| QUOTE (Evolutionincarnate @ Oct 21 2022, 02:36 AM) |
| yes the gastrocnemius attaches to the lower outer part of the epicondyle and the biceps femoris attaches to the proximal end of the of the tibiotarsus |
Going by this I guess if the bicep femoris is already attached to the tibiotarsus it makes more sense to extend the bicep femoris and tuck the wrap around under the gastrocnemius
This also means I should replace the mentions of the tibia with tibiotarsus... What about the cannon bone / metatarsal?
Also hi
| QUOTE (Disgustedorite @ Oct 21 2022, 02:20 AM) | ||
This was evo's response:
|
Hmmm so straight away I see two options:
1. Do the wrap around from the gastrocnemius which would entail moving it to the to the base of the femur and extending it along the hip
2. Extend the bicep femoris to wrap around the tibia but tuck the wrap around underneath the gastrocnemius
Since it can pull both muscles without constricting each other around the knee right now, the same should still hold true along the tibia?
| QUOTE (Disgustedorite @ Oct 21 2022, 01:22 AM) |
 |
What is going on at the knee? Is it the perspective or is the gastrocnemius wrapping around the bicep femoris? It almost looks like the gastrocnemius attaching to the front of the femur instead of the back or... looping around it?
| QUOTE (Disgustedorite @ Oct 17 2022, 05:41 PM) |
| I've commissioned a full skeleton and muscular diagram for a flying sauceback from the same person who made the original diagrams that will hopefully be a useful reference |
Will Evo's new diagrams be labeled? It would be a lot easier to communicate anatomy if interbiats (and saucebacks in general) had established standardized labels so we can stop jumping between goat legs bird leg and wing terminology...
While at it, can y'all establish a canonical answer to the question of open plan skull/hip space (mentioned by Ovi) vs separated rooms plan (mentioned by Evo) or somethings in between like an open plan with internal scaffolding to hold organs in place? If it's separated is it just the brain or do other systems have their own rooms?
Would saucebacks have tendons like we do or would it be like a sandwich system with layers of flexible chitin over rigid chitin? Would sauceback chitin behave like terran chitin even though it's part of living cells?
How do harnessback back plates sit on the spine? Do they each cover a large vertebra or fused vertebrae or are just disconnected from the skeleton entirely?
And where's the heart or hearts? Does each pair of micro lungs have its own heart?
And is the sauceback cloaca between the legs like the drawing shows or does it reach between the lungs to the end of the tail like Evo mentioned?
Just having a thorough discussion between Evo and Ovi for saucebacks in general and Hydro for harnessbacks and you for interbiats could help clear a lot of things up
Updated the diagram images with the new feather layers.
Updated the anatomy description.
Updated the anatomy description.
| QUOTE (Coolsteph @ Oct 14 2022, 03:33 AM) |
| I recommend omitting the narrativization entirely. You can, however, be oddly specific about the examples of circumstances where each body function is used. To distinguish this from what you're doing now, I recommend placing the physiological description first in the sentence, and the broad example afterward. You can also provide specific details of organism preferences, such as favorite foods (for the species as a whole, or even differing favorite foods among individuals) and quirky behaviors. These would, in a sense, "humanize" the organism by making it easy to imagine individuals of the species in particular scenarios. In addition, you can use somewhat dramatic phrasing of scientific facts. For example: Plain: "Nixies are a crepescular species." Elaborated: "Being vulnerable to desiccating sunlight, but having poor night vision, Nixies are crepescular." Dramatic: "Individuals are typically crepescular, as those that venture out in the heat of the day dry up and die, and those that venture out at night are all but blind in the darkness, making them easy prey for predators." |
Thanks for the advice. I've updated the description
edit: updated the annotation order to reflect the new description
Online interactions should encourage more exercise, shouldn't they?
Raise your hand in the air, pull them down, raise your hands again, pull them down again.
