Saurian (Game Project)

[Patrx]

It's a very well-supported set of hypotheses! And, although aesthetics are comparatively unimportant in this field, I think it works well on that level as well.

[stargatedalek]

While it makes sense that if anywhere were bare (sans the feet) it would be the large caudofemoralis muscles at the base of the tail (it would make for great heat regulation) I must say I'm pretty annoyed that it's become such a staple in paleoart. There's nothing wrong with it, but I just can't help feeling it's being horrible overused when nearly every Tyrannosaur reconstruction now seems to have a bare tail.

Don't forget the only Tyrannosaurids with absolute certainty regarding where they were feathered had fully feathered tails. It seems silly to look to distant relatives like Juravenator and Concavenator (let alone Kulindadromeus, which had an entirely different structure of integument) before looking to closer relatives like Yutyrannus and Guanlong.

[spinosaurus1]

To my eye it doesn't work; the contrast between long luscious feathers and then instantly bare, smooth skin looks very unnatural, as though someone starting shaving it from the tail down and hasn't finished. If there is reason to leave the tail mostly bare it would seem more likely there would at least be transitionally lighter feathering as it went along, rather than what looks like a reptile wearing a fur body-warmer. Actually, it looks quite like a rat now I'm thinking about it. I'd much rather see either a fully feathered rex or an unfeathered one, but then what do I know?

well, we all have our opinions. it really doesn't bother me at all aesthetically speaking, but sometimes nature doesn't care what would be aesthetic of a body design for a person to look at. its can still be regarded to as a plausible look for the animals that serves a purpose and thats all that should really matter for a scientifically accurate prehistoric game. but then again, i don't want to make a debate out of this as i truly believe this is only in the matter of how one looks at the design.

i also want to bring up that modern birds don't really show light transitions from feathers to scales either. just looking at a few photos of ostriches show many abrupt endings of feathers transitioning to scales and bare shin around the legs and the entire portion of skin around the cloaca.

[Patrx]

There's nothing wrong with it, but I just can't help feeling it's being horrible overused when nearly every Tyrannosaur reconstruction now seems to have a bare tail.

Has it? I must be missing this trend.

[Silvanusaurus]

I still don't feel like I understand the explanation for the lack of feathers on the tail, as far as I can see, that diagram doesnt actually adress it directly. The fact of the scaled skin sample from the underside of the tail doesn't suggest, as far as I can tell, that the entirety of the tail would either be completely unfeathered as opposed to the body, or that the entire animal wouldnt be similarly unfeathered, or even that there weren't feathers in that area anyway that just havent been preserved. Could someone explain in as simple a manner as possible why the feathering would be thick on the body and completely absent on the tail? I'm not trying to dispute it or undermine it, as I don't really have any depth of knowledge on the situation, so I'm just seeking education on the reasoning of it, as whether it's naturally plausible or not, it does strike me as peculiar (particularly considering related fully feathered species like Yutyrannus don't exhibit this trait, as far as I've seen).

[stargatedalek]

I still don't feel like I understand the explanation for the lack of feathers on the tail, as far as I can see, that diagram doesnt actually adress it directly. The fact of the scaled skin sample from the underside of the tail doesn't suggest, as far as I can tell, that the entirety of the tail would either be completely unfeathered as opposed to the body, or that the entire animal wouldnt be similarly unfeathered, or even that there weren't feathers in that area anyway that just havent been preserved. Could someone explain in as simple a manner as possible why the feathering would be thick on the body and completely absent on the tail? I'm not trying to dispute it or undermine it, as I don't really have any depth of knowledge on the situation, so I'm just seeking education on the reasoning of it, as whether it's naturally plausible or not, it does strike me as peculiar (particularly considering related fully feathered species like Yutyrannus don't exhibit this trait, as far as I've seen).

Just that the tail is a huge mass of muscle and being bare would help to minimize it heating up the animal. There is no particularly strong evidence for or against feathers on the tail.

[Silvanusaurus]

Fair enough.

[Shadowknight1]

I'd love to back this, but with no guarantees of a console release, I honestly can't say I'm comfortable sinking money into something I'll never taste the fruits of.  And that console port goal is a long way off.

[stargatedalek]

I'd love to back this, but with no guarantees of a console release, I honestly can't say I'm comfortable sinking money into something I'll never taste the fruits of.  And that console port goal is a long way off.

You just need a Steam console man
Hardware stability of a console (almost) with the variety and pricing of a PC.

[HD-man]

What's the reasoning behind having the T rex's feathers stopping abruptly to leave a bare tail? It looks really awkward.

1stly, the tail is scaly, not bare.

2ndly, b/c that's where T.rex scales are definitely known ("During preparation, several patches of skin...were found with the skeleton. Most of the skin patches...were found on the bottom side of the articulated tail": https://books.google.com/books?id=5WH9RnfKco4C&pg=PA47&dq=%22several+patches+of+skin%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi5xbWjjoPNAhXGlR4KHT-yApoQ6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&q=%22several%20patches%20of%20skin%22&f=false ). Personally, I think a more sparsely feathered adult T.rex like in Why Did T. rex Have Short Arms?: And Other Questions about Dinosaurs ( http://www.amazon.com/Why-Did-Have-Short-Arms/dp/1454906782 ) or T. rex Autopsy ( http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/t-rex-autopsy/ ) would be more plausible, but I digress

[stargatedalek]

What's the reasoning behind having the T rex's feathers stopping abruptly to leave a bare tail? It looks really awkward.

1stly, the tail is scaly, not bare.

