Giraffatitan & Dracorex Mod

This simple mod replaces the extra Pachycephalosaurus in the Judith River a and the extra Brachiosaurus in the Tendegaru with genera more appropriate to these formations. Judith River a now features Dracorex instead of the Pachy while the African sauropod is now Giraffatitan. Both feature the same statistics as their original genus but have different names and a new skin to give the game more variety and to make it slightly more challenging.

Dracorex (possibly a species of Pachycephalosaurus)



Giraffatitan (I decided to take the name literally)

[img][/img]

Bug: They use the dead skins so if a Giraffatitan dies it turns into a Brachiosaurus (and vice versa). Ditto for the Dracorex which becomes a pachy upon death.

This mod is for all those who have said they wanted something else to replace the extra pachy and brach, enjoy. Backup your files in case you want to return to the original version of the game. Now unzip the download and paste the files in the JPOG/Data folder. When it asks you if you want to overide the original files select yes. You will now have the new animals when you open a new game and dig for fossils at Judith River site a or the Tendaguru.

Download: http://www.mediafire.com/?q9epc5pr2upwdmk

I heard that the JPOG Brach was actually a Giraffititan.

Most pictures of brachiosaurus are based on giraffatitan simply because until recently the two were considered two species in the same genus (like lions and tigers). They are still close relatives and Brachiosaurus (which is only found in America) is known only from fragments. The African Giraffatitan, however, is known from several entire skeletons.

On the other hand Dracorex and Pachycephalosaurus have recently been proposed to be the same genus (but may still be separate species). They are still from separate formations however and this is reflected in the mod.

awsome skins there.the draco could use a bit more texture,but it's still very good,and about the giraffatitan,it's simply perfect(I almost thoght it was giraffe model XD)is it source textured or handmade?

jplm wrote:awsome skins there.the draco could use a bit more texture,but it's still very good,and about the giraffatitan,it's simply perfect(I almost thoght it was giraffe model XD)is it source textured or handmade?

Thank You. The Dracorex texture was a bumpy hide from a black & white dracorex picture but when I made the texture more opaque it obscured the coloring so I left it as it is. I am going to use the texture on a bigger dino, I think it will be more obvious on a larger model.

The giraffatitan is adorable isn't it? I was actually surprised on how little it looks like the brachiosaurus, especially in the face.



I used the giraffe skin from Zoo Tycoon 2 as the primary model for the base coloring then added the texture from the JPOG brachiosaur to make it more sauropodian. There is a slight joint issue at the base of the neck which I never could get looking right but it's not that noticeable unless you know where to look.

well that explains it all,and about the neck joint in the gira,try to remove/move every spot from the limit of the joint,some little adjustments and it should be even better than how it is now,anyway,it's still very small,and there's no urgent need to do this

looks great, nice skin

Cool skins. I've noticed that the Giraffititan has multiple joint issues, but it still has some pretty good textures to it. Great work.

P.S. How could Dracorex be a sub-species of Pachycephalosaurus if Dracorex is only known from juvenile specimens. Same with Stigymoloch. And all three are known from the Hell Creek formation, so they are from the same place and same time. So he's probobly the same as Pachycephalosaurus, just a juvenile form.

wow cool skin

and i love the Girafftitan skin

There are 2 Brachs in game.Ones Giraffititan

Dracorex is more than probably a juvenile of Pachycephalosaurus as there were smaller and not fully grown , same for Stygimoloch .
Giraffatitan is also a distinct genius to Brachiosaurus , even tough they are very similar . Brachiosaurus brancai has been renamed Giraffatitan brancai .

Matt wrote:Giraffatitan is also a distinct genius to Brachiosaurus , even tough they are very similar . Brachiosaurus brancai has been renamed Giraffatitan brancai .

Um, that's what I said

As for Dracorex, I mentioned that it may be the same as Pachycephalosaurus. Personally I will wait for more fossils as Horner's ideas don't have a good track record (troodon as a carnivourous hypsilophodont. T. rex as a complete scavenger, etc.).