In terms of energy expenditure, those were 2 separate actions, you had to spend as much energy on the second time you did that as the first. If you'll do 20 of those you'll get some adrenaline going and it will start feeling a bit easier but physically you spent the same amount of energy on each and every one. Yet stopping costs you no effort at all.
Spin your arms in circles, keep spinning, and do 19.5 of those. ...And stop in the middle of the last one.
The first spin you've spent energy building momentum, more energy than you did in lifting your arms since it takes longer for the arm to go a full circle than a straight line, but that momentum didn't go away, in the next couple of turns you've probably tried spending a similar amount of energy and ended up building up more momentum until you got to a comfortable speed. For the rest you've just spent enough energy to maintain the already existing angular momentum, just the minimum to fight off drag and bodily friction. But if you listened and stopped in the middle of the last spin, the act of stopping was in itself an effort, you've had to spend at least as much energy to stop the momentum as you did to build it up
That is angular momentum. The energy tried to continue forward, but your arm prevents it from going there by being stuck in your shoulder, so the energy's only recourse is to redirect the energy in a circle around your shoulder.
Let's apply that to a crank-rocker mechanism. If you spend the energy to move the rocker back and forth alone, each time you did that was a new action to spend the same amount of energy on, like when you've lifted your arms. But couple that motion with a crank, and now the energy is trapped in angular momentum, it tries to escape forward, but by being tied to the center of the crank, it can only redirect it in a circle around that center. The movement of the rocker built up angular moment in the crank, but the crank then maintains it by pulling on the rocker. Just like when you were spinning your arm, spending more energy will build up momentum, but you'd only need a minimal amount to maintain it, as most of the energy is maintained from one cycle to the next.
Particularly fast flapping birds like swifts and hummingbirds are already using angular momentum by spinning the humerus directly, just like you did with your arms. The limitation here is that the larger the circle, the longer it takes for a full spin and the slower you flap your wings. This is why these birds tend to have tiny arms (the ulna radius and humerus) with which they create the angular momentum and very large wingtips that carry the bulk of the wing, like a human with tiny arms and huge hands. But small arms also mean a small surface to attach muscles to. It is not that other birds haven't discovered angular momentum, it's that they would lose muscle attachment points if they were to shrink the humerus to the point where that becomes economical.
By having a rocker serve as the main surface for muscle attachment points and the crank maintain the angular momentum, you can maximize the amount of energy going into the system generating angular momentum, while minimizing the size of the circle the base of the wings are spinning in and with it the time it takes to do a complete wing flap.
To take advantage of that you need to keep to a small turning radius, if you were able to extend it out you'd have a larger circle to complete and it would take you longer to make a complete flap. Just like a Swift, the main length of its wings stems from extending the feathers on its wingtip bones, which in the Visorbills means the outer toe. That is the part that extends during flight, while the grashof muscle (rocker crank mechanism) might shift in angle to better position the wings alongside the hips, it would not itself extend out.
Absolutely. The wrap-around is what creates the grashof muscle loop (the crank). Maybe I shouldn't have called the muscle it evolved from the bicep femoris in the text (there are no labels so you have to constantly draw on near-equivalents for both bone and muscle names), but when designing the visorbill diagram I was referencing the muscle on the side of the knee in Evo's diagram. The equivalent to the bicep femoris in most mammals like kangaroos or hares, avian iliotibialis lateralis, frog tricep femoris, crocodile first and second Iliotibialis... If you have thigh muscles connecting the hip to the joint one of them is going to be the outer muscle.
| QUOTE (Disgustedorite @ Oct 13 2022, 06:43 AM) |
| Why does it need a crank if the femur is doing all the work? And if the crank is really as you describe here, even if it can stretch, wouldn't it prevent the wing from fully extending for flight? |
Raise your hand in the air, pull them down, raise your hands again, pull them down again.
In terms of energy expenditure, those were 2 separate actions, you had to spend as much energy on the second time you did that as the first. If you'll do 20 of those you'll get some adrenaline going and it will start feeling a bit easier but physically you spent the same amount of energy on each and every one. Yet stopping costs you no effort at all.
