How would you like feathers to be applied to future models?

[spinosaurus1]

the darkness around the eyes is just the cast shadow from the keratinous crest above the orbitals. it's actually lighter around the eyes compared to the surrounding skin and has a tint of pink you look at other photos with different lighting. it's definitely not shrinkwrapping by any sort.

as for the tail, well thats aesthetic in nature with quite a bit of scientific backing and while i don't mind it, it's fine that others won't share the sentiment. regardless though, it's still remains a plausible interpretation.

again, this is all down to opinion. and i personally can't get enough out of the saurian tyrannosaurus design.

[Newt]

I suspect feathered dinosaurs showed about as great a range of variation in the extent, density, length, and texture of their plumage as modern mammals do in their pelage; I think modern birds are less apt as models because they show a lesser range of size and most of them are constrained by their need to use feathers in flight. So any of the reconstructions shown here seem at least plausible for certain species.

That said, I personally find the "A" reconstruction foolish looking, and it seems to me like a desperate attempt to cling to old-style reconstructions as much as possible while still acknowledging the presence of feathers.

[Fenestra]

I'm actually good with all 5 examples given.
As long as I find it artistically valid or beautiful and as long as it looks natural, I don't really favour any of them.
I even like the scruffy number B. T-Rex.
He looks like a mean mountain gorilla.

[Killekor]

C or D.

Predasaurskillekor

[Neosodon]

I suspect feathered dinosaurs showed about as great a range of variation in the extent, density, length, and texture of their plumage as modern mammals do in their pelage; I think modern birds are less apt as models because they show a lesser range of size and most of them are constrained by their need to use feathers in flight. So any of the reconstructions shown here seem at least plausible for certain species.

That said, I personally find the "A" reconstruction foolish looking, and it seems to me like a desperate attempt to cling to old-style reconstructions as much as possible while still acknowledging the presence of feathers.

A was most likely in therapods early in families before feathers were fully evolved. A could have also been on large or any therapods that lived in hot climates.

There is a 65 million year gap between modern birds and dinosaurs so I agree that feather layout on modern birds is not the perfect comparison to how feathers on dinosaurs would look.