According to Dr. Holtz, Dracorex and Stygimoloch fossils have been found in South Dakota while Stygimoloch and Pachycephalosaurus has been found in Montana and Wyoming. I have also heard that Stygimoloch juveniles have been found and that they differ from Dracorex. However the only mention of this in actual scientific (as opposed to dino fan) sites I have found is that the fossils are undescribed. Another paper (which alas is no longer on the net but was found at http://www.thedracorex.com/letter1.html) claims that Horner and company did not even study the actual skulls but plaster replicas.

They state that they utilized computed tomography to reveal internal skull development of Dracorex and Stygimoloch in order to reveal ontogenetically (developmentally) derived features. Unfortunately, they did not scan the Dracorex skull or even examine the original fossils. These were donated to a public institution and are available for study. There are, of course, no internal skull features to the resin cast they studied. In fact, the Dracorex skull has been CT scanned twice, both in and out of matrix, revealing fused sutures, an adult feature. Similarly, the jugal and postorbital bones are fused, which is evident upon examining the fossil.

So my own opinion until more fossils are found and described is that they may be the same genus but might be separate species much like the the Big Horn Sheep (Ovis canadensis) and Thinhorn Sheep (Ovis dalli) are today. Similar animals in different ranges that (until recently due to over hunting in the case of the sheep) overlap in some areas.

Tamara Henson wrote:Personally I will wait for more fossils as Horner's ideas don't have a good track record

Not Jack*ss Horner of all people D:
Great work on all your skins, their amazing, hopefully Gorsh reviews them and gives credit where it is definatly due.

Tamara Henson wrote:

Um, that's what I said

As for Dracorex, I mentioned that it may be the same as Pachycephalosaurus. Personally I will wait for more fossils as Horner's ideas don't have a good track record (troodon as a carnivourous hypsilophodont. T. rex as a complete scavenger, etc.).

Uh, their was never a theory that Troodon was a Hypsolophodontid, and Jack never once suggested it.... I think you're refering to the 1870's when Troodon's classification was very blurry. It was actually considered a type of Pachycephalosaur for a long time, and even sometimes as a Megalosaurid, but nobody ever said it was a Hypsolophodontid. Not even once....

And Jack recently re-stated his argument about T-rex being a complete scavenger, more of an opertunistic carnivore. And I actually have supported the idea, since the evidence is kinda stacked in his favor.....

Tamara Henson wrote:According to Dr. Holtz, Dracorex and Stygimoloch fossils have been found in South Dakota while Stygimoloch and Pachycephalosaurus has been found in Montana and Wyoming. I have also heard that Stygimoloch juveniles have been found and that they differ from Dracorex. However the only mention of this in actual scientific (as opposed to dino fan) sites I have found is that the fossils are undescribed. Another paper (which alas is no longer on the net but was found at http://www.thedracorex.com/letter1.html) claims that Horner and company did not even study the actual skulls but plaster replicas.

They state that they utilized computed tomography to reveal internal skull development of Dracorex and Stygimoloch in order to reveal ontogenetically (developmentally) derived features. Unfortunately, they did not scan the Dracorex skull or even examine the original fossils. These were donated to a public institution and are available for study. There are, of course, no internal skull features to the resin cast they studied. In fact, the Dracorex skull has been CT scanned twice, both in and out of matrix, revealing fused sutures, an adult feature. Similarly, the jugal and postorbital bones are fused, which is evident upon examining the fossil.

So my own opinion until more fossils are found and described is that they may be the same genus but might be separate species much like the the Big Horn Sheep (Ovis canadensis) and Thinhorn Sheep (Ovis dalli) are today. Similar animals in different ranges that (until recently due to over hunting in the case of the sheep) overlap in some areas.

Thats stuff about Dr.Holtz is really old information you know, and the other info I don't know where you're getting from, cause it's not true.....

Dracorex, Stigimoloch, and Pachycephalosaurus are all known from the same formation and lived at the same time. Pachycephalosaurus was infact found in South Dakota, and their is no known younger forms of Stygimoloch.

