1/1 LowViz Lurker Posted June 30, 2006 Posted June 30, 2006 (edited) Is the gunpod actually to scale? I think they should experiment with different sizes. Edited June 30, 2006 by 1/1 LowViz Lurker
Lonely Soldier Boy Posted June 30, 2006 Posted June 30, 2006 I've always thought that the 19's design was inspired on flying swans. The 1/60 so far looks too fat. I know, I know: "the actual toy looks much better". It's about time we get to see some prototype shots and quit all this speculation around those cad drawings. When is the next hobby/figure magazine set for release?
Phren Posted June 30, 2006 Posted June 30, 2006 After looking at various art of all modes for a bit, I think the leg fins might be a bit on the small side as well. Especially for battroid mode. Submitted for consideration: 412451[/snapback] I'm all for bigger fins on this fish. Everything everyone else said makes sense, but I don't care if the Battroid is lanky, though I'm sure some would. I always thought the Battroid on the 19 was squat-looking anyway I mean look at the shape/size of the intakes on the 'hips' in the Kawamori design works.
Vermillion21 Posted June 30, 2006 Posted June 30, 2006 P.S. just wanted to say thanks to everyone for making this site the first one I go to when I sign on! Me too!!!
AC Starscream Posted June 30, 2006 Posted June 30, 2006 Wow I walk away form this site for an bit and I completely miss this. THis is very exciteing and great news. The YF-19 was always my favorite Valk. And when I got the 1/72nd VF-19A...I liked it..but I always thought it just wasnt acurately reflecting the 19. Now that I see these Cad drawings...Wow that is just awesome. And even though there are an few flaws that have been pointed out, it is still an great improvement. And I for one believe Ghraham when he says that the actual thing looks better then the CAD drawing. Wow! I can't wait, and like others have said I might even pick up 2. I also wouldnt mind an VF-11 in this scale. Oh and the YF-21.
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted June 30, 2006 Posted June 30, 2006 Wow I walk away form this site for an bit and I completely miss this. THis is very exciteing and great news. The YF-19 was always my favorite Valk. And when I got the 1/72nd VF-19A...I liked it..but I always thought it just wasnt acurately reflecting the 19. Now that I see these Cad drawings...Wow that is just awesome. And even though there are an few flaws that have been pointed out, it is still an great improvement. And I for one believe Ghraham when he says that the actual thing looks better then the CAD drawing. Wow! I can't wait, and like others have said I might even pick up 2.I also wouldnt mind an VF-11 in this scale. Oh and the YF-21. 412709[/snapback] You and me both! The VF-11 NEEDS to be redone! It was such a beaut in Macross Plus and looked phenomenal in the screentime it had!
wolfx Posted June 30, 2006 Author Posted June 30, 2006 I've always thought that the 19's design was inspired on flying swans. The 1/60 so far looks too fat. I know, I know: "the actual toy looks much better". It's about time we get to see some prototype shots and quit all this speculation around those cad drawings.When is the next hobby/figure magazine set for release? 412636[/snapback] Uhh...next month?
cyde01 Posted June 30, 2006 Posted June 30, 2006 (edited) I know 50 people have already shared their 2 cents, but I hope it's okay if I add mine. After all, we all have been waiting so long for this one. I'm mostly gonna reiterate what everyone else already said but I do have some points that I haven't heard yet. First, the good. Fighter mode looks great! There are some obvious compromises but they are enough for me to live with after owning the 1st ed. Yamato YF-19. That's great news that they figured out how to make the shoulders and the shins lay flush with each other in fighter mode, and have the shoulders more forward in battroid mode! With the old toy, the shoulders were so far recessed that the battroid looked like a hunch back. The fighter especially is a 100% improvement over the previous toy, with no bumps, gaps and exposed screws. The overall proportions look much sleeker and less chunky. Also great news that they were able to fix the front landing gear. While there was an obvious compromise made ("the bulge") to accomodate the landing gear, but that's still 100 times better than the craptastic exposed landing gear on the previous toy. Now, on to the nitpicks. Now when I say nitpicks they really are nitpicks as I am very pleased with how the CAD drawing is looking. And I do realize that the final product will be improved upon from this design. However, I and everyone else have waited so long and desired this toy so much that I think we may be entitled to a little bit of constructive criticism on the design. 1. As David said, the aerodynamic surfaces (wings, fins, canards) look too small. Someone said the fighter actually looks chunky and fat. On the contrary, I think it looks very sleek. I think the wings being too short may be the reason why some people think the fighter looks "chunky." 