Spin your arms in circles, keep spinning, and do 19.5 of those. ...And stop in the middle of the last one.
The first spin you've spent energy building momentum, more energy than you did in lifting your arms since it takes longer for the arm to go a full circle than a straight line, but that momentum didn't go away, in the next couple of turns you've probably tried spending a similar amount of energy and ended up building up more momentum until you got to a comfortable speed. For the rest you've just spent enough energy to maintain the already existing angular momentum, just the minimum to fight off drag and bodily friction. But if you listened and stopped in the middle of the last spin, the act of stopping was in itself an effort, you've had to spend at least as much energy to stop the momentum as you did to build it up
That is angular momentum. The energy tried to continue forward, but your arm prevents it from going there by being stuck in your shoulder, so the energy's only recourse is to redirect the energy in a circle around your shoulder.
Let's apply that to a crank-rocker mechanism. If you spend the energy to move the rocker back and forth alone, each time you did that was a new action to spend the same amount of energy on, like when you've lifted your arms. But couple that motion with a crank, and now the energy is trapped in angular momentum, it tries to escape forward, but by being tied to the center of the crank, it can only redirect it in a circle around that center. The movement of the rocker built up angular moment in the crank, but the crank then maintains it by pulling on the rocker. Just like when you were spinning your arm, spending more energy will build up momentum, but you'd only need a minimal amount to maintain it, as most of the energy is maintained from one cycle to the next.
Particularly fast flapping birds like swifts and hummingbirds are already using angular momentum by spinning the humerus directly, just like you did with your arms. The limitation here is that the larger the circle, the longer it takes for a full spin and the slower you flap your wings. This is why these birds tend to have tiny arms (the ulna radius and humerus) with which they create the angular momentum and very large wingtips that carry the bulk of the wing, like a human with tiny arms and huge hands. But small arms also mean a small surface to attach muscles to. It is not that other birds haven't discovered angular momentum, it's that they would lose muscle attachment points if they were to shrink the humerus to the point where that becomes economical.
By having a rocker serve as the main surface for muscle attachment points and the crank maintain the angular momentum, you can maximize the amount of energy going into the system generating angular momentum, while minimizing the size of the circle the base of the wings are spinning in and with it the time it takes to do a complete wing flap.
To take advantage of that you need to keep to a small turning radius, if you were able to extend it out you'd have a larger circle to complete and it would take you longer to make a complete flap. Just like a Swift, the main length of its wings stems from extending the feathers on its wingtip bones, which in the Visorbills means the outer toe. That is the part that extends during flight, while the grashof muscle (rocker crank mechanism) might shift in angle to better position the wings alongside the hips, it would not itself extend out.
| QUOTE (Disgustedorite @ Oct 13 2022, 08:29 AM) |
| Also, is that mammal-like wrap around the knee necessary for the mechanism? |
Absolutely. The wrap-around is what creates the grashof muscle loop (the crank). Maybe I shouldn't have called the muscle it evolved from the bicep femoris in the text (there are no labels so you have to constantly draw on near-equivalents for both bone and muscle names), but when designing the visorbill diagram I was referencing the muscle on the side of the knee in Evo's diagram. The equivalent to the bicep femoris in most mammals like kangaroos or hares, avian iliotibialis lateralis, frog tricep femoris, crocodile first and second Iliotibialis... If you have thigh muscles connecting the hip to the joint one of them is going to be the outer muscle.
| QUOTE (Coolsteph @ Oct 13 2022, 02:23 AM) |
This kind of blended narrativization doesn't work well as either a description or a narrative. As an educational narrative, it's clunky, and as a description, it has a bizarre over-emphasis on one individual. . |
What would you suggest?
