Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.
We, the systems administration staff, apologize for this unexpected outage of the boards. We have resolved the root cause of the problem and there should be no further disruptions.
Hmmm... I think you're right. How much more do they need, would you say? I can easily turn them and try it. My biggest concern is that if I turn them out too much, he'll start to look more animalistic and less intelligent.
I'd say try 45° and 60°. And bulge they eyes out, like a horse's, only a bit moreso.
And perhaps narrow the upper braincase a bit, so that the peripheral vision limit extends to 135° from forward or so? (IE, a 90° rear)
Both at 45°, with a 120° view angle per eye, and physical blocks at -10° and 135* means a 20° stereo forward vision; at -15, that's a 30° forward stereo... which is more than good enough.
Allright, I'll give that a go and see what it looks like. I just turned the eye socket itself out flush with the surface of the face (which is quite a turn from the previous position) and it still looks pretty good.
The eye is turned out to half way between 45° and 60° from front (indicated by the red zone) and has a more or less 135° view backwards.
I've bulged them out slightly to accomodate this.
Personally I think this is overcooked. I think the eyes are turned out too far and as I feared, he looks too much now like a dumb animal rather than a member of a starfaring race.
I think the eye socket position works but the eyes need to be turned more towards front - maybe 34° to 40° from front. I might be able to push it a bit more towards 45°. I'll have a play with it.
Ah! I think we've been barking up different trees. All I'm talking about is rotating the eyeballs forward, not the actual sockets. The sockets look fine
When in doubt, go back to the little black book ink drawings from the early '80s for reference and ignore anything else that came out later. And do not try to humanize them. They should look and act K'Kree.
Yeah, I was thinking the body is a bit long. I think the legs are too thick and chunky too. The slope at the back I'm not sure about. It does look sloped in both illustrations but it could also be foreshortening. I'm wondering if it's a bit of both. Certainly a slope down at the back would follow through from the stooped front section. I'm discovering that K'Kree aren't like Centaurs atall, they're more sausage shaped.
Out of interest, where else, if anywhere, will I find K'Kree images?
I have Alien Module 2 K'kree and GURPS Alien Races book 2. Was anything else published with K'kree images? Any MT, TNE or T4 supplements or adventures? Challenge articles etc?
Aramis, Why does every thing have to be either OTU or NOT OTU.
Maybe it's just me and the fact that I also do a lot of D&D gaming, but there IS NO OTU! Every GM has s/he's own universe. Damn, all you have to do is look at the spirit of of LBB 1-3.
If you are talking about the K'kree illo on page 61 of MTJ 3, it's an
old Keith brothers Illo. (and not a very good one IMNSHO)
Then Again if you want a couple of good Headshots look at pages 15 and 16 of MTJ 4. (oh gee, they are actually consistent too)
Oh Hell, I am just gonna post the images in the library and let the jury decide.
(sorry if I come off as a pain sometimes, I just get tired of taking my meds sometimes)
EDIT: And now the bitch won't let me upload a stupid image
The front looks good, but I think the body needs to be either longer or heavier in the hips and legs in the rear to allow for proper balance when the K'kree is using it's arms for heavy lifting. And for running. Otherwise the guy looks like he would trip pretty easily. Maybe that's why they seem "sausage shaped" in the pics.