And actually Dr. Horner was infact able to examine the holotype Dracorex skull in a 2009 study, he found nothing that Dr. Holtz said, their were multiple unfused bones and a number of features seen in juvenile animals, such as a large eye socket. Afterwards he then to a sample from the skull's interior and found that it was incredibly spongy inside, again something seen in juvenile animals that are growing very fast. He also found a single area in the skull that was thickening, and similar in placement and position to Pachycephalosaurus' dome.

Stygimoloch also had a un-fused dome, something seen in all juvenile Pachycephalosaurs, and the spikes on the back of it's head were shrinking to smaller sizes, similar to Pachycephalosaurus' bumps.

Link to 2009 study:

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0007626

Video about the study (and similar studies made by himself and his colleages):



(I love using this video )

The Giraffatitan is kinda cute.

RaptorX I am sorry to say but you are wrong. In the early 1980s (I was there and in collage at the time) Troodon was known only from teeth. When Horner discovered Egg Mountain (where he found the maiasaur nests) he also discovered Troodon teeth in the nests of what is now called orodromeus. So Orodromeus was called Troodon and thought to be a carnivore until a complete Troodon jaw was found that proved that they were separate animals. However Horner's chimera was illustrated in dinosaur books until at least 1988. For a good picture of "carnivourous hypsilophodon troodon" find a copy of A 'Field Guide to Dinosaurs' by the Diagran Group published in 1983.

And I never said the juvenile 'Stygimoloch' was described by Holtz. I said it was undescribed which might well mean that it is a new animal entirely. What I said was that according to Holtz Dracorex was from a separate formation. The information I got it from was published in the Winter of 2010 so may be out dated but until I see otherwise FROM an actual paleontologist I will stay with those facts. The quote was also not by Holtz and I never said it was, please learn to read. In a related note nobody ever said Dracorex was a subspecies of Pachycephalosaurus. A subspecies is a distinctive population within a species. Pachycephalosaurus is a genus NOT a species. The species is Pachycephalosaurus wyomingensis.

Simply put what information I have, information that was published AFTER the link you gave above, claims that Horner was mistaken and until the evidence is looked over and confirmed by other qualified paleontologist or more fossils show up the jury is still out. That is how science works.

Besides if you want to be a snot you can always rename the Dracorex whatever you want. I for one, and a lot of other people I have spoken to, would rather have a separate dinosaur rather than two pacycephalosauruses. Heavens if you don't like it don't download it, this is a game not an SVP paper.

Tamara Henson wrote:RaptorX I am sorry to say but you are wrong. In the early 1980s (I was there and in collage at the time) Troodon was known only from teeth. When Horner discovered Egg Mountain (where he found the maiasaur nests) he also discovered Troodon teeth in the nests of what is now called orodromeus. So Orodromeus was called Troodon and thought to be a carnivore until a complete Troodon jaw was found that proved that they were separate animals. However Horner's chimera was illustrated in dinosaur books until at least 1988. For a good picture of "carnivourous hypsilophodon troodon" find a copy of A 'Field Guide to Dinosaurs' by the Diagran Group published in 1983.

Wait, what you're saying doesn't make any sense. Yes Troodon was only known from Teeth at the time, but we did know about Stenonychosaurus (Now considered the same as Troodon), and even at that time we knew they were closely related animals because their teeth were extremely similar. Both were put in the family Troodontidae and were examples of small theropod dinosaurs, we knew that throughout the time period. Infact Dr. Sternburg in 1932 classified Troodon and it's kin as a type of Theropod, and not related to the Ornithischians.

And Orodromeous' remains were first desrcibed by Horner in 1988, about 2 years after the remains were first uncovered. How could this be if Orodromeous was described 8 years after you're saying? Not just that but in 1987 Troodon was found to be the same animal as Stenonychosaurus, so how could this be? And finally, the Orodromeous holotype specimen that was first uncovered had a relatively complete skull with teeth, that looked nothing like Troodon's.

