Chainmail Discussion from Kitty's Portrait Thread

Contribute art for mainline Wesnoth.

Moderators: Forum Moderators, Developers

Forum rules
Before posting critique in this forum, you must read the following thread:
Post Reply
User avatar
taptap
Posts: 980
Joined: October 6th, 2011, 5:42 pm

Chainmail Discussion from Kitty's Portrait Thread

Post by taptap » October 12th, 2011, 12:08 pm

I like the new less-anorexic look and hope some of the dialog is changed as well to reflect this, because Li'sar currently is at times talking more like a teenager who found a sceptre in a toys shop than a mid-twen battle-hardened warrior princess. :) Still, I believe the comment of mumble on chain armor is spot on, especially how it gently flows around her belly is surprising and more suitable for textiles.
I am a Saurian Skirmisher: I'm a real pest, especially at night.

User avatar
homunculus
Posts: 537
Joined: July 21st, 2010, 9:47 pm

Re: Heir to the Throne: Portraits

Post by homunculus » October 12th, 2011, 9:49 pm

taptap wrote:how it gently flows around her belly
I see people will never say it out directly, but they will also never give up.

Chainmail does flow around body like that.
It should not be flowing around body, though, it should be flowing around leather armor that is under the chainmail.
Therefore, the rather stiff leather armor under the chainmail must be deliberately shaped like a belly.

A smartly dressed battle princess who's chainmail "gently flows around" a glamorously shaped leather armor is certainly better than a battle princess with a dumb-looking leather armor under the chainmail, don't you agree?
campaign ruthless in your nearest 1.11 add-on server
some wesnoth-related drawings

User avatar
taptap
Posts: 980
Joined: October 6th, 2011, 5:42 pm

Re: Heir to the Throne: Portraits

Post by taptap » October 13th, 2011, 8:35 am

homunculus wrote:I see people will never say it out directly, but they will also never give up.

A smartly dressed battle princess who's chainmail "gently flows around" a glamorously shaped leather armor is certainly better than a battle princess with a dumb-looking leather armor under the chainmail, don't you agree?
I thought this forum has plenty of comments on technical details and such comments are appreciated in general, even if they are not sufficient to merit changes. There is nothing in my comment that makes this kind of answer (alluding to hidden motives, that I am not saying directly) necessary. The point wasn't, that chainmail doesn't take the shape of the body where it widens, it does, but that gravity makes it unlikely that it narrows again as much below the breasts as in the portrait, that is why I commented on the belly. This isn't some hidden argument for a Li'sar without armour, but for less cloth-like chainmails.
I am a Saurian Skirmisher: I'm a real pest, especially at night.

User avatar
Simons Mith
Posts: 784
Joined: January 27th, 2005, 10:46 pm
Location: Twickenham
Contact:

Re: Heir to the Throne: Portraits

Post by Simons Mith » October 13th, 2011, 12:45 pm

mumble wrote: Regarding Li'sar's portrait:
  • Her armor seems quite heavy, if she's still a pedestrian it is likely too heavy and cumbersome for a woman "closer to Jennifer Anniston's build".
  • That chainmail is draped like a soft textile. Chainmails do not envelop a body that much:
    reference
    Image
  • As in the previous point: her breasts are too high and visible. Chainmails are heavy, should look heavy.
    reference
    Image
That first reference is quite good except that it does not clearly show the reason why the mail is baggier round her middle: because she's wearing a belt. If you don't wear a belt (or if the belt is too loose) chainmail hangs more or less straight down rather than flat on the body, as in your second picture. If there's something protuding for it to mould over, such as a tummy, it behaves as in Kitty's pic. If you do wear a belt, and you generally would, you would then pull some of the chainmail up a bit so that it's baggy, as in the first reference picture. The reason you'd do that is that a nice thick belt helps distribute a good portion of the chainmail's weight. If you don't wear a belt, almost all of the chainmail's weight bears down on your shoulders, and that gets tiring very quickly. Another practical chainmail-wearing tip is to have some sort of stiff shoulder supports under the chainmail - that spreads the weight at your shoulders too, which also makes the stuff more wearable.