2. In fighter mode, the nose is too short, and there's that infamous "bulge" on the bottom of the nose that everyone's talking about. These are compromises I am OK with (you should see the bulge on the 1st ed. 19!!!) for the sake of the landing gear and a good looking battroid. However, I think everyone would be more accepting of "the bulge" if the bottom of the nose came UP into an arc like it's supposed to before it comes back down again to form the bulge. Unfortunately, it may be impossible to add that arc with the shortened nose. 3. Someone made the comment that the legs in battroid mode look too stubby. That's because the intake section (hip, thigh section) is too long and sleek, and the engine nascelle section (calf section) is too short. The intake section should actually be less sleek, a little wider and have much more of a rounded appearance. The engine/calf should be longer and also have a much more rounded appearance. The calf should also be much wider, especially on the outside where there should be a bulge. This would give the battroid a much bulkier and improved appearance. This should also be possible without sacrificing the sleekness in fighter mode, because: 4. From the top view in fighter, the fuselage section behind the nose should actually be wider and less swept back. You will especially know what I'm talking about when you look at the LERX right before the wing. It should angle out a lot further to the side and not be as swept back. The intake sections also look a bit too narrow and swept back from the top view. Finally, as many have mentioned, the articulation must be much improved in battroid, something that you can't tell based on a CAD drawing. In the CAD drawing, the legs go straight down, and the shoulders remain flat, but as others have mentioned, there needs to be a ball joint in the hips so the legs can pivot outward at least a little bit, and shoulders need to be able to be angled upward. This small amount of articulation would vastly improve the overall look of the battroid, although given the location of these joints, adding this articulation may be difficult. But I do remember someone customizing a 1st ed. 19 with massive amounts of articulation in battroid mode. Anyway I know it's just a preliminary design and I'm sure it's gonna look great when it comes out. And sorry for my craptastic Paint drawings. If I had a copy of Photoshop, I'd use it. edited grammar Edited June 30, 2006 by cyde01
kensei Posted June 30, 2006 Posted June 30, 2006 You and me both! The VF-11 NEEDS to be redone! It was such a beaut in Macross Plus and looked phenomenal in the screentime it had! 412714[/snapback] I wonder if they can do it with the Full Armour Variant in mind. I won't be expecting much, but it would be interesting.
Sumdumgai Posted June 30, 2006 Posted June 30, 2006 You and me both! The VF-11 NEEDS to be redone! It was such a beaut in Macross Plus and looked phenomenal in the screentime it had! 412714[/snapback] VF-11! Must have new VF-11! The old 1/60 was admirable in technology back then because it beat the hell out of the old chunky monkies, but now it deserves revisiting to implement all that experience Yamato's accumulated. Need VF-11! I'd even wait on a VF-4 to get a new VF-11!
ghiblione Posted June 30, 2006 Posted June 30, 2006 The bandai has a pretty "sharp" nose in fighter. But when I look back at it in robot mode: Glad to see my photos here!!
Dat Pinche Haro! Posted June 30, 2006 Posted June 30, 2006 isn't the current VF-11 about 1/60th as it is? Either way, YAY NEW M+ TOYS!!! I want a YF-21 more than anything tho...
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted June 30, 2006 Posted June 30, 2006 isn't the current VF-11 about 1/60th as it is?Either way, YAY NEW M+ TOYS!!! I want a YF-21 more than anything tho... 412791[/snapback] Its 1/68-67 scale. Way back when it was about to come out, they said it was scaled up since the original 1/72 prototype was too fragile. I say all NEW tooling for a 160 VF-11!!!!! And hey for guaranteed sales, throw in Max and Milia types from M3. That way we have 3 paint schemes! Or that Dark purple tinted grey with orange trim one from Macross Plus.
eugimon Posted June 30, 2006 Posted June 30, 2006 isn't the current VF-11 about 1/60th as it is?Either way, YAY NEW M+ TOYS!!! I want a YF-21 more than anything tho... 412791[/snapback] Its 1/68-67 scale. Way back when it was about to come out, they said it was scaled up since the original 1/72 prototype was too fragile. I say all NEW tooling for a 160 VF-11!!!!! And hey for guaranteed sales, throw in Max and Milia types from M3. That way we have 3 paint schemes! Or that Dark purple tinted grey with orange trim one from Macross Plus. 412807[/snapback] just redo all the macross plus valks. I would buy them.
danth Posted June 30, 2006 Posted June 30, 2006 Damn right! I NEED a 1/60 VF-11 with fast packs and sumo-armor. That would be so sweeeeet. About the new YF-19, I can't believe you guys can accept that horribly fat forward fuselage. It reminds me of a frickin' pelican. Not what I'd call sleek. Looks like I'll be passing this up.
