Jump to content

Creature Suit Analysis - Part 5 - Building Patty

Recommended Posts

Building Patty:

Assuming that you have read the previous set of four notes on Creature Suit Analysis, where I explained about some of the realities of suit design and use, in generalized terms, I'd like to now take you through a job, where a faithful reconstruction of Patty may be done, in an attempt to reproduce what is seen in the PG film taken in 1967.

My intention here isn't to get to a pre-ordained conclusion the PG film figure is real or a person in a suit. My intention is to simply apply my knowledge to try and come to some conclusive determinaion, to try to get closer to an answer the knowledge and reasoning support.

Please keep in mind that there are many fine and talented people in this business, and they may have a variety of preferred techniques to accomplish their goal. What I will try to do here is sort out the essentials, the factors or considerations that more or less dictate design, as compared to the elective options which each artist can freely choose from as a matter of artistic preference. And I will try to generally focus this discussion to 1967 materials and processes, but may include occasional side notes on what's different today.

The word "Impossible" seems to be used freely in discussions, but I personally would urge caution with this word, because I've had other people tell me things were impossible, and I went ahead and did those things anyways, and I've thought things were impossible, which other people subsequently did do. So aside from the basic confidence in physics and mechanics (if the laws of physics say something is impossible, I'll tend to believe that), I would be careful not to use the word "impossible" too readily if it's just my opinion or view that something is so improbable that I personally cannot see how it could possibly be done.

Finally, as an introduction, I want to point out that I've actually re-written these notes three times since starting to post in this forum. What I have been struggling with is the simple reality that there are dozens, maybe even hundreds of ways to hypothesize about how a suit could have been built to stage an event leading to the PG film. And no set of notes will cover all the hypothetical possibilities. So I chose now to simply focus on one hypothetical example, and give you a look at some of the design and fabrication considerations involved, so you may understand this endeavor better and conduct your own research with a more informed mind, when a sighting is argued to be a person in a fur suit.

What this one hypothetical exercise has done for me personally is it has allowed me to focus on critical design issues of a suit which I believe have the highest relevence to the film, and given me a greater focus on anatomical points of contention as I prepare to do further study of the film.

The hypothesis is as follows: Imagine if you will, the PG film is made, and someone has come to me, in late 1967 or 1968, and asked me to build a duplicate of what I see in that original PG film. That is the project design criteria, to replicate what I see on the original film. We will assume money is no object, and I won't compromise on the design because we have to do it cheap. It is the best of all possible jobs, with a backer who simply wants me to do it right, to the best of my ability.


So I look at the film, and the first, most basic design criteria, is settled immediately. Should the suit be a generic suit most people can wear, or a custom-fitted suit tailored to a specific mime's body?

I see a figure which in my mind can only be replicated with any hope of likeness by a custom suit, and a custom padding beneath shaped to fit the mime scheduled to wear the suit. The anatomy is simply too well defined for it to be a generic fur suit, and such well defined anatomical padding can only be built around a human mime shape or manniken. You can't build the padding outward to the suit shape until you have a defined basic anatomy of the person inside.

It is possible to just build padding which simply shapes the outer anatomy and had a depth ot thickness of 1" of reticulated foam to hold that shape, and stroller costumes for theme parks routinely use this method, allowing a shaped outside and a generic inside. But such costumes have their own style of movement, and I do not see that style in the PG film. When a costume has significant open air spaces or pockets between the foam under the costume surface and the actual person inside, the person sometimes moves within that space and the costume outside doesn't. It creates a disconnect between the real motion and the apparent motion of the outer suit. That disconnect between mime and outer costume can also set up unnatural occilations of the costume, as it first lags behind the movement inside and then rushes to catch up, and then bounce back.

And when a movement of the mime inside forces the outer costume to move, it may sometimes buckle inward to the empty airspace, simply following the basic physics principle of taking the line of least resistance. I do not see either of those suit physics occuring in the film, so I would conclude the figure is a solid mass of fur, muscle or padding, and the driving live body within, but no signifigant air pockets or spaces a generic costume invariably has.

So I personally, in my analysis, would believe only a custom padded suit, shaped to the body of a designated mime performer, has any prospect of replicating the PG figure.

Now I look at the film, and see a stocky figure, full bodied, but well muscled, a low head carried a bit forward, a hominid face moreso than an ape face, and breasts with a sense of some fluidity. I see fur that is short (meaning 1" to 1 1/2" long in general) relatively dense, so it has a smooth lay and allows the shimmering of sunlight on it to form solid blocks of light and dark.

