It's back and better than ever!
Original still here: harry-the-fox.deviantart.com/a…
An ultra-accurate size comparison of a large (but not largest) Tyrannosaurus Rex to what has to be the most apathetic 1.8m (six foot) man ever witnessed in a size-chart.
This came about due to some glaring problems with the original work (which I kept up); mainly the legs were much too short (plus the ears were missing and the 'spur' toes faced the wrong direction).
While these things were niggling at my mind, I simply dismissed it due to an extremely intense schedule of late. One gentleman pointed out the legs were too short;
"Nonsense!" I said "I based this closely on a number of real-life museum specimen (taken from a roughly side-on angle too)! You must be experiencing an optical illusion!"
But, after getting a short break, I looked again and compared some more skeletons, and realized to my horror the gentleman was RIGHT, and I (and the museum that I modeled the legs from) were WRONG.
So I set to work scrutinizing each part across a number of specimens and reconstructions (also scrutinizing these- with a few bird anatomy images just in case), and found a number of flaws that prompted the following fixes:
1- The legs were in fact too short; mainly the shanks were extremely short, when these should be the longest leg segment by a significant margin. Also checking how the joints actually fitted together, corrected the positions of leg segments and their size before reshaping them into a slightly more feasible running motion.
2- Toes; restored them all to their correct size and length, and reversed the 'spur' toes to face 'backwards' like the others do (as a lot of intact-trapped-in-the-rock fossils of Tyrannosauroids demonstrate this.
3- EARS- these (as I suspected) are located at the very rear of the skull in a hard-to-see cavity. This took a long time to track down, as very few reliable sources demonstrate this. Bird skulls weren't so useful, because their ear sockets are often convex and very easy to spot.
4- SINISTER EYES- my original showed something a lot more 'synapsid'; I thought nothing of it at first, but when I paid close attention to bird eyes I realized they are very little alike. As it is overwhelmingly likely that dinosaurs had eyes like birds (sharing skeletal features and soft-tissue structural similarities) I decided to replace the old eyes with something based closely off an eagle. It now looks intensely diabolical- which I promise is a fortunate side-effect. This actually IS very likely what it's eyes looked like (at least compared to my last version).
5- Pelvis and thorax; The first was again, based off a museum structure that assumed it pointed 'downwards'- making the creature's body much fatter than it really was. The thorax was a tiny bit short so I lengthened it.
6- Skin. Did a touch up on shading, clarity and detail.
Some other details:
1 Feathers. Part of the theory of 'feather loss' for megafauna is certainly true in mammals; elephants are born fluffy (sort of- you can certainly spot the hairs more easily), but as they grow larger, their hair becomes sparse- but they don't actually lose their hairy hides. It is observed in a few animals (vultures and geese)- though not as extreme as this. Fossil evidence does indicate some dinosaurs did actually develop primarily scaly hides, demonstrating that this is certainly possible. While birds also demonstrate it is possible for dinosaurs to have a patchwork of scales and solid feathers, I considered against it as modern birds don't seem to be able to do this as well (their bodies always have a strong coat of feathers, with any bare spots being purely smooth skin)- inferring a possible additional dependency on feathers for bodily protection against elements.
2 Arms- depicted bulky because they were in fact extremely strong. Fun fact- the arms never 'shrunk' as usual size/arm ratio models indicate; T-rex's tiny ancestors already had tiny forelimbs!
3- No shinkwrapping. I added bulk, fat, muscle, thick skin because that's normal for any animal.
4- Size? Also true! Many theropods grow longer than T-rex, but they have much leaner builds- implying T-rex might be heavier; the gigantic Spinosaurus included. However, its own length is likely considerably greater than any other theropod by a great margin- and its own bones were uniquely completely solid inside- a contrast to T-Rex's air-filled bones (separating two important theories; the air-filled bones have been a powerful explanation as to why dinosaurs could grow so large; while the solid-bones of Spinosaurus supports the 'aquatic lifestyle' theory, respectively); thus it likely had the strongest chance of tipping the scales.
Enjoy- many more coming soon!