Briareos Posted June 30, 2006 Posted June 30, 2006 (edited) There is a possiblity that the wide fuselage is meant to accomindate a larger cockpit. If they can pull off the the 360 degree cockpit with rotating seat, I wouldn't mind it. Still I also agree that the gun, canard wings and leg fins are too small. They can easily be enlarged without hurting the tranformation or the dimensions of the other modes. Is it just me or does the battloid mode look as if it's been kicked in the groin with his feet still planted, as in the cartoons? Here's my crappy photoshop work Edited June 30, 2006 by Briareos
Batou Posted June 30, 2006 Posted June 30, 2006 just redo all the macross plus valks. I would buy them. Amen to that. I got bored with the VF-1 a while back, after the Hikaru VF-1J came out. I quit buying these until the GBP and VF-0 came out. The bottom line is that it's getting harder to get my money when I have literally a friggin' fleet of these things and it takes more justification to buy another and another. I'm not content with just a simple repaint of an existing sculpt anymore, but a whole new mold still gets my attention in a big way. I mean, how could I NOT get a 1/60 19? Or an 11 or a 21? (Or a 17 or a 4 for that matter ... )
Nied Posted June 30, 2006 Posted June 30, 2006 Honestly it looks great except for that forward fuselage. I think they just need to make the nose longer, if that means a big pointy uniboob in batroid mode I'm fine with that (Yamato has always been about good looking fighter modes anyway). I've also got to agree with David, all of the control surfaces need to be scaled up a little (what is it with Yamato and putting control surfaces that are too small on their M+ Valks?)
1/1 LowViz Lurker Posted July 1, 2006 Posted July 1, 2006 (edited) 1. As David said, the aerodynamic surfaces (wings, fins, canards) look too small. Someone said the fighter actually looks chunky and fat. On the contrary, I think it looks very sleek. I think the wings being too short may be the reason why some people think the fighter looks "chunky." Agree here. Maybe it is a battroid mode thing where smaller = less poking out from the legs? 2. In fighter mode, the nose is too short, and there's that infamous "bulge" on the bottom of the nose that everyone's talking about. These are compromises I am OK with (you should see the bulge on the 1st ed. 19!!!) for the sake of the landing gear and a good looking battroid. However, I think everyone would be more accepting of "the bulge" if the bottom of the nose came UP into an arc like it's supposed to before it comes back down again to form the bulge. Unfortunately, it may be impossible to add that arc with the shortened nose. Yeah that is the first thing I noticed when I first saw it even without comparing lineart. I would love to see it go up and down then in a straight line. 3. Someone made the comment that the legs in battroid mode look too stubby. That's because the intake section (hip, thigh section) is too long and sleek, and the engine nascelle section (calf section) is too short. The intake section should actually be less sleek, a little wider and have much more of a rounded appearance. The engine/calf should be longer and also have a much more rounded appearance. The calf should also be much wider, especially on the outside where there should be a bulge. This would give the battroid a much bulkier and improved appearance. This should also be possible without sacrificing the sleekness in fighter mode I'm actually happy about top view. From the side I think the fighter overall looks chunky compared to model though. I think overall the toy will make stuff chunky at the side view (due to landing gear?) while looking in proportion from the top view. (apart from the cockpit area which will have detail inside like the vf1/0 so it needs the space?) So maybe the intake then gets a little deformed (less wide - done deliberately?) for toy form as the compromise. Then they can get away with short wings, and small fins etc, so that in robot mode there is less stuff sticking out behind the legs. (better poses and stuff. The 1/72 have a mess at the back of the calves where stuff "hangs out" too much, so maybe this time they want a cleaner robot? The vf1 doesn't have that prob of course because the v tail is tucked away nicely in the backpack) On 1/72, when the fins are transformed to bend inwards in gerwalk, they are long enough that they actually rub together when the legs are straight. Maybe one advantage of shortening these, (and have a wider body with skinny, more poseable legs) means they don't do this as much? But in lineart the fins end up looking a little "shrunken" in other modes. (like the nosecone did in lineart for the vf-1 in robot mode.) As I'm a fan of the banpresto vf1, I can live with skinny chicken legs. Edited July 1, 2006 by 1/1 LowViz Lurker
Californium Posted July 1, 2006 Posted July 1, 2006 This is all I ask. (changes in red) I think the longer wing length would be okay in battroid, and not unlike this screen cap. I'm okay with the size of the upper fins as they are--especially after seeing Graham's helpful lineart comparisons.