I see the figure walking away from camera, so we see more of the rear and right side of the body than front or left side, and I see a torso turn back (the Look Back sequence) where the head turns to at least a 45 degree angle. I see a wide swing of arms forward and back during the walk cycle and a smooth skin-like flow of the skin/fur surface from chest area into the arms as the arm swing back stretches the fur/skin of the upper right chest area near the right shoulder.

I cannot determine the height of the figure by the film alone, but it is specified by the employer at about 6 1/2 feet tall, and I will work to that specification


Before I begin fabrication, a second major design decision must be made. Where are my closure seams? Where do I open up the suit to get the mime in and out?

All general tradition I am aware of suggests that the seam should go up the back, from waist to the base of the neck, where the head mask structure meets the torso of the suit. But in the film, I see the figure viewed from the back moreso than from the front, and I see a relatively smooth back with no indication of a zipper where I expect it to be. Can I apply a dense short fur material and close it up around the mime and groom it so it looks that smooth? I have no confidence I could, with the fur specified. Maybe in a still picture, where I can groom the fur right before the shot, and be assured the mime won't move once the fur is groomed. But walking like that, twisting the torso for the look back, and then the best near straight on shots of the back as the figure walks into the woods, can I see a fur blend of a zipper seam hidden that well? Frankly, no. I can't see it. I could try, but I would probably put into writing that I make no guarantee of success. Short dense fur just doesn't close up that seamlessly, not on a suit in motion.

So, what about a seamless "shirt" type upper torso section (As Chris Walas suggested in an older thread), blending at the waist into a "pants" like lower fur section? At first thought, it seems to address the concern for eliminating a seam up the back. But with more consideration, I must wonder about dressing the mime into this configuration of suit parts. When a seamless top half of a costume is slipped over a mime's head and pulled down, the arms must load into the costume pointing straight up. But the figure in the film seems to have considerable padded bulk in the shoulders and neck, and the arms naturally flow downward, not upward, from the torso. So to slide human arms into such a suit, all the shoulder padding must be heavily compressed inward to the head opening when the suit arms are bent straight up for the mime arms to slide into the sleaves.

There is always some resistance to any effort to slide a mime's body into a form fitted suit padding structure, and doing it one arm at a time is easier. But sliding the suit over the head downward requires you to be sliding both arms simultaniously into the arm sleaves, as well as sliding the full mime torso into the suit's torso padding. So we have multiplied the resistance of the padding by a factor of three or more, as compared to one arm at a time and a torso that opens to allow the mime in and wraps around the mime's body to close.

We also have the width of the person's shoulders being pushed through the narrower padded suit cross section of the waist, and pushing something larger through something smaller is an imposing task, even if the padding has some elastic compression capability.

That magnified resistance to sliding the suit section on the arms and torso together will have me quite worried about actually ripping the suit apart while pulling it down over the mime's body. Sort of the "turtle-neck sweater from hell". I would expect at least two costume assistants helping me, and the three of us would still struggle to get it on and correctly positioned.

To undress the mime, we'd need to pull the arms of the suit, with the mime bent over forward at a full horizontal level, and somebody holding him powerfully so we don't just pull him over forward. Or maybe we could tie him to a truck, so as we pull on the arms, he stays put. And I'd worry about ripping the arms of the suit trying to pull off the full suit section. To dress the mime into the suit, we could be holding it over the mime's head, the three of us standing around the mime, all grabbing the waist seam around the suit and pulling downward. But to undress the mime, we can't stand the same way and just lift up to remove the suit. With compressing material, you can't push it very well. It sort of like pushing a rope. You must pull, and we only have the arm suit sleaves to pull on with any firm grasp. So the very act of undressing the mime becomes a more complicated process. And we will do this several times during the various fabrication fittings.

So, frankly, I'd be real hesitant to try this seamless "shirt" type sectioning of the suit. So I, personally, discount this option as too likely to tear the suit apart during the dressing and undressing process.

My last resort for a design idea would be a front seam, since the front isn't seen in the film. But a front seam in a suit character is so rare (most people want to see a suit character from the front, moreso than back, and might want this suit I'm making to be later used for more filming) that the only way I'd go with a front seam is after getting a written assurance the person ordering this knows it can't be used later for good quality filming from the front.

