HOME | DD

Published: 2010-01-18 19:24:28 +0000 UTC; Views: 2899; Favourites: 51; Downloads: 20
Redirect to original
Description
Another Venusian animal, this one from Heinlein, and quite a bit more alien. My idea is it is a distant relative of the tongzan [link] and V-frog [link] but only as close as amphibians are to mammals. In the dragon's lineage, the six "petals" that formed the mouth did not fuse into upper and lower jaws, but into a big hollow cone, with only the gap between the lower two petals left open. Through this gap protrude extensions of the tongue, which the dragon uses for sensation and manipulation (maybe they also excrete digestive enzymes)I tried taking M0AI's advice and color-dodging the shadow layers of this one.
What do you all think?
Here's the oringial description
Dragon (Heinlein): Beside the queue was sprawled the big, ungainly saurian form of a Venerian "dragon." The dragon swiveled one fluttering eyestalk in his direction. Strapped to the "chest" of the creature, between its forelegs and immediately below and in reach of its handling tendrils, was a small box, a voder. The tendrils writhed over the keys and the Venerian answered him, via mechanical voder speech, rather than by whistling in his own language. The dragon reared up on six sturdy legs and climbed aboard. He moved over to the dragon's chin, braced his feet against the deck plates and shoved, thus exposing the Venerian's nostril plate, which was located under the creature's head in the folds of his neck. Granted that Draco Veneris Wilsonii is a civilized race, to stick one's head and shoulders between those rows of teeth seemed to be inviting a breach in foreign relations.
Another passage: Don knew that she was young as her rear pair of eyestalks were still buds; she could not have been more than a Venus century old. He stared at Sir Isaac and eight blank, oscillating eyes looked back at him.
Done while listening to: Temporal Void (yuck!) Destroyer of Worlds (meh)
Related content
Comments: 12
bensen-daniel In reply to Zippo4k [2010-01-21 19:31:29 +0000 UTC]
thank you I also thank thomatapir for sending me your way with his comment
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Azes13 [2010-01-19 15:14:14 +0000 UTC]
The position of the "head" sort of makes it look like it's a fleshy lump with eyes on the tip and hair underneath, instead of a tube with eyes around the edge and tendril around the gap on the bottom. You might want to reposition the opening a bit.
At least, I assume the second description is supposed to be what it looks like. Otherwise, just ignore me. Ignore me completely.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
bensen-daniel In reply to Azes13 [2010-01-20 18:52:28 +0000 UTC]
I see what you mean and you are exactly right! I need to change the head position and lighting to make it clearer that it is a hollow cone.
Thanks a lot for bringing this to my attention. _I_ know what it looks like, so it didn't occur to me until you mentioned it that I left the shape ambiguous. Thanks.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
nemo-ramjet [2010-01-19 10:52:45 +0000 UTC]
Great design - the thing somehow looks like it would be more at home in a higher-gravity world like Hal Clement's Mesklin.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
bensen-daniel In reply to nemo-ramjet [2010-01-20 18:54:17 +0000 UTC]
Well, I was thinking "elephant" when I made it. It's hard to tell, but my assumption is that these things are elephant-sized. So it seems I communicated "massive" but not "big." How can I suggest size more effectively?
I love how Clement's planet is named after hallucinogenic mushrooms.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
whalewithlegs [2010-01-19 08:22:15 +0000 UTC]
I love the baleen-like tendrils & also the legs! The body & the neck look really good, very smooth & muscled, and the eyes appear quite alien. perhaps the only thing I'm not super-fond of are the toes themselves. Maybe if you played up the overlapping plates on them?
As it goes, 2 questions:
a) 8 eyes? where would the last 2 occur?
b) how did you color-dodge the shadows? it looks terribly good & I have no idea what you did to get there, toolwise
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
bensen-daniel In reply to whalewithlegs [2010-01-20 18:57:13 +0000 UTC]
Yeah, the eyes are a problem. A big problem. I conveniently forgot about them as I designed this animal, but you're right, they don't work. And how the hell would new eyes develop as the animal aged?
I thought about it, and came up with something pretty horrifying: [link]
Color-dodging:
In photoshop, there's a drop-down menu in the Layers tab that by default says "normal" but you can change it. Color doge makes colors under it darker. Color burn makes them lighter. There are other toys. I should look up a tutorial about them.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Sphenacodon [2010-01-18 22:19:07 +0000 UTC]
First time I hear of this one, so no preconceptions. Again, it looks great; the upper body in particular looks nice and blubbery. The legs in the back could maybe be shaded a bit more. The nudibranchy look is pretty.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
bensen-daniel In reply to Sphenacodon [2010-01-19 05:58:36 +0000 UTC]
Thanks. By legs in the back, you mean the ones far away from the viewer, right? I didn't shade them at all, but I should.
thanks
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Sphenacodon In reply to bensen-daniel [2010-01-19 18:20:59 +0000 UTC]
Yup, that's what I meant.
welcome
👍: 0 ⏩: 0