Concept art

I'll post concepts of various things from fantasy world i created. Hopefully it's last spammage thread ;)

First one: tree tower.

hrmm.. its weird how the base is smaller than the top of the tree... usually, the base is larger, so that it will be able to support the top.. another thing i notice is that on the first platform from the bottom.. it looks as if the platform cuts off the tree, rather than built around the tree. other then that.. u have a lot of nice details...

About leaves, ii was too lazy to draw branches Tower may be cheap name for this, as it's more like lookout, but whatever. Tried to make light from upper left, but looks like i have to practice more...Shouldve added some kind of places where branches were cut off :p Hey, i want to get negative comments more than positive, if i wanted positive i would show it to parents/friends, right? And about tree base smaller than top... Look at platforms...it's called perspective....

Bad: Well, you had already been told about shading and branch-lack-thingy. I'd also add that the way roots enter ground doesn't look right to me for some reason. And yes, "tower" is too strong a word.

Good: The idea is interesting, the board and bark textures are well drawn.

Overall opinion: Don't be lazy and add branches. ;) Work more on shading. Maybe choose a different perspective. And it should be really good then. Hope this was of any use.

muo.. i woulda thought it was perspective.. except for 1 thing... the tree space from the bottom, to the first platform is about the same as the amount of tree to the second platform.. normally in perspective, if something is further away, there should be a smaller amount, or length of it. you didnt do it in the tree, so i didnt really think it was perspective....

if you want to make a sense of deeper perspective.. u should make the top of the tree bigger, and slim down the tree even more... it would even actually be better if you overlapped some stuff. ur sense of perspective was so small, that i could barely tell. if you shaded the top of the tree differently.. then maybe it would be easier to see. since u shaded up to the middle of the tree, it doesnt fit w/ the perspective. if u wanted the bottom to be the furthest from the person looking at it.. then u should have only shaded the very very bottom of the tree.. not up to the side.

Space beween platforms was meant to be bigger than between 1st platform and ground. I'll remake this pic, hopefully it will fix most things. Thanks for comments :D

Took a break from makin icons and did this:

^_^

You can use 2nd hand to push little button near monitor or just hold it. And it's stationary weapon prototype, far away from final stage. You would need 2or 3 people to move it around. Its not sniper rifle, it doesn't have to be extremely accurate. It's meant to destroy vehicles, not shoot someone in head. Also it has a computer that will tell you where to aim (until computer's battery is dead).

worm is right, you need 2 handles, or else the recoil and stuff will hurt the hands, with 2 its safer...

ya, sideview isnt the best, try a 3/4's view

you dont need two handles if its meant to meant to pierce armor like tanks.

put one hand on the handle and one in front. or muo can modify it so it has a handle on the upper front part of teh gun so you can hold it like a mini gun.

the M249 is a unstable gun but you dont have two handles on it.

its probably meant to take out groups of infanty instead of one like a sniper rifle.

it also depends on the calibur.

if its over .50 then i say you need 2 handles, unless its a energy pulse machine gun.

i say 1 handle.

also there are some sniper rifles that are unstable and have high recoil like the Barret light .50 cal sniper rifle. but they dont have 2 handles.

It doesn't need two handles.

It's a STATIONARY WEAPON, which needs a team (think mortar team except high tech) to move it around.

And Why would a future civilization bother with archaic ballistics? (no... no Halo references here, I already know about the flood).

An energy weapon would still have recoil which Muo calls "feedback."

And it depends on not only the caliber of the shell, but the type.

icbm1987

It is a good concept idea BUT it would not fair very well against a very fast moving vehicle because you would need to wait to reload and then it would take a few seconds to reload.So what is it a miss you run like a coward?...And you would most likely get hurt if you "accidentaly" hit a vehicle or anything that is to close...So what is it more of an anti tank weapon? o_O

Hmmm...
If this is like a 6 shot anti tank weapon...which Lord_Derrag seems to poke fun at, wouldn't it also have a portable solar panel or some other way to attain a source of energy..since you also stated that it would be used as an anti troop weapon, i assume by means of a blast crator/explosion effect...causing grevious burns..and other related wounds...
therefore it would have more amunition handy....for the second purpose...and if it is in fact an anti tank weapon, think of ww2 close combat support guns: crew, and fast mobility...
Also, a shield of some sort would be needed because, to quote Lord_Derrag again
This is my first post in this section of the forums..be gentle.