WARNING!!!! VERY LONG PHILOSOPHY RANT AHEAD!

I'm am working on something inspired loosely by the MIT Aeronautics design for an un-armored pressure suit that will be used by the crew on-board high altitude aircraft and spacecraft. My thinking is that a lightweight pressure suit might be worn underneath armor so that the armor doesn't need to be pressurized, optionally with a different helmet specifically designed for that role. In this manner armor could be taken off without depressurizing and without being in a pressurized environment, making it possible to take it off or put it on in a vacuum. I think future bulky EVA suit designs might do something similar to this, because they need to pack the extra life support systems a light weight suit cannot, but they also would benefit from being a modular second layer if you will, rather than a stand-alone system such as current EVA suits, and it makes sense for a pressure suit to be separate for a number of other reasons.I want to touch on design philosophy a little, but take my words with a grain of sand and I hope no one gets offended if you disagree.I'm a big fan of Star Citizen, but I have not bought into it yet in the current alpha state. The first thing that struck me about it which I didn't like was a considerable amount of the design seemed extremely unoriginal and even worse it appears to be so focused on aesthetics that functionality comes second in almost every case. One of their suits copies Dava Newman's design, (pictured below), and so precisely that I find it kind of disconcerting, however many people do not have a problem with it, and that is totally fine, it is just my personal preference. This is kind of disappointing to me as an artist and designer, considering how far the game is set in the future, and there has been a lot of critique about this, with opinions ranging from; "I love the suit so who cares if it was directly copied", to others such as myself pointing out that RSI has a habit of obviously plagiarizing a number of their designs directly, from movies, other video games and the real world. I love the vision and direction Star Citizen in terms of game play, but I haven't been taken up in the almost cult like following it has gained for a number of reasons, the major one of them being design philosophy. I really strive to be somewhere in-between the two extremes in design philosophy, and it is incredibly difficult. It is not bad at all to be inspired by fictional or real world designs, in that regard nearly all science fiction designs stem from the real world in some way or the other and many real world designs stem from science fiction. However, I am absolutely against copying a design directly such as in this case. Indeed many spacecraft in science fiction originate directly from the work of Ralph McQuarrie, the main concept artist for the original Star Wars universe, and in turn he was unquestionably inspired by the works of others before him. It happens unintentionally, even if you are not looking at a reference directly during the design process, because inherently we abstract shapes from those we are familiar with, in this way one could say my design above looks like a Halo suit or something, and while I didn't intend it, there is probably a lot truth to that, since I have played the game. Now think what the original creator of the Halo suit was inspired by, and so forth. All design can be traced to some origin. There is that, and then there is unquestionable plagiarism, which I find to be evidence of a lack of creativity. There are two pieces of advice I have picked up along the road that I try to instill in my concepts to avoid the problem of originality. The first is, don't put a single reference image next to the design you are working on or it will end up looking exactly like that or so similar it is noticeable. Rather, look at the reference, and then put it away and try to abstract from it as a platform to build from instead of a structure to build on. The second piece of advice is to know the subject matter and become intimately familiar with it at a level beyondand. I find many science fiction spacecraft to not make any sense, and this can happen when an artist focuses on shape and style too much, and forgets function entirely. Like yeah, sure it looks cool, but is there any solid theory behind the design, or does the thoery stop at "it looks cool"? Many of the best science fiction authors and artists will tell you that they spent considerable time researching things for the basis of their work. In real-world engineering design applications, aesthetics is always considered but it is the last requirement. For instance, typically the military might be less inclined to fund or buy an aircraft which is simply unappealing, and engineers are in fact taught to consider design aesthetics, in aerospace it is talked about extensively as being a major factor. But functionality is always first and foremost because it must meet the physical and functional requirements before anything else. Because of the trend of concept artists to either copy a reference too closely and it turns out looking exactly like something else, or on the other hand they do not think about function at all and only focus on shape and style. The work that stands out the most to me is that which lies somewhere in-between those two extremes, and in my opinion it is the best way to make original designs in a world where originally is so rare any more. The work of McQuarrie stands out for that reason, and if you aren't familiar with his original concept art please go take a look. He obviously understood functional design on a very deep level. While not being an engineer, he was able to express functionality in his designs that was unquestionable, even if completely fictional in theory. On the other side of the spectrum, I see much sci-fi design so focused on those two words I keep using, "shape" and "style", that it completely misses the entire point of design to begin with, and even if the shape has never been used before, because it only considers shape and style it is inherently unoriginal. Part of the fault lies in the art directors and not the concept artists themselves, because ultimately they make the decision on project which is often too driven by shape and style and neglects function altogether. Of course there are many artists who are successful and make tons of money, and if that is the only objective it is acceptable, but it is those who take a holistic approach to design that really stand out to me. Because their designs take everything in design philosophy into account instead of leaning toward one extreme or the other, when I look at their work that fact is extremely evident and really sets it apart. I truly believe almost any one can come up with a cool looking design, even if they are not an artist, but very few people can regularly produce work which is truly groundbreaking, that is why to me the work of people like McQuarrie and many others is so iconic and will never be forgotten. It is extremely difficult to find that happy medium, and something I am always catching myself straying from. In fact, you may have noticed the design above of the "SBM-67A Ghostrider" is an almost direct copy of the X-51A Waverider upon which it is based. I have a concept for one which is much different, but still inspired by the X-51A. This is an instance of me catching myself copying a design too closely, and I while I didn't look at the original when I was designing it, the outcome is exactly the same when comared side by side. To me this is a constant battle I am fighting when trying to create original concepts. And seriously, please [PLEASE!] give me and every artist your criticism, it is by far more important than your praise. I am always keen to hear the thoughts and practices of other artists on this subject.Best regards,Uriah