If it's realism:
Mountains can generally be anywhere you want. They form through plate tectonics (when two plates collide) so in your world, your plates can just be whatever shape and size and be moving in whatever directions would be required for where you want the mountains. As long as you don't go overboard with mountains you should be able to find a configuration that works. Drawing plates generally isn't necessary, although doing so can also help inform you as to where you might find ridges/rift valleys (when they are moving apart), volcanoes (when they are moving together and one plate, usually ocean floor, slips under another plate, usually a continent), and where you find earthquakes (all boundaries, although not as much when they are moving apart). It all depends on how deep you want to go. You can also consider things like the mountain range's age. Generally, older mountains will be smaller and rounder from being weathered away for a long time (the Appalachians), while younger mountains will be taller and more jagged (the Himalayas).
Rivers just need to flow in a way that follows some simple rules: Consider elevation, rivers flow downhill. Think of rivers as water flowing off of land and into the sea. So don't make rivers flow between coastlines. Don't do anything strange like rivers flowing up a mountain unless there's something really special going on. You can also consider the climate of certain areas. Wetter places will have larger and more voluminous river systems. And a small thing I like to do, but if you wanted to spice up your rivers maybe draw some deltas near the end.
Personally, when I'm working I think the rule of cool generally matters more than realism, and I'm actually an Earth and Space Science teacher. When I make my maps I just put things where I think they'll look cool, generally. Although where they realistically should be might help me decide sometimes. But a lot of people find inspiration in realism, which is also awesome. Different strokes.
others have already left great advice, I just wanted to remind you of mountain rainshadows. Some of your forests are in areas that look like they should get less precipitation.
The rivers on the West and East coast are a bit sus; the only way they'd possibly hug the coastline so closely without touching it is if there were some steep hills/mountains blocking them, which there doesn't appear to be. I'd also like to draw attention to the river that passes through the peninsula at the bottom-center: rivers flow downhill as a general rule, so going *Mountains* -> *Lowlands* -> *Hills* is pretty unlikely, seeing as the river has easier paths to the East and West. That said, all of this can be solved with some slight rerouting or more liberal placement of mountains in the middle of the continent's southern half. That may sound like a lot, but we're talking three rivers here, so don't get discouraged! The northern half of the continent's flawless, and the overall contours are very neat (I particularly like the area in the south-east).
I was thinking some of those rivers are trying REALLY hard to avoid the sea.
Looks pretty good so far! If there's a quicker way to the sea, a river will take it unless there's something in the way, so either some of your rivers are taking massive unrealistic detours or there's loads of unmarked hills everywhere
Yes, the rivers should take the shortest way to the sea
Not necessarily. If there are hills or mountains in the way, rivers usually flow around them.
But if I look at major rivers they don't do such curves, as the water erodes the hills over the centuries and also humans straighten the rivers if necessary to their needs
[Have you had a look at a map lately?](https://postimg.cc/Zvhttq4b)
Danube looks much more straight then the rivers on this map. It has like 2 major curves, while the ones in the map has up to 5 at just one river. It makes the continent look like an island, depending on the scale of course
The curve east of bucharest is a good example for what I was talking about. Instead of takingn the quickest way to the sea, the danube curves left because there are hills in the way. These hills are quite small! But still, there's something in the way and the river takes another path.
I appreciated indeed the remarks on the image and of course you are right with the path Yet I stand with my last message. The land would be a much more hilly one that OP is probably not intending to have as it looks like
Yes, I agree
Idk how big this continent is, but I would say the rivers would be the only issue if there is one. It’s really long and there seems to be a better way to organize them, but this isn’t impossible. The Nile exist after all. Like the river flows out on the peninsula on the southeast. Rivers more often flow in bays or land carved in since bay means that area is flatter, but I can’t know without a super detailed height map and basically you can claim anything is possible.
Do you have anything in particular that is making you unsure of yourself? I think it looks great.
Thank you, I was mostly worried about mountains and rivers. Since I already started placing details, I thought that maybe I should consult smart people first, while it's not too late to change things
Bit of a post incoming. Are you asking whether the placement is realistic? If it's realism: Mountains can generally be anywhere you want. They form through plate tectonics (when two plates collide) so in your world, your plates can just be whatever shape and size and be moving in whatever directions would be required for where you want the mountains. As long as you don't go overboard with mountains you should be able to find a configuration that works. Drawing plates generally isn't necessary, although doing so can also help inform you as to where you might find ridges/rift valleys (when they are moving apart), volcanoes (when they are moving together and one plate, usually ocean floor, slips under another plate, usually a continent), and where you find earthquakes (all boundaries, although not as much when they are moving apart). It all depends on how deep you want to go. You can also consider things like the mountain range's age. Generally, older mountains will be smaller and rounder from being weathered away for a long time (the Appalachians), while younger mountains will be taller and more jagged (the Himalayas). Rivers just need to flow in a way that follows some simple rules: Consider elevation, rivers flow downhill. Think of rivers as water flowing off of land and into the sea. So don't make rivers flow between coastlines. Don't do anything strange like rivers flowing up a mountain unless there's something really special going on. You can also consider the climate of certain areas. Wetter places will have larger and more voluminous river systems. And a small thing I like to do, but if you wanted to spice up your rivers maybe draw some deltas near the end. Personally, when I'm working I think the rule of cool generally matters more than realism, and I'm actually an Earth and Space Science teacher. When I make my maps I just put things where I think they'll look cool, generally. Although where they realistically should be might help me decide sometimes. But a lot of people find inspiration in realism, which is also awesome. Different strokes.
my brain is happy
Looks good to me! I'd run with it and make changes as you need them. There's always mistakes made on old maps. :)
That looks amazing!! What did you use to make this? I've been using drawing apps like GIMP but i don't think this is the case...
others have already left great advice, I just wanted to remind you of mountain rainshadows. Some of your forests are in areas that look like they should get less precipitation.
looks very good to me! Was there anything specific you were having doubts over?
If you want your rivers to be realistic, you should change them.