[Couple of edits]
 

User avatar
homunculus
Posts: 537
Joined: July 21st, 2010, 9:47 pm

Re: Heir to the Throne: Portraits

Post by homunculus » October 13th, 2011, 7:27 pm

Simons Mith wrote:[...] chainmail hangs more or less straight down [...]
yeah, more or less, it is made from rings, and if contracting lets it hang lower, it will.
campaign ruthless in your nearest 1.11 add-on server
some wesnoth-related drawings

User avatar
Sgt. Groovy
Art Contributor
Posts: 1471
Joined: May 22nd, 2006, 9:15 pm
Location: Helsinki

Re: Heir to the Throne: Portraits

Post by Sgt. Groovy » October 13th, 2011, 7:58 pm

OTOH, if it has been made into more form-fitting shape, that is, with a smaller circumference below the breasts, then it will also look more form-fitting. Armours were very expensive, and the rank-and-file probably didn't want too form-fitting armours because they couldn't afford to refit them whenever they gained or loosed weight. But Li'sar is a princess - she most likely has a whole closet full of armours.
Tiedäthän kuinka pelataan.
Tiedäthän, vihtahousua vastaan.
Tiedäthän, solmu kravatin, se kantaa niin synnit
kuin syntien tekijätkin.

User avatar
Simons Mith
Posts: 784
Joined: January 27th, 2005, 10:46 pm
Location: Twickenham
Contact:

Re: Heir to the Throne: Portraits

Post by Simons Mith » October 13th, 2011, 9:44 pm

I don't think there's any point making chainmail 'form-fitting', and I find it hard to believe anyone would have done it. It's very much a one-size fits all material; if you have a piece hanging under gravity (at maximum density) and you stretch it out to cover the maximum area, it can easily expand by 25% or so. For example a 2"x5" patch could expand to about 3"x4". Put some chain on a fat guy and it will stretch outwards to accomodate him, but put the same suit on a tall thin guy and it will hang much lower. Tailoring it beyond 'small', 'medium', 'large' is pretty pointless; it reshapes to fit you anyway when you put it on.
 

User avatar
Sgt. Groovy
Art Contributor
Posts: 1471
Joined: May 22nd, 2006, 9:15 pm
Location: Helsinki

Re: Heir to the Throne: Portraits

Post by Sgt. Groovy » October 14th, 2011, 6:48 am

There was really "no point" in putting all those decorations in armour either, but the high-class soldiers still did it. :)
Tiedäthän kuinka pelataan.
Tiedäthän, vihtahousua vastaan.
Tiedäthän, solmu kravatin, se kantaa niin synnit
kuin syntien tekijätkin.

mumble
Posts: 2
Joined: October 4th, 2011, 4:43 pm

Re: Heir to the Throne: Portraits

Post by mumble » October 14th, 2011, 4:42 pm

A form-fitting chainmail is unlikely because chainmails were worn over a padded vest or jacket or a gambeson, so there was not much form to fit. Moreover a tight or form-fitting chainmail could hinder movements, take a look at baseball clothing for reference.

AI
Developer
Posts: 2394
Joined: January 31st, 2008, 8:38 pm

Re: Heir to the Throne: Portraits

Post by AI » October 14th, 2011, 9:08 pm

Can we stop this discussion? (or at least take it elsewhere?) I don't think Kitty is going to change it.

User avatar
homunculus
Posts: 537
Joined: July 21st, 2010, 9:47 pm

Re: Heir to the Throne: Portraits

Post by homunculus » October 15th, 2011, 9:32 am

Thrawn wrote:Give the word, and I can split all of the peanut gallery discussion into another thread.
AI wrote:Can we stop this discussion? (or at least take it elsewhere?) I don't think Kitty is going to change it.
Yay! We can now have our dilettante discussion in another thread without having to restrain ourselves!
campaign ruthless in your nearest 1.11 add-on server
some wesnoth-related drawings

User avatar
taptap
Posts: 980
Joined: October 6th, 2011, 5:42 pm

Re: Chainmail Discussion from Kitty's Portrait Thread

Post by taptap » October 18th, 2011, 8:25 am

I did not intend to start a thread on chainmail in portraits, but to express that I like the new portraits + a small technical thing for the next time. You don't make such a fuss when someone comments about an non-optimal angle of a limb, the lighting on the hair or whatever, why for this comment on chainmail? I really don't get it.

