Looks pretty good!

I didn't notice anything wrong with the animations until I read the other posts. The jumping one seems similar to something I've seen before and if it's a jump to attack someone I think it looks fine. The running one looks like a very strange way to run though, would get sore after a while ;)

Keep up the good work.

Thanks for the feedback, Prof. I appreciate the specific things you had to say. If you think this one is bad, you should have seen my earlier work! I am definitely still practicing, and it's helpful to know what to practice.

I do have a basic understanding of anatomy as it applies to humans, though I'm definitely not as strong on other body types. I don't have much practice in applying that understanding, though. I do wonder though - is there anything specific that says that you can't have curved bones (not counting things like the ribcage, which isn't actuated)? They'd be less efficient, sure - some of your muscles would have to pull "against the curve", so to speak - but you could still use them at least. I curved his arms because they needed to match the curve on his arm blades, and the arm blades are curved just because they look better that way.

There are arguments both ways for whether it's okay to bend the rules before you have a strong grasp of them, but ultimately I'm going to model the subjects I want to model, and they don't always fully intersect with the subjects that would do me the most good to model. Eh; I figure as long as I'm getting practice and am actively trying to improve, I'll do OK.

I don't really concern myself with working towards a specific goal for the most part. I do have game ideas, and some of my 3D projects could go into those games, but they're all 2D, so I'd be rendering to sprites anyway; not much point in worrying about poly counts there (though the quality of the mesh itself is still important).

Karnot: An example of what you're talking about?

The laws of physics apply throughout the universe, and the evolution of life is not random. If you think about characters from a design perspective, and not just from "hey let's do something the opposite of whatever zoological traits have been present for the history of this planet because it'll be different", you will come back to a few distinctive traits, which are really all that is needed to characterize things as "anatomical" as you are saying. Legs are great for locomotion. Eyes will be located high up for seeing. Vital organs will be located mostly in a central core for protection and regulation. Organisms will need to be equipped for at least one of sight, smell, or sound, which means they'll have ears, nostrils, and/or eyes, which function similar to what we know (ears funnel noise, nostrils are air inlets, and eyes let in light). You can't get away from these things when we design, nor should we simply for the sake of it. Furthermore, it is absolutely essential to understand (more than understand but to be flawless with) proper anatomy so that you can understand how to create 'new' anatomy if you truly want to create such alien creatures as you desire.

Derakon: Like I said, its a pretty typical model as an early attempt.
Regarding curved bones, why would this demon have them on his arms? To match the arm spike? Maybe its time to rethink the arm spike, instead of the forearm shape. If you need to break your anatomy, or do something for the hell of it, something is wrong with your design anatomically or conceptually.

"There are arguments both ways for whether it's okay to bend the rules before you have a strong grasp of them"
No, there's no argument the other way, really. If there is, it likely comes from those without proper understanding or those who have proper understanding and are out of touch with practicality and reality. In order to bend the rules, you need to know the rules, there's no real question about it. Many times you end up getting stuck in one style which you cannot progress in or change from because you lack proper understanding and education.

As far as polycount goes, I'm not really concerned about that; but a good model is a good model regardless, it needs to have proper topology, and deform correctly. If you want to learn that, you have to follow tutorials and spend some time learning instead of modeling 'what you want to model.' Otherwise, you are stunting your improvement and education and not spending your time well.

The argument against basically comes down to practice and motivation being just as important as a solid understanding of principles. It does you no good to spend time studying if the process of doing all that studying makes you weary of the entire subject. Certainly, it would be more efficient for me to study first and model second. But I want to model. I don't want to study. I'm learning by doing.

In this particular case, what I am interested in doing here, first and foremost, is modeling something that I find interesting, and then trying to animate that thing. After I have finished a project, I examine it, find flaws, and endeavour to fix those flaws the next time around. My first animated project had terrible mesh flaws, for example. My second had a better mesh, which meant that I noticed how aesthetically ugly it was. My third looked halfway decent, but the armature was too crude to allow for detailed animating. The fourth has brought to light how important good anatomy is to making believable creatures. I'm skipping a few steps along the way, sure, but you get the idea.