David Hingtgen Posted July 1, 2006 Posted July 1, 2006 If you had the v.stabs on a sliding hinge and able to be rotated, you could make them bigger and still fit totally behind the legs. Look at the blue VF-19A pic. Imagine the fins could slide up along their hinges on the legs a bit, then rotate downwards to be behind the legs. As for stuff hanging off: c'mon, it's the YF-19. It has GIGANTIC wings hanging off the hips. Having a bit larger canard or ventral fin or v.stab hanging off won't make the slightest difference in battroid mode compared to what the wings do---but could help a lot in fighter mode.
1/1 LowViz Lurker Posted July 1, 2006 Posted July 1, 2006 (edited) Here are the main ones so far in summary: -bigger gunpod -bigger fins, canard, wings -longer calves/shins with stubbier hips (so the intakes look a little bit 'wider'?) but which are also skinnier than the calves/shins -shoulders that can be angled upwards for robot mode -shoulders that reach as high as the cockpit canopy in fighter mode -more curved neck/belly -double jointed knees and elbows (gerwalk mode has to rock) -curved edges like the lineart rather than sharp ones From the impression I get it looks meaty side on, but in robot mode looks skinny from the front. (which I don't mind much as I've mentioned before that is how I envision valks because of thier fighter mode) I just hope that, if they do make the bottom part of the legs stubby in a change, (to be more like the lineart) that there is enough room for beefy enough arms. I wasn't really a fan of the 1/72 vf11 for example because of that. (the arms get skinnier and skinnier with each release vf1 to vf0. And then people wonder why you can't have beefy hands to fit inside the sleeve and support the chunky gundpod with weak wrists... ) Edited July 1, 2006 by 1/1 LowViz Lurker
Californium Posted July 1, 2006 Posted July 1, 2006 It really doesn't need larger canards and dorsal fins. Both are already as large as in the lineart when seen from both the sides and the top. (See comparison pic a few posts up for the top view...) The wings would be perfect if made just a little longer and, yes, the ventral fins do need to be larger to be accurate. As does the gunpod.
vlenhoff Posted July 1, 2006 Posted July 1, 2006 I think the area behind the cockpit is a bit too thick(sideview). I just wish this area could be a little slimmer , and the wings a bit larger. Can't wait to see & play with the real thing. I wish it was released already.
Vermillion21 Posted July 1, 2006 Posted July 1, 2006 Wow all this critical analysis ... on the VF-19 line art/CAD drawings!!! Can you imagine the 'comments' when we see the first prototype pics?!?!
TheLoneWolf Posted July 1, 2006 Posted July 1, 2006 Wow all this critical analysis ... on the VF-19 line art/CAD drawings!!!Can you imagine the 'comments' when we see the first prototype pics?!?! 412976[/snapback] Oh you ain't seen nothing yet!
eugimon Posted July 1, 2006 Posted July 1, 2006 Welcome to MacrossWorld: Home of the armchair mecha designer!
ruskiiVFaussie Posted July 2, 2006 Posted July 2, 2006 Yep, longer wings and a beefier more accurate gunpod, I'll be flippin happy.... doing happy flips. Yes, happy flips.
jenius Posted July 2, 2006 Posted July 2, 2006 Will they sell a big mechanical horse for that thing to ride. I mean seriously, I haven't seen a gap like that since... well, let's not go there. I'm just kinda teasing a bit. I do think there are a few rough spots, and I did prefer the CAD design the other member did that was a bit narrower with upward sloped shoulders, but I do think it's well on its way to being great. The pelican area is definitely the biggest turn off, I really liked the sleekness of the Mac+ valks and that pelican gut kinda does away with that.
1/1 LowViz Lurker Posted July 2, 2006 Posted July 2, 2006 Can't wait to see & play with the real thing. I wish it was released already. Maybe it was and graham didn't tell us yet. just kidding..
e_jacob77 Posted July 2, 2006 Posted July 2, 2006 HI all, Anyone wanna bet that the "pelican gut" thingy will be removable for transformation?
1/1 LowViz Lurker Posted July 2, 2006 Posted July 2, 2006 (edited) Well I'm happy if they leave the nose short for battroid. (fighter plane mode people said they accepted that as one compromise) But about the neck leading to the belly, if they can put a curve upwards and then downards instead of going in a straight line that would be good. Yeah so the lineart does show a bulge (on further analysis), but it would be good if the curve was there to show that the nose was fatter than its neck. You can barely see something like that for the 1/72 vf11. (and it had a tiny landing gear) So I think that it would be doable.. Edited July 2, 2006 by 1/1 LowViz Lurker
jenius Posted July 2, 2006 Posted July 2, 2006 Is the landing gear really such a big deal? Why not make the landing gear collapsible? Have it so that you extend it outward and twist to lock it. Boom, landing gear size problem solved and you didn't have to ugly up the entire front of a jet to do it.
Recommended Posts