I see that everyone praise a lot this script...
..I'm afraid I have to dissent.
Enabling a way bigger mapsize is for sure a very good thing.
The same thing goes with the simulation of rainfalls' shadows (and the less erratic terrain ...
..but there are a couple of things (that, at least are happening to me using this script) that really don't have any logical sense or realism:
1- the total absence of cold latitudes:
no tundras or snow near the poles.
you might have even grasslands or plains that overrid ice in the top or bottom cells.
the vanilla script handled this in a extremely good way.
I cant' see why changing it and deleting it.
2- the presence of tundras or even SNOW cells ON THE EQUATOR LINE, just because there're peaks nearby.
I don't really see what's the point in it.
It doesn't have any logical sense.
...or at least there's a very bad misunderstanding of what tundra and snow are:
the only explanation I can see is that you wanted to recreate alpine climate in mountain ranges...
but, sorry, if this was the case, this kind of climate is already implicit in the peak terrain.
putting a snow or tundra cell near a peak only means that as the mountain range finishes
suddenly appears a region with artic/tundra climate, covered entirely by snow... that, at some point,
suddenly changes in.. plains or grasslands.
It would be like saying that the regions around the Rocky Mountains (like Montana, Oregon and Nevada) are fully covered by snow or tundra... and this is clearly not how things really are.
Mountain ranges doesn't mean snow.
Snow is on very high altitudes (=mountain peaks;
on them, not in the regions
around them) or high latitudes (=the nearer you get to the poles the more snow there is).
That's a pity, because it seems that you had done a very good work about rainfall shadows.
