Sagan 4 Forum [Menu]

Can we get updated art. its a bit unclear.

Is there a reason the Ophresnapper has exposed teeth? Also i feel like the wings could really use some work, I would recommend looking at the wings of snappers dorite did, as they seem much more anatomically feasible.

This post has been edited by OviraptorFan: Dec 13 2022, 12:12 PM

QUOTE (OviraptorFan @ Dec 13 2022, 08:11 PM)

Is there a reason the Ophresnapper has exposed teeth? Also i feel like the wings could really use some work, I would recommend looking at the wings of snappers dorite did, as they seem much more anatomically feasible.

The ancestors all had the teeth trait, so I kept it. As for the wings, I'm aware of the wings, this is a WIP for the posing before I add in the finer details like fuzz and wing patagium.

QUOTE (MNIDJM @ Dec 15 2022, 02:33 PM)

QUOTE (OviraptorFan @ Dec 13 2022, 08:11 PM) Is there a reason the Ophresnapper has exposed teeth? Also i feel like the wings could really use some work, I would recommend looking at the wings of snappers dorite did, as they seem much more anatomically feasible. The ancestors all had the teeth trait, so I kept it. As for the wings, I'm aware of the wings, this is a WIP for the posing before I add in the finer details like fuzz and wing patagium.

Alright, fair enough about the teeth, but the wings have more things I want to point out. For example, the arms that make up the wings seem to have no real musculature, they just look like cylinders...

QUOTE

Alright, fair enough about the teeth, but the wings have more things I want to point out. For example, the arms that make up the wings seem to have no real musculature, they just look like cylinders...

A quick check suggests some species of bats, such as the southern bent-wing bat, have similar cylindrical arms supporting the wings without obvious musculature.

At some point, we (as a Sagan 4 community) ought to update the "two genders" thing. It's not as if we have the excuse of stringently avoiding certain terms to be maximally "kid-friendly", since reproduction has been described as "sexual" probably since fauna emerged.

Is it even ecologically practical for this to feed exclusively on fauna of a high trophic level, particularly in packs? Chasing its prey for days also doesn't seem practical.

“Young, however”. The comma should be a period.

“Stratogy”: Strategy.

I always just use "Male and Female" avoiding using the inaccurate "gender" and being more specific than saying there's 2 sexes

QUOTE (Coolsteph @ Dec 19 2022, 10:04 PM)

QUOTE Alright, fair enough about the teeth, but the wings have more things I want to point out. For example, the arms that make up the wings seem to have no real musculature, they just look like cylinders... A quick check suggests some species of bats, such as the southern bent-wing bat, have similar cylindrical arms supporting the wings without obvious musculature.

And how big is said bat? If it's really small, that probably the reason why regarding their wing structure. This snapper, meanwhile, has a body length of 3.6 meters, nevermind it's wingspan.

I don't think it's a big deal if someone doesn't draw good muscle definition. We don't require uber-perfect photorealistic art.

QUOTE

And how big is said bat? If it's really small, that probably the reason why regarding their wing structure. This snapper, meanwhile, has a body length of 3.6 meters, nevermind it's wingspan.

QUOTE (Disgustedorite @ Dec 24 2022, 12:19 PM)

I don't think it's a big deal if someone doesn't draw good muscle definition. We don't require uber-perfect photorealistic art.

The bat I mentioned is very small, admittedly. The golden-capped fruit bat is a better example, with a forearm length of 21 cm, although that is also way, way smaller than this organism.

Making a little bicep-bulge on the left side of the arm facing the viewer is a reasonable compromise, as is making a propatagium.

With that kind of wing structure, it looks like it would fly either by straightening its arms out, with its wing membranes behind it with a croissant-like shape, or it would put its claws right in front of it and fly like the Pokemon Garchomp.

I'm reading the description more closely and I don't think they can successfully cause hypoxia in ophreys as a whole. All ophreys have unidirectional macrolungs, which makes them able to fly much higher than this can ever hope to with its comparatively simple bellows lungs. It was this that allowed the ascendophrey to evolve, rather than the ascendophrey gaining new specializations for sky life other than just not landing as much. (Vultoph also flies similarly high to the ascendophrey)

To add on since it got buried on Discord, ophreys can fly comfortably literal miles above where a pack of these guys will start struggling to breathe. This style of lung puts a severe limit on breathable altitude and ophreys are quite literally the worst thing to try hunting by inducing hypoxia.

Non-ophrey biats should be more feasible for them to use this strategy on, but none of those really soar high up like that.

I’m a bit confused on what the anatomical advance ophrey’s lungs are compared to skysnapper’s lungs. They’re both unidirectional since skysnappers have bird lungs but on the discord there was something about ophrey having something similar to intestines?

Skysnappers do not have bird lungs at all, they're practically flying salamanders that got fuzzy and don't have any close analogue among earth reptiles.

Ophreys have lungs that are somewhere between bird lungs and grasshopper lungs and are at least as efficient as bird lungs, if not more so as they don't need to exhale out the same hole they inhaled through. Colddigger was incorrect about them being "intestine-like"; they have air sacs, like birds do, and sufficient frilly structure to maximize oxygen absorption. The unrelated songsauces are the only saucebacks that I'd describe as having intestine-like lungs.

We're on the last page of submissions now. You have one week remaining to finish this wip. @MNIDJM

Berd done