I'm not quite over my backlog, so this is just a quick check.
Putting "A166" on the tail makes it seem lik a natural marking, particularly since "A166" is so stylized.
It's odd that it doesn't have any protective hairs for intake holes so large and numerous. Admittedly, the diversity of parasites and pathogens on Sagan 4 is vastly lower than on Sagan 4, but surely dust and grit would still be an issue.
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.
Putting "A166" on the tail makes it seem lik a natural marking, particularly since "A166" is so stylized.
It's odd that it doesn't have any protective hairs for intake holes so large and numerous. Admittedly, the diversity of parasites and pathogens on Sagan 4 is vastly lower than on Sagan 4, but surely dust and grit would still be an issue.
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.
| 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?
In fairness, well-preened feathers can look very smooth due to subsurface scattering.
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.
This post has been edited by Jarlaxle: Oct 10 2022, 01:49 PM
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.
This post has been edited by Jarlaxle: Oct 10 2022, 01:49 PM
I'd have colored the gloss. That's how I've represented iridescence in species before.
| 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?
Sparkleshrog has red/pink gloss on its brown fur and purple gloss on its blue tail.
Long-Tailed Flunejaw has cyan and purple gloss going on, though I admit it doesn't look great.
The mailclad devorator lineage in Beta has multicolored iridescence.
Snawler has an iridescent tail, made with bands of red, green, and blue.
For a blue creature I'd do either green or purple for the gloss, or maybe a mix of both. I suggest playing with the colors, layer modes, and opacity to see what looks good.
Long-Tailed Flunejaw has cyan and purple gloss going on, though I admit it doesn't look great.
The mailclad devorator lineage in Beta has multicolored iridescence.
Snawler has an iridescent tail, made with bands of red, green, and blue.
For a blue creature I'd do either green or purple for the gloss, or maybe a mix of both. I suggest playing with the colors, layer modes, and opacity to see what looks good.
Still looks white. Iridescence won't generally look quite that much brighter than the base color.
| 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)
This post has been edited by Jarlaxle: Oct 10 2022, 07:58 PM
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).
This post has been edited by Jarlaxle: Oct 11 2022, 09:07 AM
the blue grey replicates the breakdown of iridescence well, I think. I'd add some slight cyan gradients in places to keep it from looking too dusty.
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 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.
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 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.
| 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.
This post has been edited by Jarlaxle: Oct 11 2022, 11:42 PM
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.