But if we assume that assurance was given, the front seam would allow a more easy and effective dressing into and out of the suit, while still giving the flawless back look. But there would be no need to split the suit at the waist. I could merge the upper and lower body sections together for a nice seamless waist as well. I would go with a one piece jumpsuit, seam up the front, from groin to base of neck. Given that seam is never seen in the PG film, it will never be seen in my replica.

But dressing a mime into a front seamed jumpsuit arrangement does pose a problem too, in that a person tends to step forward into the pant legs of any suit, and to step into a front seam suit, you must bend the whole upper suit structure down backwards, so the mime can step over it to step into the pants portion. That bending and balling up of the suit will put some stress on the fur and padding, and may require greater grooming effort once the mine is suited in the costume.

All things considered, none of the options is ideal, but the front seam design has the best prospect of replicating what is seen in the film.


But now I have to deal with the head mask blend into the torso. Traditionally, the face mask is a seperate suit section from the body. Designing the suit this way makes the final dressing of the person into it easier, and makes work breaks where you pull off the head so the mime can cool off easier.

But the traditional method of the head mask seperate from the body suit has one critical design drawback, with fur costumes: how do you keep a smooth and apparently uninterrupted flow of the hair down the back of the head, onto the neck, and to the torso? Fur in motion has some quirky behaviors, and if a fur covered mask joins a fur body suit, head movement with non-stretch fur causes shear lines on the lay of the hair, and one simple bend of the head in any direction, or one simple twist of the head to one side causes those hair shear lines to immediately appear. Result: a fake looking suit.

I expect to see such shear lines during or after the head turn (Look Back) sequence of motion, but I do not. It means to me that a face mask attached to the body the usual way will not replicate what I see in the film. A solution I can think of would be to fuse the back of the head into the body, the way a cloth hood attached to a sweat suit or winter coat. Then a smooth and uninterrupted flow of groomed hair will go down the head, neck, and on to the back and keep a beautiful natural appearance.

But I am working with non-stretch fur (stretch fur with a look like the film would not be invented until the early 1980's) so neither my option of real animal fur pelts or high grade artificial fur (with a backing similar to carpet) will allow much head movement. It can look great if the head doesn't move, but of course in the film the head does. I can only speculate how must resistance to a head turn the fur will impose on the mime inside the suit, or how it may bend or buckle in a way that clearly reveals it to be a fabricated furcloth suit, until I put the mime into it and try it, but now, as I plan the prospect of doing this, I genuinely do doubt that any furcloth I tailor to the neck and head, however well I blend it to the body, will achieve the look in the film.

So if I design to solve the seam and shearing effect of a fur head moving as a seperate piece from the fur cloth body, to allow the best head turn, I will get a bad shearing or seperation of hair that I expect to be very noticable even filmed in 16mm and from some distance. If I design to get a seamless flow of hair from head to body, by using a "hood" type section attached to the back of the suit, I worry that the head will not turn as shown. And if I allow the head to be a loose fitting generic mask over the mime's head, I will worry that the mime will turn his head, the furcloth on the back of the neck will resist the torque, and the mime's head will turn inside the mask, instead of with the mask, and the mime will no longer be looking out the eye openings correctly. And when the mime looks back straight ahead, I cannot count on his own head finding the right position back in the mask to see out clearly. I may have a mime who's vision is impared after that head turn action, by this problem.

I would probably compromise and try the hood design up to the mid point of the mime's head (going directly down the top of the head on each side past the midline of the ears), and under the chin, as my break in the hood. And then I'd add a facial appliance or mask to go on the front of the face and the hair would blend back into the hood structure. Then I'd cross my fingers and pray the head would turn as far as the film figure (no guarantee) and not show a furcloth bend or twisting fold (as expected).

But I would not guarantee any furcloth of the time would replicate what I see on the film and allow such head turning while maintaining such a smoothly groomed fur look between head and body.


I would need the mime chosen from the start, and I'd need that person available for several fitting sessions during the construction process. The initial session would be to either mold or pattern the mime's body so I can construct a tailoring manniken to build the foam padding and final suit. I wouldn't guarantee anything without such cooperation.

Without such a fitting manniken or form, I may risk one of the following:

If I make the padding too tight, for lack of proper fitting sessions, the tightness may restrict the mime's blood circulation somewhere inside the suit, inviting problems wearing it.