There is of course the potential pitfall that I will get locked into making mistakes that I don't even realize I'm making, but I like to think that I'm sufficiently flexible of mind to avoid that, assuming I either notice the mistakes after the fact or have them pointed out to me by others. This is, naturally, why I ask for critiques on every project I finish. I happened to like this one stylistically enough to think it was worth posting here, and I suppose if nothing else we're getting a conversation about methods of self-improvement out of it. I'm also doing somewhat to avoid "lock-in" by trying to make each project significantly different from the previous. This makes it difficult to discover and abuse harmful shortcuts.

As far as the arm spikes are concerned, I'm well aware of the problems imposed by the curved blades and what they do to the forearms. This was a stylistic decision. You may disagree with me as to whether or not it was a good decision, but as it was made knowingly, I don't think it can reasonably be called out as an anatomical problem; just as a stylistic one.

Quote: Karnot: An example of what you're talking about?

The laws of physics apply throughout the universe, and the evolution of life is not random. If you think about characters from a design perspective, and not just from "hey let's do something the opposite of whatever zoological traits have been present for the history of this planet because it'll be different", you will come back to a few distinctive traits, which are really all that is needed to characterize things as "anatomical" as you are saying.

I gave the example above.

This is just what i was talking about. It seems that you, my friend, is stuck on anatomy.

To be fair, Karnot, he definitely has a point. You really should have justifiable creature designs. That's not to say that you should feel constrained by terrestrial physiologies (though there's plenty of really bizarre critters that still qualify as "terrestrial"), but whatever system you come up with should be internally consistent. Now, this doesn't mean that your method of representing these creatures can't be distorted in the name of style; however, if rendered "accurately", the creature should be believable. And it's also definitely true that you're gonna have trouble coming up with an internally-consistent way for your critters to work that isn't basically like terrestrial physiologies - you're familiar with terrestrial physiologies! And short of getting a biology degree, it's difficult to understand something as complicated as even an insect's body, which makes knowing what makes for a plausible body design a lot harder if you aren't going to use existing examples.

It's a bit like having magic in your game universe - you can either have magic that serves as a convenient plot device (it can do anything you think of with the right incantation), or you can have magic that obeys rules and is internally consistent. Typically the latter is a lot more capable of causing suspension of disbelief.

About all I can fault the Prof for is bluntness, and enh; I'd rather blunt honesty than polite lies any day of the week.

I agree that he has a point, never said he didnt. I also like the anatomy quite alot, its incredibly beautiful, when you get down to it, how all those systems work in unison, how muscles overlap each other, contract and fold, how fat is placed in just the right spots, and so on. However i've seen many folks who just cant let go of it, they are like anatomy-Nazi or something (yeah, so i watched Seinfeld recently).

Quote: Original post by Karnot

Quote: Karnot: An example of what you're talking about?

The laws of physics apply throughout the universe, and the evolution of life is not random. If you think about characters from a design perspective, and not just from "hey let's do something the opposite of whatever zoological traits have been present for the history of this planet because it'll be different", you will come back to a few distinctive traits, which are really all that is needed to characterize things as "anatomical" as you are saying.

I gave the example above.

This is just what i was talking about. It seems that you, my friend, is stuck on anatomy.

well, the main argument is whether or not the creature is believable. for a second lets just throw anatomy out the window and focus on physics.
you have muscle, which connects to a bone and another bone... now how many different ways can this muscle be used in the setup? 2 ways, either to help with moving vertically or horizontally by contracting or easing (while another contracts). this is similar to how our tricep and bicep act together, the two muscles attached to two different bones will contract while the other eases (depending on the motion).
what we now have is anatomy!
point being, the believable anatomy of a creature revolves mainly around the laws of physics. so unless you get all extreme sci-fi-y then you will more than likely follow the conventions of anatomy found here on earth, as we follow the same laws of physics as other planets (for the most part).
"That may be so, but those muscles dont have to attach the same way human muscles do, the ribcage may be not present at all, the organs may be at different places than human organs are."
exactly! funny thing is, you seem to understand but still argue against anatomical correctness. sure the muscles could attach differently, but they're still limited to different ways in which its functionality follows the laws of physics, in otherwards anatomy.
sure, there are lots of different creatures even on earth who don't have ribcages... but they still are anatomically correct.
sure, lots of different species have their organs in different areas, and some even have an extra organ or two humans don't have... but once again they're still anatomically correct.
basically i am at a loss as to what you point is...