IDW #43: Specialized Firefighting Machine - Voting

[yoitisi]

IDW #43 Topic: Specialized Firefighting Machine

Deadline for voting: Tuesday, September 11 2007

No voting for your own entries!

Give critiques and comments, we're all here to learn from each other!

Original thread: IDW #43: Specialized Firefighting Machine

[yoitisi]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Artist: Sogbad





-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Artist: Legato



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Artist: Dr Brain



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Artist: Daveneale



When a huge fire rages, water won't extinguish the flames and everything within range is burnt to a crisp. The last resort is the anti-matter bomb.... encased in its booster-powered shell it's transported to the site by the carrier drone and then dropped from the air, where it deploys while still airbourne (the hight depending on the size of the fire). All matter is neutralized and no more fire...but also a bit of a disappearence of all other matter in the radius-hence being a last resort. pld:

oh...and the reson its firing up on the opposite side to where the drone is flying is that its gonna power itself in the opposite direction to neutralize the forward momentum..ending up falling vertically

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[yoitisi]

Some special notes on this round:

Sogbad: Next time post your final images in one image please. I copied both into this thread to do it justice, but next time it'd be nice if you made it into one Oh and is it ok if I made a tutorial out of your post?

Daveneale: I've corrected a few things in the spelling in your description hope you don't mind. It might still contain a few errors though..

[daveneale]

haha-cheers yoitisi...yeah my spelling is a bit of a disgrace-especially as it was speed typed, I will use a spell checker next time

voted sogbad-solid and proffessional design-the only thing that bugs me a little are your colour choices-and the cooling mist, which is mabe a little too white?...great all the same

[Legato]

wish there was more participation in this one - as there was really only one clear winner that had a sound design as well as rendering. sogbad gets my vote

Sogbad

great rendering other than the neon "1c" on the side everything falls into place for me. while it does look like its shooting out napalm i still can tell what its doing. the weakness i see however is as an industrial design piece a few things throw it out of phase with me.

first and foremost a minimum amount of water this thing would need is on the lines of a whole separate tanker rig - if not more. the volume of even a chemical foam or spray needed to put out a fire of the utter magnitude that an oil fire presents is staggering and all that was really needed to solve this was a hose or trailer coming off from behind it.

so a lesser second degree, as i've already touched on to me this is really just a bulldozer, but with a sealed cab, 3 little hoses and water/chemical tanks in place of a diesel engine. i persionally would have liked to see more variation for what its worth

Myself

it would have been nice to see some really nice variation, and deeper thinking for this topic - as a big draw for me in regards to concept art is the act of inventing new things. on that note, as usual i like my idea more than my rendering of it but oh well, im getting better and this was a good exercise in using color.

i hope the idea wasn't too confusing as it seems allot of people don't grasp the idea of vertical buoyancy used in this concept.

im rather curious in a fairly neutral way what is considered more important in order to 'win' these threads and how that compares to what is really important in the actual industry. my only real goal is the secondary, but it always seems like the shiney render gets the vote over the outside of the box ideas.

i fully realize that allot of concept art needs to be grounded in what is familiar to the audience, and there is a time and a place for reinventing the wheel, but what is your guys' perspective on the issue? am i wasting my time in regards to wanting to get into professional concept art and should i be really focusing on the presentation more than the idea or what?

sorry for the emo-rant, i am just curious as to what my goal should be, as personally, getting votes here is secondary to an infinite degree over getting votes in the employment arena

Dr Brain

most of the industrial design involved in this piece as far as content is in the form of the truck, however the main fire-fighting component seems to be the 'drone' which only has a very very small piece of the layout. the argon bags are a good start, but how is something that small able to fight a fire for more than a few seconds without running out of suppressant? in regards to the truck, how does the 'bot magazine' load the launcher?

the render is good, and has a concept car feel to it with a nice, easy-to-read form and fits the simplistic nature of the concept really well!

Daveneale

personally the concept behind putting the fire out seems to be a one trick pony that could just as easily be carried out using a conventional bomb. i don't really see a need for a drone with no visible means of propulsion - moving something that can propel itself about - for something that effectively eats up all the fire's potential fuel.

the render is interesting, i like the lighting and style you have with the actual bot/bomb, but what are those bubbles?

