Re: [nbos] [FWE][FM8]Geology in the Fractal World
"Mike Oliver"
Mon Aug 6th, 2007
Hi Heather:

This should probably go on the CC2 group list but I don't believe you
post there.

I started using Fractal Terrains to generate all my worlds but have
almost abandoned it for very much the reasons you outline. The terrain
generated tended always to be coastal lowlands graduating to a central
mountain peak - not much in the way of coastal mountain chains and the
like (although that may be the way I had set up the generation process).
I was just about to give FWE the chance to take over that aspect of my
world building but maybe I shall have the same problem.

I believe that Joe Slayton, who designed FT, has openly stated that he
did not attempt to replicate the effects of continental drift or
tectonic plates in the software. However, you say that "continent on
continent collision" mountain building is present. It is probably my
ignorance but what is the difference between this and continental drift?



-----Original Message-----
[] On Behalf Of T'Star
Sent: 03 August 2007 15:58
Subject: [nbos] [FWE][FM8]Geology in the Fractal World

I know astrosynthesis uses actual astronomical data in its generation
algorithms. I'm starting to realize part of what bothered me about
both ProFantasy's Fractal terains (other than the annoying brush shape
around the poles.) And has spilled over, to a degree into Fractal
World Explorer... The worlds are fractal and pretty... but they
eroniously imply manythings about the geology of the world... namely
they ONLY have continent on continent collision mountain building.
This gave us things such as the Appalachians (both generations of that
mountain chain.), the Himalayas, and the Urals. They don't give us
things like the Andes, the Ring of Fire circling the Pacific. They
don't cover situations like Ice Land, though occasionally you'll get
isolated islands that roughly mimic the Hawaiian chain (Or could be
similarly geologically explained) They don't give us islands chains
such as Indonesia. They seem to focus more along the islands like
Long Island, and the like, and they certainly can't cover the
complicated geologies such as the Rockies. (That mountain range has
been pushed, pulled, sheared, uplifted, eroded, and volcanically
exploded so many times it's not even funny.) They also have a
tendency to erode in straight lines, which only works if you have a
uniform lithological structure with no weakspots. (Faults, cracks,
fissures, stress fractures, joints.)

Now, I don't expect fully featured 3D, geologic perfection... most
users don't have that kind of computing power. (Days worth of
rendering even on a local scale with modern algorithms.) But is
there some way, other than trying to get the manual raising and
lowering tool to actually look like something other than play-dough on
top of it a very nice fractal render, to make these features less
'regular' and a little more representative of the actual geologies
involved? Has anyone tried to muck with this yet? Or am I the first
geologist to play around enough with this stuff to care? ;)

Nbossoftware mailing list

Nbossoftware mailing list

Copyright © 2003-2007, NBOS Software. All rights reserved. 'Fractal Mapper', 'ScreenMonkey', 'Character Sketcher', 'Inspiration Pad', 'Fractal World Explorer', 'Goblin API', 'AstroSynthesis' are trademarks of NBOS Software. 'Dwarven Beserker' art by V. Shane.
Member contributed resources