If I make the padding and suit too loose, the outer motion will have some of the unnatural physical dynamics I described in Part One above.

If I make the suit too short in the arms, legs, or torso (crotch to shoulders), the mime may not be able to close everything up.

If I make anything too long, it makes for potential baggy folds.

So I anticipate any formula for success will require me to have the mime come in to my fabrication facility at least three, more likely five or six times during the fabrication process, to get everything right.


Once the design criteria are settled, the actual fabrication can begin.


Using the body cast or other tailoring manniken, I can place a base suit (long john's work quite well) on the manniken and build the muscle padding. While some artists like to sculpt the full body in clay and mold the sculpture to be able to cast the muscle padding, I personally find the irregular density of cast flexible polyfoam into such a mold an undesirable potential outcome. Shaping blocks of flexible sheet foam, with a truly consistant density, is my preferred technique. These blocks of foam can be glued to each other, but the gluing does impede the flex and compression of the foam, so glue is kept to a minimum, and some of the foam-shaped muscle areas may be sheathed in a light cloth pouch. T-Shirt cotten jersey is a common fabric for that process.

Once the muscle padding is assembled, with it's closure devices (zippers, velcro, snaps, or such), the mime comes in for a fitting session, to try it on, see how it fits, and test its mobility, how much freedom of movement it allows the mime. Tight areas (if any) with potential to restrict circulation are examined. Later, any adjustments are made based on the evaluations made during this fitting session. If substantial adjustments are made, another fitting sesion is needed to verify the modifications were successful and sufficient to allow the mime the necessary comfort and mobility.


The tailoring of the final surface hair material then can begin. A critical decision is whether to glue or sew the fur to the padding suit, or glue or sew the fur into its own suit structure that can be dressed onto the mime seperate from the padding suit. Both methods have been used successfully.

But in this circumstance, the front seam design, and the awkward way the mime must step into the suit, doing it once, with fur attached to the padding, seems more pragmatic. Better to do this awkward dressing procedure once, not twice. So it is decided to sew and glue the fur to the muscle padding structure.

The nature of the fur, being short and dense, and the need for critically smooth and tight tailoring seams to allow the fur the smoothest blend from one section to another, or across a wedge or dart, all suggest my best blends of one fur segction or piece to another will be done with cloth gussets and glue. That allows the fur cloth base of each section to butt up against the second piece with the hair lay maintaining the best flow and continuity. sewing invariable entails some type of bending the base for a tight sewn join. A loosely sewn join allowing the two furcloth bases to butt against each other with no beld or overlap is a loose sewn seam, and one piece of the furcloth can easily fold, the sewing acting like a hinge.

So a glued seam with a cloth gusset panel under the furcloth bases will allow the smoothest, tightest seaming of furcloth sections and close tailoring seams best. But the sacrifice is some flexibility and mobility to the already stiff-backed fur. And the added stiffness of the glued sections alos creates a discontinuity in the overall furcloth form flexigility, because certain lines or areas have more stiffness than others.

Closures are added to the fur suit structure to close up the segments needed to be opened for the mime's dresing and undressing.

So while this method will yield the finest fur blend, the closest approximating what the film shows, especially along the back area, it will further reduce any perception of muscle movement beneath the fur. The final perception, of how the figure's body mass will appear to move beneath the fur, this can only be determined by use, an actual test session with the mime fully suited up and observed walking, ideally photographed or filmed walking and turning the body.


The body parts that represent bare skin are sculpted in plastilina, molds are made, and the pieces are then cast in latex, usually.

The head mask can be either a slush latex face with no precise interior shape, just a wall thickness inward of the sculpted head, or foamed latex appliances molded with the precise inside shape of the mime's face. The first requires only a minute or two to apply in usage, while the foamed latex appliance generally is a 1-2 hour application process requiring a makeup artist on set.

But this facial segment must shingle over the suit "hood section" on the back half of the head, so a mask is preferred to easily apply at the last minute when the mime is otherwise fully suited up. And the film has no apparent evidence of facial animation or motion, so the mask would suffice.

The feet should have a shoe or other secure footing for the wearerinside the cast feet, so a sports shoe, ideally a slip-on with elasticpanels on the sides of the ankle, is preferred over a lace-up shoe. A shoe already tested to be a comfortable size for the mime is placed in the foot mold, and flexible polyfoam is mixed and poured into the foot cast to fill the space betwen the slip latex foot shape and the inner shoe, so the two become one unified structure, and the mime wearing this is assured the surest possible footing as he walks over the woodland terrain.


