Dragkon for G8M [commercial]
RawArt
Posts: 5,777
in The Commons
Dragkon for Genesis 8 Male
https://www.daz3d.com/dragkon-for-genesis-8-male
The Dragkon are fierce reptilian warriors. Their powerful wings allow them to swarm an enemy from above and escape before they even know what hit them. With scaled skin strong enough to with stand most blade attacks and colours that camouflage them into forests and rocks make them even more formidable.
The set comes complete with custom crafted High Definition Morphs, Geografted Wings and tail and have Highly detailed Textures for the utmost realism.
- Product Includes
- One Dragkon Character Preset
- One Dragkon Full Body HD Morph
- One Dragkon Shaping Preset
- Two Dragkon Full Body Material Presets
- Four Eye Material Presets
- One Geografted Wing Figure
- One Geografted Tail Figure
- Includes both Iray and 3Delight Material Presets
Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
224 S 200 W, Suite #250
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
They should be able to be swapped. Though the gargoyle does not have a tail, so the textures will be weird there
He is very very cool. I've been hoping for something like this, not only are this species in one of my favorite fantasy series ever written, they are part of my world building project as well. Now I don't have to cobble somethig together. Thank you for always making the coolest things!
I will keep trying to ;)
Instabuy and hoping for a female version, too! :-)
Thanks, Rawart!
That IS the female of the species :P
I know there are two lines of thought re dragon/lizard-type females being the same as males in terms of appearance, but since a lot of the official D&D art actually portray distinctive "female" versions, I was hoping for that as well. But if not, oh well.
Dragkon was a man.
I mean, he was a dragon-man.
Or maybe he was just a dragon.
Anyway, he was still Dragkon.
Dragkon!
Burninating the countryside.
Burninating the peasants.
Burninating all peoples.
And their thatch-roof cottages.
Thatch-roof cottages!
Oh, come on, someone had to say it.
I've a feeling the comment may have been facetious, but I did look at the idea of egg-laying humanoids a while back, and it doesn't add up. The size of the human skull is already pushing the limits of a humanoid birth canal, despite humans being born at an exceptionally early stage of development. The idea of a human shaped creature laying an egg large enough to fit such a skull in is unthinkable. With that in mind, any "but science" argument then has to assume that they're some kind of mammalian/reptile hybrid bearing live young, and that's still going to lead to a distinctive female.
(As you may have noticed, I spend way too much time thinking about this kind of thing. I've ended up starting to write a fairly hard science fantasy setting in which magic is part of quantum physics and therefore has some very specific restrictions on what it can and can't do; you still end up with some fairly spectacular possibilities, but there's entire disciplines of magic common across fantasy that suddenly don't and can't exist. And yes, it does include half-dragons. One, to be exact, but no-one has any idea how she actually came to exist).
Early? They've born with eyes open, grasping, able to pee on their own, they're way late compared to any ursoid, cannid, feline, or marsupial.
Unless the egg is leathery, comes out looking like a 3 ft lenght of large intestine and then contracts into a 10x18 egg shape.
Or the parent inflates the egg after delivery. Work the biology out for those two scenarios.
... and unable to even begin to crawl until on average about six to eight months (compared to horses, for example, which can run the day they're born), and only finish development after close on two decades after birth, which is a timeframe normally reserved for species of massively greater bodymass.
If you compare to our closest relatives, the chimpanzee, baby chimps remain well ahead of human development until about the age of 18-24 months (the point at which humans' linguistic development really starts to take off beyond using occasional words). Zoologists like Adolf Portman estimated that to have the same neurological development as a chimpanzee, humans would need to gestate about twice as long as they already do. Our young are hopelessly helpless at birth, taking far longer than almost any other species to develop critical survival skills.
But this is completely derailing the thread now. Make-believe biology is not worth annoying hard working artists over.
I have to agree with wiz when approaching alien physiology, as his method matches mine -- given an end result placed before you, try to figure out how it exists (since it obviously does) rather than why it can't (which means pretending what you see before you doesn't exist).
Since the thread's been quiet for a few days, I'm going to assume we're not derailing it by discussing fictional creatures.
I also have looked at questions like these and they, in fact, do add up... depending on how you look at it.
First, in any scientific inquiry, you have to look at the facts presented, then hypothesize. If I remeber correctly, for years scientists couldn't figure out how bumblebees flew. Their entire wing/body structure was all wrong for animal/bug flight as they understood it. With your method -- it didin't fit the concept of self-propelled flight as they knew it -- therefore bumblees couldn't fly.
Except they could. Presented with the evidence that they did, in fact, fly, they had to figure out how.
We're in a similar situation here. Presented with a creature that appears to have both mammalian and reptilian traits -- a female "dragon-like creature" with breasts, we can't just decide they don't exist, because -- in the image world they exist in -- they do. So let's "explain" it.
