I see no issue with having the gen number as a pattern. It's unusual and novel but not against the rules.
| QUOTE (Jarlaxle @ Oct 12 2022, 02:37 AM) |
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. |
That looks a lot better imo
Do excuse my lack of knowledge on the marking: as I might have mentioned before, I haven't had much time lately, so my feedback on submissions has been more cursory than usual.
Regardless, it is still more standard to put the Generation number at an additional spot.
The wavy feather pattern expressed does convey a feathered body better.
Regardless, it is still more standard to put the Generation number at an additional spot.
The wavy feather pattern expressed does convey a feathered body better.
Animals with cartoonish numbers for markings also exist in real life, for some reason. Look at this butterfly, it looks like something made in generation 89:
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.
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.
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.
| 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.
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?
Also, is that mammal-like wrap around the knee necessary for the mechanism? Please remember that sauceback musculature is not the same as mammalian musculature.
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.
This post has been edited by Jarlaxle: Oct 15 2022, 01:22 PM
| 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.
This post has been edited by Jarlaxle: Oct 15 2022, 01:22 PM
The gastrocnemius is in the way of doing that in saucebacks. At the very least it needs a better explanation, though it seriously looks like you mostly or entirely referenced mammal musculature and projected it onto the sauceback skeleton.
Updated the diagram images with the new feather layers.
Updated the anatomy description.
Updated the anatomy description.
This doesn't really address the anatomical issues, 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
| 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
This post has been edited by Jarlaxle: Oct 17 2022, 02:15 PM
The sauceback cloaca should be at the back of the hip segment and certainly not extend past the lung region. I'm not sure why Evo thought otherwise.
I could ask Evo about muscle names.
I could ask Evo about muscle names.
Evo gave me the okay to show these wips.
While this is an ophrey, which has some of its own specializations, the differences from more primitive species are mainly in the tail; the hip and leg/wing anatomy apart from the raised wing toe is common to all 'biats and the oral ring anatomy is common to all descendants of the hearthead.
While this is an ophrey, which has some of its own specializations, the differences from more primitive species are mainly in the tail; the hip and leg/wing anatomy apart from the raised wing toe is common to all 'biats and the oral ring anatomy is common to all descendants of the hearthead.
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.