Making a chest piece with the apparent breast shape isn't any challenge, but default industry process would normally be to simply slushcast latex for the skin, and polyfoam the rest of the interior to fill the breast cavity.

But this will not impart any bounce or other fluidity to the breast mass. It will essentially hold its form and defy gravity.

To accomplish a sense of fluid motion, the chest skin area can be cast in a 1/2" thick outer layer of foamed latex instead, and then fluid sacs can be put inside when the foam latex skin piece is fused to the suit. Some experiemntation would be appropriate to adjust foam latex thickness and amount of water in the fluid sac, to achieve a modest but apparent motion when the mime walks.


The final assembly of the suit requires another fitting, to test everything, fit, mobility, smoothness of closures and fur blend over closures, and overall mime confort. This final fitting also allows for a test run of the full dressing procedure and time to do so, plus confirming the number of assistants needed to go with the mime during the filming day.

To assume the mime can dress himself fully, and groom the fur suit, without assistance is an invitation to failure, and most emphatically not recommended.


While producing a suit that looks like the PG figure can reasonably be accomplished, if it stands still, there is no guarantee or warrant that it will look the same when walking and reproducing the figure's motions on the film.


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely fantastic series, Bill, and much appreciated. What I'd like to see, and maybe it was posted somewhere and I missed it, is a blurb about your background in costumes, etc. that I can copy and post to my website (with your permission, of course)????? I have links (to this forum) there to all 5 posts in your series .......Or maybe this series can be pinned along with a blurb about your background??????

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Hominid,WA
And the film has no apparent evidence of facial animation or motion, so the mask would suffice.

Bill, recently there have been insights into apparent movement concerning the mouth area of the subject; Owen Caddy will be speaking to this at the Capital Museum in a short couple weeks here in Washington. If there is detectable movement, how would that change up your approach to a mask and thus making the area transitional?

Link to post
Share on other sites


If there is evidence the figure in the PG film has mouth movement, and I'm trying to replicate it, I doubt any simple generic mask will do (although I couldn't say until knowing exactly the movement. Masks to make funny "fish" kind of mouth motions, but not generaly real jaw openings or real lip actions).

If motion were to be replicated, a foam latex set of appliances instead of a slip rubber mask would seem essential.

But again, depends on the motion.


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest CrimsonGoblin

Excellent series of analysis Bill.

Your views sure tend to sway my opinion of the PG film as it being a real creature, hoaxing being improbable.

But Dfoots investigation makes me think that it is a hoax....I'm so confused.

For the big question now...what is your percentage of belief or disbelief in the aunthenticity of the PG film

Link to post
Share on other sites

Crimson Goblin:

Thank you for appreciating the notes.

I can't really fix a percentage on my belief yet. Still a lot I haven't covered yet, in more detailed film study, looking for the very seams and furcloth bends and buckling I keep mentioning.

Wish I could just give it a full time analysis, but of course, reality in the home and other work does demand a lot of time.

But we are working closer to some conclusions, I believe.


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest colobus

Very interesting and informative series Mr. Munns. Thank you.

I guess this last part of your analysis begs the question: How much would it have cost you in 1967 dollars? Would it be possible to work up an estimate at some point? I imagine staff time (scale or no?), materials, etc..., would all need to figure in if you felt they were needed for the final result to meet your performance criteria.

And how long would an artist of sufficient caliber have been tied up with such a project? Would it have taken significantly less time to create an "original" rather than trying to match something that was already on film (i.e. research time, etc...), and still meet the same basic results?


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crow Logic:

Is there a chance somebody would actually pay to see Patty in action?



All I recall about 1967 dollars was gas was $0.33 a gallon (yes, thrity-three cents) and a makeup artist got about $65/day doing TV (scale), maybe a bit more for movies. But to venture a guess, I'd say somewhere in the $10,000 - $15,000 ballpark for 1967 dollars for what was described above. About 10x today, in all likelyhood.

An artist might throw it together in a month, but would probably want more like two months to do things more carefully. Plus a few assistants, ideally.

Only thing different about doing an original is we might decide on different design constraints, (seams up the back instead of front, so it looks good from the front), but generally, same amount of work overall.


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill, Thanks for the location of your background info.