| QUOTE (Disgustedorite @ Oct 13 2022, 05:12 AM) |
| A question was brought up on discord--what, exactly, is the crank segment in the rocker-crank mechanism? There's no rigid part connecting the heel to the hip. |
That was answered by the diagram description, by the annotations and by my previous post to HethrJarrod:
| QUOTE (Jarlaxle @ Oct 6 2022, 03:50 AM) |
 In the Visorbill, the rocking of the Femur (1A) coupled through the Tibia (1B) pulls & cranks the Grashof muscle loop (1C) building circular momentum at the base of the Metapodial (1D) which translates the circular momentum for flight or hopping. That means the energy comes from the rocker (the thigh rocking back and forth) to the crank to build circular momentum. Even if for some reason you wanted to reverse it, you wouldn't be able to, because it's a boneless crank, it can only be pulled and stretched, it can't push. |
| QUOTE (Disgustedorite @ Oct 13 2022, 05:12 AM) |
| EDIT: It was also pointed out that rabbits and kangaroos, which you based this on, store energy in their elastic Achilles tendon to bounce after hitting the ground, rather than using a mechanism like what you described. |
I am describing how the muscle structure translates the rocking motion of the femur to circular momentum, the Achilles tendon restores the momentum that would otherwise be lost to contact with the ground. That doesn't contradict.
| QUOTE (Coolsteph @ Oct 12 2022, 05:52 AM) |
| I'm just making a quick check after having been summoned. While the new coloration doesn't quite look like feathers, it at least looks like something natural. While I believe it would be better if it had some faint lines going down its body to suggest feathers, this is already sufficient for accuracy. |
You mean something more like this:
Going by other depictions that use the cartoon standard cloud feather patterns, this might work better. I feel it clashes less with the toon style.
| QUOTE (Coolsteph @ Oct 12 2022, 05:52 AM) |
You still need to remove the A166 on the tail, though, unless you want to make that a colorful display structure. It's improbable, but there is a moth whose patterns look just like a Hebrew character (letter), so it's theoretically acceptable. If so, you'll need to put the actual A166 elsewhere. |
That actually is my first language so I had to look it up and yep that's a moth with a נ
That's not the case here though, at least not species wide. They all have random identification marks on their tails (and eggs), which is explained in the text and the diagrams. This ones happens to look like A166. The other individuals depicted here happen to have markings that might conjure a certain yellow family. I think we can chalk up such unlikely coincidences to Rorschach working in mysterious ways.
At this point Imo the problem is not expressing the iridescence but doing it without creating the smooth feeling people were complaining about (@Coolsteph comparison to metal or @TheBigDeepCheatsy comparisons to dolphin leather).
| QUOTE (Disgustedorite @ Oct 11 2022, 03:29 AM) |
| Still looks white. Iridescence won't generally look quite that much brighter than the base color. |
The blue is supposed to be the dominant refraction, the white and light turquoise is supposed to be refracted where the iridescence breaks down at the edge of the feather.
I.e.the body plumage of a blue jay
(Not the black edged primaries)
| QUOTE (Disgustedorite @ Oct 11 2022, 01:00 AM) |
| I'd have colored the gloss. That's how I've represented iridescence in species before. |
I'll have a look. What species?
Another possible solution:
The problem is 3 fold:
1. The adult feathers need to convey glossy refracting structural coloring.
2. The feathers should be recognizable as such and not be misinterpreted as leathery dolphin skin or metal or plastic.
3. The solution needs to be in line with the current art style.
The current OP state solves 1 and 3 but creates misinterpretations of 2.
Removing the gloss solves 2 and 3 but not 1.
Individualized feathers can solve 1 and 2 but come into conflict with the cartoony cloud feather pattern.
I've played around with creating a pattern from the gloss but it makes the plumage look way too thick, these are meant to be light wings, it is already erring on the thick side.
...So relying on some feathers to "break formation" to show that the covering is made of feathers is all I have.
The spiracle count question makes me wonder if unidirectional respiration should come with unidirectional sneezing. Perhaps it would be farting phlegm out of its back spiracles. I suppose that's as good of a reaction mass as anything else.
