Thanks for the answer. I understand how hard is to model a climate properly, that's why I thought that using a simpler model with convicing (even if not entirely realistic) results could help. One problem I have with the current model in sote is that climates seems to appear in well defined bands. Sure, I know that they roughly works like this in real life, but Mediterranean climates, for example, in my worlds often ends up like an ellipsoid shape strechting into the continent. In real life, the borders between climates tends to be "noisier", in sote they're pretty much straight lines. I don't know if this could be the reason, but perharps the influence of lattitude is too strong compared to others like topography?
Compare with the map on this link ( https://www.cartographersguild.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=96147&d=149606354...)the climates doesn't seem to follow a very strong banded pattern. Here, AAzélor trriedd to apply his method do draw the climates of a Pangaea-like world (maybe this IS pangaea, but the right half of the continent looks weird to me, I think). He even took into account the fact that the planet was overall warmer during this time, because of a stronger greenhouse effect, so we could add the possibilty to manipulate some constants to this process to allow less Earth-like conditions. I think that, in the end, my point here is a balance between realism and "uniqueness"; most of the worlds I produce in sote are really unique in terms of topography, but they always seems to follow this "striped" pattern too close.
Now, I admit that a huge shortcoming of this system would be to make emergent climate features (like the global weather influence of a major eruption, effects of global warming/cooling, etc.) harder to implement, so this should be considered as well; the downside is that, with this method, once generated, climate would pretty much be done, and could be harder to calculate interesting variables with it given that we brushed-off or over-simplyfied a lot of important aspects.