One more question. Patty walks in what is called a compliant gait. That is, she doesn't lock her knees and lifts her calf on the back swing to almost parallel with the ground.......Then there's the knee wobble thing, that I'll ignore for now. I've tried to mimic that gait on my treadmill and cannot do it for more than a dozen steps or so, then my legs tire (and my legs are in fairly good condition). In this gait the leg muscles carry your entire weight on bent legs. In your opinion, if you have one, could a man in a suit as you describe walk on bent legs over this distance on unfamiliar ground, without falling flat on his face? It had to have been done in one "take" or the area would have been littered with tracks and I believe there was only one set of tracks at the site..

Any opinions?

Link to post
Share on other sites


Over the last two weeks I've been with the forum, I've heard a lot about Patty's walk or gait. But truthfully, I haven't looked at the studies yet to know exactly what's so unusual about it. The wealth of research material is quite massive, actually, and not something one can digest in days or even weeks. And I haven't tried walking to duplicate the descriptions I have heard. So I can't add to the analysis of that.

The suit wouldn't be particularly heavy, but might be easier to walk in with legs reasonably straight, and a shorter stride, because that's closer to the relaxed "neutral" posture of the suit and padding. Generally, the more you move a suit from the original or neutral position it was built in, the more effort is needed to accomplish same, because you are compressing padding in areas and trying to stretch the rigid furcloth somewhere on the body, causing it to also compress into the padding somewhat. So a continuously bended knee and longer strides might be more challenging in the suit, but I can't say categorically that it would.

I think I can say that the suit would certainly not cause such a walk, or make such a walk easier in suit that out of. So the walk could potentially agruse against a suit, but I can't yet categorically say so, or if so, why.

The whole idea though does deserve more consideration, and I'll certainly look into it more thoroughly as my own investigation continues.


Link to post
Share on other sites


You're taking a lot of time and mental effort in posting this material, and I think everyone appreciates it.

In terms of the material and labor for just the suit, how much do you think it would work out to? $2,500...$3,000 in '67?

And what techniques were used to attach the shirt and pant system that Walas envisioned having been used? Is it simply an overhang of the shirt (including buttocks, I seem to imagine)? Or is the shirt attached to itself through the crotch area from front to back, avoiding a 'bounce' in the rear overhang?

Link to post
Share on other sites


If all the notes help others here to set aside the misconceptions and misinformation, so their own analytical work goes more smoothly, then it's worth it. I think that's half the battle, in trying to solve a mystery, just being able to see false leads and confusing, irrelevent material for what they are and put them out of mind, the better to focus on the real issues and facts which do in fact affect the solution. Anyways, that's the intent. hope it's helping.


On a suit, the material and labor is really most of the cost. In those good old days, there were makeup labs in the studio makeup departments, and guys in their garages (or basements, like **** Smith in New York), but no real independent "creature shops" like today. Now a shop carries a high overhead that really eats up a chunk of a job budget, but in the old days, overhard was actually hardly anything. Labor and materials was 90% or better of the budget.

I've never done it the "Chris Walas" way, as he described (a pants and suit kind of rig) with fur. Did it on Swamp Thing for both suits, but we glued the top to the pants each day, and carefully peeled the sections apart at the end of the day. I would assume such a fur suit might use a velcro connection around the waist like a belt (facing out on the pants) and another on the inside of the shirt (facing in). Don't see a zipper working, and snaps or hook & eye closures leave "holes" between the connectors where the fur can do funny stuff and break the smooth line.

I don't see the strap through the crotch helping, because while it might help keep pulling the shirt part down, it also might form a "wedgie". Not sure on that. Kinda wonder, though. i personally wouldn't break a suit at the waist if I was doing a butt extension to cheat the look of shorter legs. I'd want a solid connection of fur from shoulder to butt and down the legs, what you get with a one piece jumpsuit design.

But again, as noted in the main article, the design constraints dictate a lot of the choices. Maybe different design specs could dictate using the pants/shirt rig.


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Bill thanks, I've enjoyed your 'mini-series'. Sorry I jumped in with a couple of questions earlier - but I missed your introductory post when you explained your were going to consider everything in due course.

That said I now have one very serious question for you.

What happened to Jim Danforth? :)

Sorry off topic. He was a superb artist & technician whom I'd forgotten until you mentioned him earlier. I enjoyed a series of articles he used to write (can't remember where - years ago) on his views & processes. He may have just retired by now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • gigantor unpinned this topic
  • Create New...