Regarding the integration of A166 (among other things) into the content of the submission... Imagine the poor sagan survey teams that had to try millions of visorbills until they found one that matched, or waited for the right weather to take a picture of the rockruiser, or found the right rock formation under the bobbysoxer. I hope we do not need to undo their efforts.
I would like advice on the description. I know it's the dryest of my descriptions and reads almost like an instruction manual for making visorbills. Which I suppose it is. But does it still work? Is it engaging enough for people to read through it?
Also, while I am using Grammarly now, English is still not my first language and there can be things I've missed.
The problem is 3 fold:
1. The adult feathers need to convey glossy refracting structural coloring.
2. The feathers should be recognizable as such and not be misinterpreted as leathery dolphin skin or metal or plastic.
3. The solution needs to be in line with the current art style.
The current OP state solves 1 and 3 but creates misinterpretations of 2.
Removing the gloss solves 2 and 3 but not 1.
Individualized feathers can solve 1 and 2 but come into conflict with the cartoony cloud feather pattern.
I've played around with creating a pattern from the gloss but it makes the plumage look way too thick, these are meant to be light wings, it is already erring on the thick side.
...So relying on some feathers to "break formation" to show that the covering is made of feathers is all I have.
The spiracle count question makes me wonder if unidirectional respiration should come with unidirectional sneezing. Perhaps it would be farting phlegm out of its back spiracles. I suppose that's as good of a reaction mass as anything else.
Regarding the integration of A166 (among other things) into the content of the submission... Imagine the poor sagan survey teams that had to try millions of visorbills until they found one that matched, or waited for the right weather to take a picture of the rockruiser, or found the right rock formation under the bobbysoxer. I hope we do not need to undo their efforts.
I would like advice on the description. I know it's the dryest of my descriptions and reads almost like an instruction manual for making visorbills. Which I suppose it is. But does it still work? Is it engaging enough for people to read through it?
Also, while I am using Grammarly now, English is still not my first language and there can be things I've missed.
| QUOTE (Coolsteph @ Oct 9 2022, 11:36 PM) |
| Although its lineage has feathers, this doesn't seem to have feathers at all. It looks too shiny and smooth, almost like it's made of shiny plastic or metal. I recommend toning down how well-defined and bright the highlights are. |
Hmm you are not the first to say that. How about this?
Added annotations, a bit of a mess but hopefully it will make the diagram more readable rather then less.
| QUOTE (HethrJarrod @ Sep 30 2022, 04:17 PM) |
 The circle would have to be much closer to the chest to work, imo Otherwise it’s more like an insect’s flying than a bird’s flying |
Kinetic sculptures are awesome
This one works with the same mechanism as the one in your gif but doesn't cover the center, which lets us see the main advantage of aligning the cranks with the center gear shaft in a clockwork system - by aligning the cranks with the central gear you are shortening the path from the rotor, which is the source of the kinetic energy.
The problem with muscles is that unlike gears they need to be attached on both ends. If a series of random mutations caused muscles to try to spin a body part on its axis, all of those would be torn apart, along with blood vessels, nerve tissue, etc. This is why using our current biology, we do not place the rotor as the source of the kinetic energy in a system. Instead, we create circular momentum by turning the body part, I.E. To "spin" your arms in circles, your humerus doesn't spin on its axis, instead, it is turning the direction of your arm to create circular momentum at the edge of your humerus.
In the Visorbill, the rocking of the Femur (1A) coupled through the Tibia (1B) pulls & cranks the Grashof muscle loop (1C) building circular momentum at the base of the Metapodial (1D) which translates the circular momentum for flight or hopping.
That means the energy comes from the rocker (the thigh rocking back and forth) to the crank to build circular momentum. Even if for some reason you wanted to reverse it, you wouldn't be able to, because it's a boneless crank, it can only be pulled and stretched, it can't push.
That's said, your main suggestion isn't wrong: While it currently would be quite the contortion, and the current location places the circular momentum at the same relative distance from the torso as that of a swift, there are many advantages to holding the mechanism closer to the main body, in reducing drag and in handling larger weights or longer limbs, and that is one of the directions I am hoping to take some of its future descendants.
