tyrannosaurus model incorrect

[MozarteanChaos]

a new paper came out today, supporting the idea of tyrannosaurus rex having lizard-like lips. the lipless look is now both inconsistent with every other dinosaur in the game and scientifically inaccurate

edit: why did you people give me 7 jester awards for this? you do know that's just free points, right? you're aware of this? if i was trolling, this'd be a really bad way to discourage it.

[Tyrannus]

Cool, awesome. The study you are referring to specifically, is literally based on phylogenetic bracketing. And sophisticated guess work. It is both likely and unlikely. Just because a paper comes out saying something doesn't mean its 100% correct. Without direct fossilization of evidence. I am not necessarily against lips. The Prehistoric Kingdom rex is partially lipped.

I like it that way. Its my opinion, additionally the Developers have stated that their design choice is predicated on the idea on making their game sell. Additionally the devs have stated their goal depicting these animals, is that they never claimed to be 100% accurate, creative liberty's will have to be taken.

Additionally the paper might be rendered obsolete in the future . Unless further studies can be published or evidence can be suggested. I am not saying Theropods lacked lips, the argument for lips is persuasive and logical. But the point is just because a new study has been determined doesn't mean the devs have to overhaul their resources on a single model because it isn't based on your liking. The rex is fine as is.

[FoxTrot101]

Originally posted by Tyrannus:

Cool, awesome. The study you are referring to specifically, is literally based on phylogenetic bracketing. And sophisticated guess work. It is both likely and unlikely. Just because a paper comes out saying something doesn't mean its 100% correct. Without direct fossilization of evidence. I am not necessarily against lips. The Prehistoric Kingdom rex is partially lipped.

I like it that way. Its my opinion, additionally the Developers have stated that their design choice is predicated on the idea on making their game sell. Additionally the devs have stated their goal depicting these animals, is that they never claimed to be 100% accurate, creative liberty's will have to be taken.

Additionally the paper might be rendered obsolete in the future . Unless further studies can be published or evidence can be suggested. I am not saying Theropods lacked lips, the argument for lips is persuasive and logical. But the point is just because a new study has been determined doesn't mean the devs have to overhaul their resources on a single model because it isn't based on your liking. The rex is fine as is.

It's hard to take such a post seriously when there's no definitive proof. One of the many things I love about paleontology is that it's always changing as more fossils are discovered. No fossil is going to be one hundred percent accurate, nor does it have to be.

[creatura05]

I mean, technically the PK rex does have lips, they just don't fully cover their teeth. Partial lipping is still way more close to accurate than full lipless.

[Seistiros]

They are always changing because in other way the would have not work and money. The las dinnosaur aspects are like the 1800 ones. They are constantly reciling ideas. And because nobody can have proofs....

[Tyrannus]

Originally posted by FoxTrot101:

Originally posted by Tyrannus:

Cool, awesome. The study you are referring to specifically, is literally based on phylogenetic bracketing. And sophisticated guess work. It is both likely and unlikely. Just because a paper comes out saying something doesn't mean its 100% correct. Without direct fossilization of evidence. I am not necessarily against lips. The Prehistoric Kingdom rex is partially lipped.

I like it that way. Its my opinion, additionally the Developers have stated that their design choice is predicated on the idea on making their game sell. Additionally the devs have stated their goal depicting these animals, is that they never claimed to be 100% accurate, creative liberty's will have to be taken.

Additionally the paper might be rendered obsolete in the future . Unless further studies can be published or evidence can be suggested. I am not saying Theropods lacked lips, the argument for lips is persuasive and logical. But the point is just because a new study has been determined doesn't mean the devs have to overhaul their resources on a single model because it isn't based on your liking. The rex is fine as is.

It's hard to take such a post seriously when there's no definitive proof. One of the many things I love about paleontology is that it's always changing as more fossils are discovered. No fossil is going to be one hundred percent accurate, nor does it have to be.

I love the "always changing" aspect of the science. Well that is actually the entirety of the science I just find OPs post silly.

[MozarteanChaos]

Originally posted by Tyrannus:

Cool, awesome. The study you are referring to specifically, is literally based on phylogenetic bracketing. And sophisticated guess work. It is both likely and unlikely. Just because a paper comes out saying something doesn't mean its 100% correct. Without direct fossilization of evidence. I am not necessarily against lips. The Prehistoric Kingdom rex is partially lipped.

