HOME | DD
sunshadow5151 — Triceratops tank for Battletech - final copy
by-nc-nd
Published: 2012-01-06 02:40:45 +0000 UTC; Views: 1950; Favourites: 23; Downloads: 19
Redirect to original
Description
Okay, here we are!This is the final art for the Triceratops urban assault tank. As I said, this was designed for a guy on the Battletech Mercenaries site. This beastie is a powerful close-range brawler, with twin Rotary Autocannon/5s on the treads, a Rotary Autocannon/2 in the hull mount, and a quartet of Extended Range Medium Lasers in the turret. A pair of machine guns are mounted in the turret, two more protect the flanks, and a flamer defends the vehicle's rear.
Overall, this was a fun project. I still have a commision from the same person for an attack helicopter, so more can be expected in the future. I am also currently debating opening myself up for very limited commissions, though I would like to know if people would like that before offering it.
Related content
Comments: 6
I agree that I should have used a ruler, and there are several perspective issues. My strong point has always been 2D blueprint art, so I'm not the best at 3D drawings. I have a ton of books on military equipment, most of which I acquired for about a dollar per book during library booksales, some of which easily weigh ten pounds on their own.
As for the placement of the weapons, I didn't design this. It was a commission from someone on a Battletech forum, so I just drew something that meshed with his design's statistics. My next art pieces will be for my own designs, which will hopefully be more sensible, and hopefully better quality.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
This needs to be stretched out by at least 50%.
Take another look at those RAC/5s - there isn't any room to mount them where you've stuck the barrels, as the blind area behind the barrels is already occupied by the upper track and suspension!
The RAC/2 is covered by a flexible mantlet - fine, but the arc of fire implies a lot more room inside for the breech and loading mechanism than is suggested by the machine in its current incarnation.
Finally, this tank has a very high silhouette, along the lines of the M3 Grant or Lee from WWII. Those tanks were tall because they used radial aircraft engines for powerplants. They were easy to see and easy to hit.
Also like the Grant, this tank is asymmetrical, though with the Grant it was because they did not have a turret that could mount the 75mm gun. They chose a sponson instead - the tank worked well but was easily spotted from a long way off and with its slab sides, pretty easy to punch through. I am not sure why you chose this layout for this tank.
The art itself could benefit from a ruler and you need to work on maintaining proper perspective when doing a multi-faceted design like this one. I have rejected pieces like this because they seem to be facing two or more directions at once. Not a good thing.
Have you studied tanks much? Might want to step down to the library or a Barnes and Noble and pick up an illustrated guide on the cheap. It will go a long way towards preventing some basic errors and give you some nifty ideas besides.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
well thats a funded critique.....
but i disagree on the ruler part, i like the style. and cant find any misperspectives on it except maybe the turret and the chains (?).
say do you have recommendations on cheap and good books about tank design (and maybe helicopter, aircraft and robot design( i mean the realistic kind) )?
thatd be great
cheers
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Look at the lines. They're wavy. Go ahead, zoom in and have a look. The whole image suffers from it. A ruler would do the trick. One of my artists, Karl Olson, had the same issues. He began using a ruler and now he swears by it. It adds crispness to the details and makes the whole thing look a lot more professional.
Go to Barnes and Noble, look in their Bargain aisles. There are ALWAYS books on tanks for under 15 bucks, done by professionals. Same for other military weapons, though I cannot vouch for the robots, as the real ones look nothing like you'd expect.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Odd, why not put the main firepower in the turret?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Fighting tonnage limits, I'm guessing.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0