I've added annotation and image descriptions to the diagrams, hopefully these will clear everything up and better explain the mechanics involved.
New art based on the feedback:
- Fixed proportions
- Added internal shell view
- Added detailed camouflage feather pattern
Update:
- fixed toe
- did some more texture work
Camouflage concept:
- Fixed proportions
- Added internal shell view
- Added detailed camouflage feather pattern
Update:
- fixed toe
- did some more texture work
Camouflage concept:
Click to expand
Wrong timeline, but this is a good example of a potential precursor to something like the Windcatcher Plyent:
https://sagan4.miraheze.org/wiki/Palmcap
https://sagan4.miraheze.org/wiki/Palmcap
scavenged a bit of the imagery from the poem, I think this description should do.
| QUOTE (Disgustedorite @ Sep 27 2022, 04:04 AM) |
| There's also a tree genus in the Wallace-Koseman area that this species could feed on the berries of. |
of gen 166, if all approved, I'd add these to their visorbill diet:
Sweetworms
Uniwingworms
Ferries (Berries)
Minibees
Dragonworms
Leepi Meepi
Flesh Fairy
Mudfish
You could also add the Visorbill to Tyranical Corvisnapper diet.
| QUOTE (Disgustedorite @ Sep 27 2022, 04:04 AM) |
| Oh, that reminds me. Have you seen other recent developments in the flying sauceback department? Particularly-- arboreal "quails" that use their tail spurs for stability in trees and have better eyesight and ophreys that are getting a little better at stability and climbing |
The Ferry Quail composite eye is an interesting development. Wouldnt each eye see quite a bit more then the components of composite eyes in insects? And the Wallyhawk's climbing method... Now that's a hook in itself, no pun intended. I am guessing there's a multi generational plan for their anatomy going on there?
The shared habitat and arboreal nesting... I wonder if a Ferry Quail larva with a colorful hind and large grey spots on its back could convince a visborbill parent to feed it.
| QUOTE (TheBigDeepCheatsy @ Sep 27 2022, 08:53 AM) |
| Got off work, for a name, how about "Mareenix" (Mariner + Nixie)? |
No worries that was about the previous name (Amberdepp). I think Nixie (German water spirits) works fine, and is short enough to add things in the future (Tree Nixie, Borrowing Nixie, Orange spotted Nixie).
| QUOTE (TheBigDeepCheatsy @ Sep 27 2022, 08:53 AM) |
| Also, this description, while amusingly colorful, should be made to match closer everyone else's so it can be perfectly clear what differences there are... With THAT said, you can keep the original as a bonus. |
I've updated the description in a way that I think works for the standard intro but still incorporates the body scan method to describe the internal physiological differences, and abandons the 2nd person. Hopefully that works.
| QUOTE (Coolsteph @ Sep 27 2022, 12:02 AM) |
| The 3 ranges and 3 flavors should be pointed out elsewhere, not in the habitat listing. |
To clarify, everything between curly brackets {} in any of my submissions, like the explanation for the genus names, the placement in sagan's habitat system or comments regarding size rules, is for the convenience of the submission only, and maybe for posterity in the Compendium, but not for the actual wiki entry.
Regarding the art style, I understand where you are coming from but I think of it as one of the same design language, simply using softer curves to convey vulnerability of the juveniles and hard lines to convey the hardened muscular brutishness of the adult. You'd have similar differences if you drew a human baby next to an athletic adult.
Regarding the poem, I would like keeping some of it but I am not that attached to it - it was fun making it to the tune of Les Misérables Master of The House - but I am more interested in how it feels to the reader and whether it conveys a strong mental image of the creature. Would you be able to evolve something from it using only the information in the poem?
View Desktop Version | Disable Images in Posts
Powered by Invision Power Board (Jcink) © 2023 IPS, Inc.
Powered by Invision Power Board (Jcink) © 2023 IPS, Inc.