|
Tyrannosaurus rex
|
 Quote:No ! You're wrong. The volumes increases to the cube of the length only if these animals are built on the same way. Actually, no. The volume increases with the cube of length regardless of the build of the animal. Let's take MUCPv-Ch1 and MCF-PVPH-108.145 as an example. Since MCF-PVPH-108.145 is most likely 10% larger than MUCPv-Ch1 in all dimensions, it would be 10% longer, 10% wider, and 10% taller. Therefore when scaling up, you need to cube the mass to account for that. 8.17 tonnes x 1.1^3=10.87 tonnes. This will hold true of any animal you isometrically scale regardless of how bulky or gracile it may be. Quote:Giganatosaurus and carcharodontosaurus are indeed longer, but significantly less wider. See them face on and compare with the t-rex. It's blatant on the photo ! Haven't you seen me address this? That Tyrannosaurus is overestimated sizewise due to the ribcage being too wide and the ribs not being swept back properly, while the Giganotosaurus is underestimated due to the incomplete scapula being taken as complete and therefore the very shallow chest. Moreover, while carcharodontosaurids were not as wide proportionally as tyrannosaurids they tended to be rather deep chested. Check out SpinoInWonderland's Giganotosaurus or his GDI of GetAwayTrike's skeletal for example - these shows how deep the torso is when correcting the scapula and that is one of the factors that contributes to the large size of giant carcharodontosaurids. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 2 Guest(s) |