Dragon WIP, and SDK

D2

Polygon Pusher
✔️ HL Verified
Joined
Jul 13, 2004
Messages
242
Best answers
0
Kewl, Can't wait to see what you will make of the head, and the end result of course ;)
 
New Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2003
Messages
742
Best answers
0
Are you SURE it's a WIP? I couldn't tell o_o

You hate 56ers, don't you? Glad I aint one :laff:

I like it... sexy... just don't make the head ugly.. I beg of you

Many-a-dragon hath been brutally murdered by the modelling of an ooglay, disgusting, cartoonish and/or deformed head... Please avoid :yes:
 
New Member
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 14, 2003
Messages
3,974
Best answers
0


thats my current wallpaper, and my referance for the model.

and i dont hate them, if i hated them i wouldnt have said in the topic title that theres big pics :p
 
New Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2003
Messages
742
Best answers
0
Gir, if you can turn THAT into a model, I want your babies.
 
New Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2004
Messages
23
Best answers
0
There's so many anatomical errors with that it's not even funny.
But, that's the concept art's fault, not the model, so as far as keeping with the concept art you did a fantastic job.

I would thin out the wingtips though.
 
New Member
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 14, 2003
Messages
3,974
Best answers
0
who are you? o_0

and it would help to point out the errors.
 
Senior Member
🌠 Staff
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
746
Best answers
0
how does that have anatomical errors, its a fantasy creature developed by someones imagination. Have you ever really seen a dragon in real life to compare that too?
since you cannot prove the anatomical errors or point them out, then dont make posts for critting.

anyways, looking good gir, im liking it. keep it up i want to see the end result
 
New Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2003
Messages
697
Best answers
0
thin up the thigh its looks way too fat from the side view according to the concept but other than that looks good
 
New Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2004
Messages
23
Best answers
0
Oh, well if you were looking to improve upon the original design, I would be happy to point out the anatomical errors.

For one, creatures with muscular wings (Birds, bats, etc. as oppossed to the fan-type wings of insects) Require different bone structure. If you look at enough dragon pictures you will notice that the chest has an odd sort of protrution, and that the pectorals are slanted (similar to the waist on that model) This is because they have an extra bone, or cartelage that provides for the range of movement required for wing-flapping.

Furthermore, but a lesser complaint, the wings being below the arm, in the lower-shoulder area would actually inhibit the movement of the arm, and would also require a second set of pectoral muscles, these stretching more along the side of the body as well. The pectorals are what allows such a limb to move front to back, the shoulder muscles are what allow it to move left and right, and up and down.

Also, the picture is "perching" at the moment, which means a few vitally different things than when they are simply standing. The hips are rotated a bit more backwards, allowing the body to be more upright. That's fine for the pose, but for animation purposes, if you want it to look convincing, you'll want to pose the dragon in a more horizontal pose (like you would see a bear, for instance, except the tail would allow the dragon to stand without actually placing his feet on the ground. In fact, a bear is a very good reference to use for the way it would move, if you combine it with, say, a cats movement)

Also, if the wings are to provide any real flight, more than just a somewhat guided fall, they will need to ultimately attach the wing membrane to the back, as opposed to the tricept area like in the picture. Attaching it as such would mean the creature would have more control, and a greater area for catching the air, not to mention a larger percentage of the membrane would be tightly held down. As it stands, the wing would flop quite a bit while trying to fly.

The movie dragonheart is indeed a great reference for those type of dragons.

And a fantastical animal still needs to have realistic elements in order to be convincing. As it is, the character seems like it has the bodystructure of a centaur, and animal with NO extra balance with the tail, and only deterous limbs on it's upper torso, instead of limbs intended for mobility.

Who am I? I'm someone who knows better, and simply stating something like I did should not cause people to get all miffed and offended. I was not insulting the modeller, I was in fact stating that I did not blame them for the issue, unless they were the one who did the concept art. If they are the artist, then I am pointing out an issue with their work, which they should certainly be used to because they are an artist.
 

Eon

TeeHee
Banned
Joined
Dec 20, 2002
Messages
5,341
Best answers
0
Well, I see nothing really wrong with the reference..I mean..dragons don't really exist..so making anything big and lizardy = dragon!

Anyways, love the model gir. Keep it up. :yes:
 
Senior Member
🌠 Staff
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
746
Best answers
0
i was merely questioning why it you said it was anatomically wrong, since by no means is there a set bone structure or anything for something from ones imagination. the artist simply drew it how he liked, so with that in mind, i dont see how it can anatomically be wrong. anything goes in the world of fantasy, you cannot question ones imagination. So what if its bone structure is off, ive seen hundreds of things that would never work physically in reallity, but have in ones imagination for a cartoon or something like that. So there is really no need to get all technical about it.

I wasnt really miffed btw, just questioning why you thought it was wrong, it is ART after all, you can do anything you possibly want with it.
 
New Member
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 14, 2003
Messages
3,974
Best answers
0
http://www.avatarart.com/ <_< the concept artist (and a friend of mine)'s online portfolio.

as for who you are, i meant that untill now you havent posted anything to show your worth as an artist. yes your criticisms are good and helpful (not really to me since you didnt crit the model) but all they are is criticism. as a forum here, we like to see peoples work before we can decide if they "know better" or not. you should leave that for us to judge, and not for you to tell.

now, i need to go to the fan fics and cybaring section to read up on magus' orgy.
 
New Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2004
Messages
23
Best answers
0
lol, odd coincidence, while you were posting this, I was posting my art o.o
About to post another bit of my art, as soon as I figure out what forum to put it in.
And frankly, I dislike the idea of distrusting knowledge that makes sense simply because the person who said it hasn't shown if he's as good as you or not yet. It's counterproductive.
 
New Member
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 14, 2003
Messages
3,974
Best answers
0
its not counterproductive on the grounds that yes, listening to criticism is important, but listening to criticism from people who dont know jack, just makes you worse.
 
New Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2004
Messages
23
Best answers
0
I obviously know what I'm talking about though. Read the post.
Anatomy is probably THE most important piece of information a modeller can have.
 
New Member
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 14, 2003
Messages
3,974
Best answers
0
normally i agree, but this piece is completely down to artists impression, and tbh, ive never EVER seen a dragon that is anatomically correct. and therefor, i cannot compare to one.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top