[daveneale]

Legato-cheers for the crit...I accept most the comments...I'm afraid I was a little guilty of focusing more on the execution than the thinking on this one...I'm pretty new to designing/rendering this type of thing (no real excuse really) so my focus was on rendering mechanical forms rather than thinking functionally....and as for those bubbles-I dunno-agian aesthetics over reasoning

[Legato]

Legato-cheers for the crit...I accept most the comments...I'm afraid I was a little guilty of focusing more on the execution than the thinking on this one...I'm pretty new to designing/rendering this type of thing (no real excuse really) so my focus was on rendering mechanical forms rather than thinking functionally....and as for those bubbles-I dunno-agian aesthetics over reasoning

its nothing personal i know that i personally want to be given the harshest review possible, so i try to give the same

as for the bubbles they aren't BAD, they just aren't the raging fire you would expect

[daveneale]

haha...all good dude I totally dig getting crits....tis the best way to improve for sure.....and because you were kind enough to crit me my 2 pennies on yours: I love the idea, and personally didn't find it hard to read, the thing that bugs me most is the presentation...I think your choice of typography and placement could have been better...and the grey background doesn't help to set the image off-I know the primary aim is the design but the presentation is important too

long live the bubbles

[ScaryPotato]

I don't think that I can add anything more to what Legato has already stated on everyone's work. I do wonder, Legato how yours would work without shooting itself backwards from the force of the water when putting out a fire? I was thinking of things to try entering in this topic and had an idea very similar to yours, but thought that it would have a hard time keeping level.

Also, about your little rant on how to balance form and function. It's hard to figure out just what people think deserves to win on this site, but it is concept art after all, and I think people are mostly interested in the presentation more than the realism or practicality of something. I do think though that people who tend to win have the best or most interesting final rendering, along with something that is plausible only, and not in this forum's case, mechanically perfect.

All that being said, Sogbad got my vote. I am starting to think that if you keep dominating these topics that one day the theme should be an anti-Sogbad machine! I kid of course

[Legato]

I don't think that I can add anything more to what Legato has already stated on everyone's work. I do wonder, Legato how yours would work without shooting itself backwards from the force of the water when putting out a fire? I was thinking of things to try entering in this topic and had an idea very similar to yours, but thought that it would have a hard time keeping level.

Also, about your little rant on how to balance form and function. It's hard to figure out just what people think deserves to win on this site, but it is concept art after all, and I think people are mostly interested in the presentation more than the realism or practicality of something. I do think though that people who tend to win have the best or most interesting final rendering, along with something that is plausible only, and not in this forum's case, mechanically perfect.

All that being said, Sogbad got my vote. I am starting to think that if you keep dominating these topics that one day the theme should be an anti-Sogbad machine! I kid of course

while that was a paramiter i never thought about until you just mentioned it, from the hip i will attempt to explain it away using a combination of "gyroscopic movements in the engine turbine" as well as the main hoses facing more downward than forward - so the water would be more of a never ending bucket as opposed to a hose ... or something

and thanks for you input on my output

(wow that sounded sexual X_X )

[D-Holme]

Sogbad – a nice clean advancement of a classic design, looks futuristic and advanced without trying too hard. Would likely have to agree with the comments that others have made. However I think the compilation of elements is successful and isn’t too close to anything current.

Legato – I like the concept and it is a good take on the brief. As you have said the rendition needs some work I think some stronger edges would have given your design some better impact. The little thumbnails are too basic perhaps and they detract from the quality of the rest of the image. People have mentioned that the craft may suffer a pushing force from the hoses but their effect would be limited, although you’ve no scale the lifeboat gives a hint, clearly the craft is massive (80m+) and with only two small hoses any impulse would be small (and easily countered). I think the only failings of the design would be that it would require fairly large draft for its application (alright for deep water rigs but not others) and it could do with some manner of navigating and position holding once deployed (retractable thrusters?).