1. Do they actually have to be cold-blooded, or reptilian? Well, no, not really. We see what looks like reptilian skin, but it doesn't necessariy need to be reptilian, they could be a scale-like armour similar to an armadillo's but looking more like a snake's.
2. How can an egg large enough to hold a baby's head fit through the birth canal? Well, again, a number of important questions come to mind. First, and most importantly, who said they had to lay eggs? We're looking at humanoid creatures, why do we have to assume they both have to have a human-sized head but also be delivered in egg form? Why not a human-styled fetus with scaly skin? We see breasts (which, in humans, are modified sweat glands that in human males don't generate milk, and so could be the same in female dragonfolk) but we see no eggs, nor any babies suckling. We can't arbitratily assume traits that may not be there and cry "foul!".
3. What if you're right and they both do lay eggs, and suckle, like the four egg-laying mammals that exist on our planet, how could that work with our giant-sized baby heads in an egg? A number of ways, actually. Alligators, for example grow to 10-feet or more in size, but lay eggs roughly the size of a large chicken egg. To fit your worst-case scenario hypothesis, take the largest egg you feel will slide through the birth canal of your humanoid dragonfolk, put a humanoid fetus in it (not one at 9 months gestation, but one young enough to fit comfortably inside the egg) and once born, assume the egg isn't hard calcium but rather of a tough, leather-like substance that stretches and grows with the fetus, possibly with a very thick membrane wall that breaks down and nourishes the fetus as it comes to term. Once the baby dargonfolk is large enough to suckle (I have no idea how large you want to make it at this point) the egg breaks down and the mother takes over caring for the child.
The bottom line is that with the limited amount of actual scientific data we have (pictures of humoid dragonfolk, no pictues of eggs, children or suckling) proper scientific method doesn't allow us to arbitrarily make up data to explain why the images aren't valid.
It's just as easy -- and I think more satisfying -- to come up with theories that fit our only data rather than make up assumptions that negate the only data we actually have.
-- Walt Sterdan
I've a feeling you've rather misinterpreted my comment.
What I said is that a humanoid shape naturally leads to a sexually dimorphic female, because that's how you get the widest feasible birth canal at the same time as a two-legged gait... although I am referring more to the hips here than the chest.
(And that sort of applies even if you do want to argue that they are egg-laying or gestating, although I think the latter makes considerably more sense; when it comes down to it, almost all intelligent species are gestating, with the closest runners up being corvids).
If there's any question about where I stand on the issue, I should point out that this is the full version of my current avatar image. (I'm afraid it's not the prettiest rendering in the world, as for that project I'm using the rather less sophisticated Source Filmmaker; it's eventually intended to be an animation project, and I simply don't have the hardware to be able to render out long animations in Daz). As far as the in-universe explanation, as I alluded to before, she's a human-dragon hybrid.
But regardless of conclusion, I vehemently disagree with the logic in your first sentence, because (as far as we know) what has been put in front of us does NOT exist. At that point, it's absolutely fair to say "This way would make more sense".
Draconians! Definately got to make a Sivak from this!
It wouldn't be the first time, and sadly I doubt very much it will be the last.
I believe the Octupus is pretty close to the corivds as well when it comes to tool usage and problem solving.
Works for me, and it's a solid render.
Actually, the picture and therefore concept of a dragon-based humanoid does exist; it's the same concept you're discussing, and in that context it does exist, otherwise what could we possibly be talking about?
I tended to focus more on the breasts because that's the normal argument against most female dragonfolk portrayals.
My apologies if I seem to come off a little strong, but this is a recurring discussion that I normally sit out. Our disagreement comes, I would guess, by what assumptions we plan to make with only an image to go by. It's just as easy to make assumptions that validate the conceptual image as to invalidate it, but as they're both unfounded assumptions neither one is any more right than the other. I tend to work to validate the artist's work, that's all.
In a nutshell, an artist creates a character that resembles a dragonized female human. One person looks at the image and says, "in our world this imaginary creature would be cold-blooded and egg-laying and therefore can't have breasts, this is all wrong!" while I look at the image and think, "in the world this artist has created there lives a dragonized female human -- by the breasts I would assume that she's probably not egg-laying and might even be warm-blooded, though that's just a guess; I will assume the artist has figured it all out."
-- Walt Sterdan
Hope this discussion is still monitored, the product is awesome but the "Wrap wings" morph is broken, hope this can be fixed.
Yes...I can confirm that something did break.
You will still have to send in a support ticket, but I will begin to work on a fix, so that when I get the word from daz, I will be ready to submit it.
Fantastic, I actually already reported it to Daz as well.
It took forever to figure out what broke...but I think I got a fix. I will wait for daz's qa to try to break it now (this is the slower part of the process)