2ndly, b/c that's where T.rex scales are definitely known ("During preparation, several patches of skin...were found with the skeleton. Most of the skin patches...were found on the bottom side of the articulated tail": https://books.google.com/books?id=5WH9RnfKco4C&pg=PA47&dq=%22several+patches+of+skin%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi5xbWjjoPNAhXGlR4KHT-yApoQ6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&q=%22several%20patches%20of%20skin%22&f=false ). Personally, I think a more sparsely proto-feathered adult T.rex like in Why Did T. rex Have Short Arms?: And Other Questions about Dinosaurs ( http://www.amazon.com/Why-Did-Have-Short-Arms/dp/1454906782 ) or T. rex Autopsy ( http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/t-rex-autopsy/ ) would be more plausible, but I digress

Actually it is bare, the very passages you quoted are evidence of such.

The problem with "proto-feathers" is that they clash with known materials from more primitive Tyrannosaurids. The feathering patterns may change, but it's unrealistic to suggest that the feathers themselves would deteriorate in structure and become more primitive when there is no evolutionary benefit in doing so. Such reconstructions and other attempts at creating a "trade-off" between old and new reconstructions can actually impede scientific knowledge from reaching the public and place nostalgia above evidence. For another example look at the crazy ideas people (including myself) presented to try and preserve the bipedal Spinosaurus, everything from huge counterbalance weights on the tail to leaning backwards like Gojira, all fighting against the overwhelming evidence to find a middle ground between old and new interpretations.

[HD-man]

Actually it is bare, the very passages you quoted are evidence of such.

The problem with "proto-feathers" is that they clash with known materials from more primitive Tyrannosaurids. The feathering patterns may change, but it's unrealistic to suggest that the feathers themselves would deteriorate in structure and become more primitive when there is no evolutionary benefit in doing so. Such reconstructions and other attempts at creating a "trade-off" between old and new reconstructions can actually impede scientific knowledge from reaching the public and place nostalgia above evidence. For another example look at the crazy ideas people (including myself) presented to try and preserve the bipedal Spinosaurus, everything from huge counterbalance weights on the tail to leaning backwards like Gojira, all fighting against the overwhelming evidence to find a middle ground between old and new interpretations.

1stly (in reference to "Actually it is bare"), IDK where you're getting that from. My quoted source does not say that nor should it b/c that's wrong ("The problem I have with this argument...is that it routinely assumes that scales and naked skin are the same thing. Nothing could be further from the truth. Scales are a unique form of integument akin to hair and feathers, nails, and claws": http://reptilis.net/2012/07/23/feathers-on-the-big-feathers-on-the-small-but-feathers-for-dinosaurs-one-and-all/ ).

2ndly (in reference to "proto-feathers"), fair enough. I've since edited my previous post accordingly.

3rdly, we've already been over the Spino stuff. Long story short, we're all still waiting for Ibrahim et al. to actually publish an actual monograph in which they actually back their Spino ideas w/actual evidence. Until then, said ideas should be taken w/grains of salt.

[stargatedalek]

1stly (in reference to "Actually it is bare"), IDK where you're getting that from. My quoted source does not say that nor should it b/c that's wrong ("The problem I have with this argument...is that it routinely assumes that scales and naked skin are the same thing. Nothing could be further from the truth. Scales are a unique form of integument akin to hair and feathers, nails, and claws": http://reptilis.net/2012/07/23/feathers-on-the-big-feathers-on-the-small-but-feathers-for-dinosaurs-one-and-all/ ).

2ndly (in reference to "proto-feathers"), fair enough. I've since edited my previous post accordingly.

3rdly, we've already been over the Spino stuff. Long story short, we're all still waiting for Ibrahim et al. to actually publish an actual monograph in which they actually back their Spino ideas w/actual evidence. Until then, said ideas should be taken w/grains of salt.

Exactly my point, the quotes you highlighted initially mention bare skin and not scales.

I'm not saying protofeathers are impossible, just that such concepts should be viewed as plausible artistic liberty/speculation. Just because something is less likely doesn't make it impossible by any means. My only issue comes from the general attitude of "baby steps is more conservative" (which I'm guilty of myself), it's fine to reconstruct Tyrannosaurs with protofeathers so long as that liberty being taken is recognized

I disagree with the vast majority of Ibrahim et al's assertions, especially their quadrupedal claims (which is far more speculative than bipedal movement). The bones themselves show signs that the muscles for supporting weight were atrophied, it has nothing to do with balance, or the size of the legs, or the neck being extra long, or any of that Sigilmassasaurus material.

I choose it as an example because regardless of how one chooses to interpret the fossils creative workarounds like counterbalance that actively fight against what the fossils are saying is counter-intuitive, regardless of what ends up being correct in the long run.

[Silvanusaurus]

I just want to clarify that in using the word 'bare' I didn't mean bare skin, just a bareness of feathers in particular, I apologise if it was the wrong word to use in this context.

[stargatedalek]

I think the confusion is stemming from "During preparation, several patches of skin [] were found with the skeleton. Most of the skin patches [] were found on the bottom side of the articulated tail" which mentions skin, but somewhere along the line someone thought the other was referring to scales.

[CyborgDino]

Nick Turinetti (the project lead of SAURIAN) did an hour-long interview with the Palaeocast Podcast about SAURIAN. Here's a link, if anyone is interested:
http://www.palaeocast.com/episode-65-saurian/

[stargatedalek]

Only $200 until the new playable species are unlocked!

[Flaffy]

And the new playable dinosaurs are unlocked! 

[CyborgDino]

The multiplayer stretch goal was reached!

[Brontozaurus]

I'm hoping that the multiplayer will be like Journey in restricting player communication to in-game sounds. Text and voice chat would really break the immersion.