Dr Brain – I think this concept is fairly quirky and nice. Although the rendition is clean the design could be made clearer showing the robot in more prominence. One of the suppositions that Argon is non-harmful is flawed as it displaces air and smothers people in the same manner that it extinguishes fire.

Daveneale – although some of the rendering is nice, the metal effect on the sphere, none of the design conveys a fire fighting aspect. The idea that anti-matter could be used to fight fires is also unrealistic as the energy released from such a reaction would be many factors greater than that of the original fire (causing more fire and damage of a much larger area).

--------------
Legato on your general question I cannot comment from the perspective of a concept-artist (only that of a design engineer who enjoys art) – although the strength of the design should be of importance most people will look first toward the best rendition. The ‘best’ artists and designers are going to have a strong design and presentation. An image needs to be clear firstly to see the design but then attractive to ‘sell’ the concept, especially relevant when a design is like your current one and differs from the expected norm. From a personal point of view I try to compare everything with a 50:50 split, half rated on design, half on rendition and choose then. How it matches the brief is a major influence and the brief also effects how I’d consider a design whether it needs to be practical or whether it is fantastical and how easy it matches to the required suspension of disbelief.

[Dr_Brain]

Well, well - nice works guys. my vote goes to legato.

Sogbad did a very solid work and a fantastic rendering. according to the everyday industrial design that happens out there i see this forum as a place to post wicked concepts and new ideas that may not be accepted by the industry because of financial reasons - anyway - Sogbad did a nice work. But on the second view it is just a bulldozer with some watercannons on it. (please don't take it personally) The shape of that design is primaly telling the story of a bulldozer - no water or firefighting imagination. But i like the design very much under the aspect of a raw, strong and mighty vehicle! (i hope you all now what i mean?!)

Legato describes a wicked idea of extinguishing fires offshore. With those hydrofoils i could imagine that a burning ship or plattform could be reached very quick. manouvering the gavial could be difficult - but hey - i like that concept!
According to the illustration... watch your perspective - especially the ellipsies look wrong to me

myself yep! Legato you're right about the drones that should have been the main thing in that design.
About the firefighting technique with impulses you need to know, that you need only few water to get imense extinguishing effects. 1 liter of water is acceleratet by high air-pressure to about 430 km/h what spreads the water into very fine drops. These drops have a higher surface than a normal water jet and can cool down the fire very well. Compared to water-jet-techniques 70 liters of water used in the impulse-method has the efficiency of about 5 tonnes of water! and - yes - it is already working and used by several firefighters! (you can read more under www.ifex3000.de)
If my little drones are big enough to carry 200 liters, the SWARM could manage to clear a way through burning woods.

Daveneale i like the illustration from the view of a communication designer. nice! but i admit: i don't get the idea behind it. ...[readagainandreadagain] aha! LOL well - if we have nothing valuable that burns - why should we worry about fire? ... i think such a huge fire is only possible on suns



see my sketchbook on: http://conceptart.org/forums/showthr...t=56903&page=2

[Dr_Brain]

One of the suppositions that Argon is non-harmful is flawed as it displaces air and smothers people in the same manner that it extinguishes fire.

yes it does - but you have no poisoning effect like you have using CO2. That means reanimation is possible in a bigger span of time.

:Cheerleader:

[D-Holme]

Dr_Brain Ah - true, but still not the most friendly and it was a thought that Argon gas can puddle in depressions and so be a lasting hidden danger but then prefferable to being burn to a crisp.

Voted for Sogbad in the end but Legato was strong second, just needed some more refinement (that I've seen in other of his/your concepts).

[Legato]

D-Holme

thanks for the input! if anything, the scale isn't long enough, which is something i tried combating with the retro-fit idea of having the tanks separate apart by a bit... but even that isn't enough. if anything, the vast majority of the mass would need to be underwater, but i wasn't sure the right ratio as far as length - as for movement in its deployed position, the two outset waterjets can vector 180+ degrees around their axis to allow rotation as well as limited movement

Dr_Brain

this thing would handle like a beast... no doubt about that... it would be fun to make this into a weaponized jousting platform - as for perspective and ellipses, its a never ending battle

[Sogbad]

Yoitisi- No problem, please feel free to use it any way you would like