I like it that way. Its my opinion, additionally the Developers have stated that their design choice is predicated on the idea on making their game sell. Additionally the devs have stated their goal depicting these animals, is that they never claimed to be 100% accurate, creative liberty's will have to be taken.

Additionally the paper might be rendered obsolete in the future . Unless further studies can be published or evidence can be suggested. I am not saying Theropods lacked lips, the argument for lips is persuasive and logical. But the point is just because a new study has been determined doesn't mean the devs have to overhaul their resources on a single model because it isn't based on your liking. The rex is fine as is.

"sophisticated guesswork" is an extremely weird way to say that the study examined tooth wear patterns, the thickness of the enamel, general physical properties of enamel, relative tooth size, and density and pattern of foramina in the jaws. like... very weird. for someone who claims not to outright disagree with it, it seems like a kind of disingenuous way to describe the study's methods.

additionally, the study is not predominantly based on phylogenetic bracketing. in fact, as mentioned in the study, phylogenetic bracketing would support a teeth-out look, because the closest living relatives of non-avian dinosaurs both lack lips.

and as i said in my original post, the current tyrannosaurus model isn't even consistent with other theropods in the game - all of them are lipped except for tyrannosaurus, which is a really odd decision even from a purely aesthetic standpoint.

[Late Game Wonder]

Stop fighting about REX this REX that.
EVERY SINGLE GAME someone is fighting about REX.

[MozarteanChaos]

Originally posted by Late Game Wonder:

Stop fighting about REX this REX that.
EVERY SINGLE GAME someone is fighting about REX.

simply do not look at the thread

[Late Game Wonder]

Originally posted by MozarteanChaos:

Originally posted by Late Game Wonder:

Stop fighting about REX this REX that.
EVERY SINGLE GAME someone is fighting about REX.

simply do not look at the thread

Simply don't whine about a prehistoric creature that no matter what you will not be able to recreate its likeness.

[MozarteanChaos]

Originally posted by Late Game Wonder:

Originally posted by MozarteanChaos:

simply do not look at the thread

Simply don't whine about a prehistoric creature that no matter what you will not be able to recreate its likeness.

you actively chose to read and engage with this thread. this is not my problem.

[Late Game Wonder]

Originally posted by MozarteanChaos:

Originally posted by Late Game Wonder:

Simply don't whine about a prehistoric creature that no matter what you will not be able to recreate its likeness.

you actively chose to read and engage with this thread. this is not my problem.

And you actively chose to reply to me when you barely replied to anyone else. It seems like you made it your problem

[Magnanimous Matt]

Oookay well to give you a simple answer, it won't be updated. The half-lipped look was an aesthetic decision by the devs from the start. I think it was the wrong decision, it looks silly and the new paper doesn't change how unlikely the look already was when they made it. What I've been told on the discord was that they tried lipped and it didn't look good. If you look at the older rex model, you can see what they mean, the lips look... off.
But since then the modelwork has clearly improved and every other theropod pulls lips off without a hitch. I think it's a shame, but hey, nothing dealbreaking. Hopefully we'll get a mod some day.

[MozarteanChaos]

Originally posted by Magnanimous Matt:

Oookay well to give you a simple answer, it won't be updated. The half-lipped look was an aesthetic decision by the devs from the start. I think it was the wrong decision, it looks silly and the new paper doesn't change how unlikely the look already was when they made it. What I've been told on the discord was that they tried lipped and it didn't look good. If you look at the older rex model, you can see what they mean, the lips look... off.
But since then the modelwork has clearly improved and every other theropod pulls lips off without a hitch. I think it's a shame, but hey, nothing dealbreaking. Hopefully we'll get a mod some day.

darn, that's unfortunate. that does at least make the decision make more sense - if they genuinely couldn't get a lipped model to look good, i can understand why they gave up on it, even if i don't personally agree with the decision.
it still kinda sucks that its model is being left like this, but as you say, maybe a future mod will fix that whenever this game is stable enough to have a modding community.