What you're saying it contridicting actual history about what really happened. And another thing, if you were in collage in the early 1980's. What, you'd have to be 50 or something now?(give or take a few years) Stalker....

Tamara Henson wrote:And I never said the juvenile 'Stygimoloch' was described by Holtz. I said it was undescribed which might well mean that it is a new animal entirely.

I never said that either.....

Tamara Henson wrote: What I said was that according to Holtz Dracorex was from a separate formation.

Ok this study by Dr. Holtz doesn't sound like the most reliable source. We have discovered cranial elements from the Pachycephalosaurus DMNH 469 in South Dakota.

Tamara Henson wrote:The information I got it from was published in the Winter of 2010 so may be out dated but until I see otherwise FROM an actual paleontologist I will stay with those facts.

What is Jack chopped liver? He isn't my favorite scientist but I give him the respect he deserves. He stated in the interview I posted (that you likely didn't watch) that he was able to cut into the Dracorex Holotype and see from the bone histology that it was infact a juvenile.

Tamara Henson wrote:The quote was also not by Holtz and I never said it was, please learn to read.

Again, I never said it was either.

Tamara Henson wrote:In a related note nobody ever said Dracorex was a subspecies of Pachycephalosaurus. A subspecies is a distinctive population within a species. Pachycephalosaurus is a genus NOT a species. The species is Pachycephalosaurus wyomingensis.

I know that. I'm just trying to make the point that all known Dracorex and Stygimoloch specimens (with the exception of the posible one you listed) are juveniles and are known to be juveniles from the bone histology. While on the other hand Pachycephalosaurus is known from only adult specimens, and is known to be an adult from the bone histology. All three lived at the same time period and same geographic location, so that should atleast indicate evidence that they were infact the same genus as well as same species.

Tamara Henson wrote:Simply put what information I have, information that was published AFTER the link you gave above, claims that Horner was mistaken and until the evidence is looked over and confirmed by other qualified paleontologist or more fossils show up the jury is still out. That is how science works.

I know how science works, please don't explain it to me. And didn't you watch my video? Jack even said in the interview that he was able to get his hands on the Dracorex Holotype skull and take a sample from it's interior. And for your information, this interview was put on TV AFTER your 2010 information was published.

yeah I can see this is gonna lead somewhere bad so
Anyway, very nice skins

Thank you. Honest this argument is completely irrelevant, as I even said that Dracorex may be the same as pachycephalosaurus in my original post! By the way I do not hate Horner, I believe he has made valuable contributions to the field. However many scientists question his Pachycephalosaurus hypothesis. In other words the evidence needs to be confirmed by independent workers before it can go from a hypothesis to a theory.

This is a skin for JPOG not a scientific paper. I will no loner answer such questions, easily answered if you bother to do your research, as I have better things to do than argue with trolls. For those interested in Troodon's sordid history I will put a post elsewhere and will put a link back to it here when done.

OK here is the link: http://ogparadise.attivoforum.com/t4851-the-sordid-history-of-troodon#86083

somethings wrong man . the new dinos did appear but their skins did not ? strange isn't it ? even out of the hatchery it did not work !!!

Odd it works on mu computer. Let me check the downloaded version (maybe it became corrupted or something). I cannot check now (I am at the library and don't have my JPOG disc) but I will return after Christmas.

Update: Well Darn when I came home my cd/dvd drive stopped working and nothing I could do would fix it. I guess i will have to buy a new drive but it will have to wait until after Christmas. However try this quick fix. Change your screen-resolution from 16 Bit to32 Bit. I have found that this sometimes fixes all white skins depending on the computer.

P.S. I know it's beating a dead horse but...



Point made

I like the girrafa, can you give me a separate link for girrafa only? because i don´t like the dracorex

Sorry about that, I don't have them in a separated in a TML. You can try mod ding the file by deleting the the dracorex (coded drex) from the DinoList, FslHunt, and Eng file. Dracorex will still show up as the pachy's dead skin but you will not have to adopt it.

Good luck and remember to back your files up in case it doesn't work.