Please remove this thread. Thank you.
I am a Saurian Skirmisher: I'm a real pest, especially at night.

User avatar
homunculus
Posts: 537
Joined: July 21st, 2010, 9:47 pm

Re: Chainmail Discussion from Kitty's Portrait Thread

Post by homunculus » October 18th, 2011, 11:27 am

taptap wrote:I did not intend to start a thread on chainmail in portraits, but to express that I like the new portraits + a small technical thing for the next time. You don't make such a fuss when someone comments about an non-optimal angle of a limb, the lighting on the hair or whatever, why for this comment on chainmail? I really don't get it.

Please remove this thread. Thank you.
Even if you just wanted to "educate the artists", and the thread has now become pointless, why would it need to be removed?
To me it looks like forumers trying to come to terms with themselves while looking at the portraits, which is not completely useless for the forumers themselves.
Posters claimed that the quality of their own opinions was very low and their references weak:
mumble wrote:A form-fitting chainmail is unlikely because chainmails were worn over a padded vest or jacket or a gambeson, so there was not much form to fit. Moreover a tight or form-fitting chainmail could hinder movements, take a look at baseball clothing for reference.
Simons Mith wrote:I don't think there's any point making chainmail 'form-fitting', and I find it hard to believe anyone would have done it.
But if chainmail does still interest anyone, there are multimedia-enhanced answers to both latest questions on youtube (very easy to find, btw, one of the first matches):
1) does chainmail "hug" the body?
2) to what extent was chainmail form-fitting?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RssIl2v0C1k&t=1m15s
taptap wrote:This isn't some hidden argument for a Li'sar without armour, but for less cloth-like chainmails.
I would say it is "less cloth-like" in the correct direction.
It is heavy and can hang lower when it contracts, therefore it does contract and thus envelope the body more than the cloth shirt I am currently wearing.

And there's also another question that goes with the chainmail.
Do nobles that wear chainmail commit themselves that much to the smile?
As far as seen on the internet, nobles that do not wear chainmail seem not to commit that much to the smile, even if the smile is formally quite beamy and shows teeth and all.
(Maybe it is about the tilt of the head, or something about the eyes?)
Looks like some girl who lives in a two storey house with a small garden in a suburb, and has a dog or a cat. Maybe two cats.
On the other hand, being fit exercises and intensifies emotions, so maybe that's why wearing chainmail can make even nobles smile like that.
But on the other hand, military discipline might have the opposite effect again.

Maybe the smiling Lisar portrait is fitting for the statement (if there is such statement): "Finally found you, impostor, prepare to die!" where Lisar is overwhelmed with joy after having to chase Konrad all over Wesnoth.
campaign ruthless in your nearest 1.11 add-on server
some wesnoth-related drawings

User avatar
Thrawn
Moderator Emeritus
Posts: 2047
Joined: June 2nd, 2005, 11:37 am
Location: bridge of SSD Chimera

Re: Chainmail Discussion from Kitty's Portrait Thread

Post by Thrawn » October 18th, 2011, 7:38 pm

taptap wrote:I did not intend to start a thread on chainmail in portraits, but to express that I like the new portraits + a small technical thing for the next time. You don't make such a fuss when someone comments about an non-optimal angle of a limb, the lighting on the hair or whatever, why for this comment on chainmail? I really don't get it.

Please remove this thread. Thank you.
Unlike other small minor critiques, this became a discussion that began bogging down the thread it originated. By making it a new topic, I'm saying that the discussion merits continuation, just not in its previous location.
...please remember that "IT'S" ALWAYS MEANS "IT IS" and "ITS" IS WHAT YOU USE TO INDICATE POSSESSION BY "IT".--scott

this goes for they're/their/there as well

Post Reply