[Tyrannus]

Originally posted by MozarteanChaos:

Originally posted by Tyrannus:

Cool, awesome. The study you are referring to specifically, is literally based on phylogenetic bracketing. And sophisticated guess work. It is both likely and unlikely. Just because a paper comes out saying something doesn't mean its 100% correct. Without direct fossilization of evidence. I am not necessarily against lips. The Prehistoric Kingdom rex is partially lipped.

I like it that way. Its my opinion, additionally the Developers have stated that their design choice is predicated on the idea on making their game sell. Additionally the devs have stated their goal depicting these animals, is that they never claimed to be 100% accurate, creative liberty's will have to be taken.

Additionally the paper might be rendered obsolete in the future . Unless further studies can be published or evidence can be suggested. I am not saying Theropods lacked lips, the argument for lips is persuasive and logical. But the point is just because a new study has been determined doesn't mean the devs have to overhaul their resources on a single model because it isn't based on your liking. The rex is fine as is.

"sophisticated guesswork" is an extremely weird way to say that the study examined tooth wear patterns, the thickness of the enamel, general physical properties of enamel, relative tooth size, and density and pattern of foramina in the jaws. like... very weird. for someone who claims not to outright disagree with it, it seems like a kind of disingenuous way to describe the study's methods.

additionally, the study is not predominantly based on phylogenetic bracketing. in fact, as mentioned in the study, phylogenetic bracketing would support a teeth-out look, because the closest living relatives of non-avian dinosaurs both lack lips.

and as i said in my original post, the current tyrannosaurus model isn't even consistent with other theropods in the game - all of them are lipped except for tyrannosaurus, which is a really odd decision even from a purely aesthetic standpoint.

Until further evidence of study to refute the current paper. It is based to reserve judgment till further notice. Additionally It isn't dishonest to hold any skepticism since scientists tend to make mistakes and the purpose of science is to advance our understanding of these creatures.

Yes peer reviewed papers are a shot to eliminate any academic dishonesty. But just like earlier last year where a paper suggested the Tyrannosaurus Rex was 3 different species due to tooth variation was not only comical but it was given reasonable backlash. I can also criticize the methods utilize to arrive at such a conclusion.

Just because I hold skepticism, and desire more evidence doesn't make me dishonest to any capacity. Also one more thing the decedents of theropods birds (aves) and general dinosaur relation crocodilians, do not give us too much to suggest a "toothy look" as you mentioned, because thats not how phylogenetic bracketing works.

[MozarteanChaos]

Originally posted by Tyrannus:

Originally posted by MozarteanChaos:

"sophisticated guesswork" is an extremely weird way to say that the study examined tooth wear patterns, the thickness of the enamel, general physical properties of enamel, relative tooth size, and density and pattern of foramina in the jaws. like... very weird. for someone who claims not to outright disagree with it, it seems like a kind of disingenuous way to describe the study's methods.

additionally, the study is not predominantly based on phylogenetic bracketing. in fact, as mentioned in the study, phylogenetic bracketing would support a teeth-out look, because the closest living relatives of non-avian dinosaurs both lack lips.

and as i said in my original post, the current tyrannosaurus model isn't even consistent with other theropods in the game - all of them are lipped except for tyrannosaurus, which is a really odd decision even from a purely aesthetic standpoint.

Until further evidence of study to refute the current paper. It is based to reserve judgment till further notice. Additionally It isn't dishonest to hold any skepticism since scientists tend to make mistakes and the purpose of science is to advance our understanding of these creatures.

Yes peer reviewed papers are a shot to eliminate any academic dishonesty. But just like earlier last year where a paper suggested the Tyrannosaurus Rex was 3 different species due to tooth variation was not only comical but it was given reasonable backlash. I can also criticize the methods utilize to arrive at such a conclusion.

Just because I hold skepticism, and desire more evidence doesn't make me dishonest to any capacity. Also one more thing the decedents of theropods birds (aves) and general dinosaur relation crocodilians, do not give us too much to suggest a "toothy look" as you mentioned, because thats not how phylogenetic bracketing works.

my dude, i am not calling you dishonest due to your skepticism, but due to how you misrepresent the paper's methods by calling them "sophisticated guesswork". i was very clear about this.