reeoyuy Posted June 30, 2011 Posted June 30, 2011 (edited) I don't know why I keep doing this either, but... We just got used to them because of the first tv series where the fighters naturally were a government secret and had to act like normal jets until the first zentradi attack. ...You still believe that? Yeah, and Project Supernova 30 years later is sooo secret that they need to disguise YF-19 and YF-21 as normal jets with working landing gear despite VF is common thing in that era [/sarcasm]. Showing me pictures of mecha from other shows is not going to strengthen your arguments, it just weakens your own. Duh, no. That Oggo pic is sarcasm, don't you get it? And I don't get your arguments either so let's drop it here. Back to topic, On to the topic at hand, I wonder how much die-cast would be used as this valk is quite bulky. It'll be impossible to pull that weird gerwalk stance unique to VF-17 without proper weight distribution. Not fan of that look, prefer standard droopy nose gerwalk myself, but some people may want that. Edited June 30, 2011 by reeoyuy
raptormesh Posted June 30, 2011 Posted June 30, 2011 It'll be impossible to pull that weird gerwalk stance unique to VF-17 without proper weight distribution. Not fan of that look, prefer standard droopy nose gerwalk myself, but some people may want that. Yeah, perhaps they may have to put a bit more diecast into the legs to balance it, which will stress the joints even more. I don't know it just looks to have a lot more volume than either VF-22 or VF-19.
1/1 LowViz Lurker Posted June 30, 2011 Posted June 30, 2011 (edited) ..You still believe that? Yeah, and Project Supernova 30 years later is sooo secret that they need to disguise YF-19 and YF-21 as normal jets with working landing gear despite VF is common thing in that era [/sarcasm]. Please don't be stupid. Anything that is post Space War I events is no longer a secret obviously. Just like knowledge of nukes is not a secret anymore post WWII. Sorry but I couldn't help responding to this one. Some of the responses here are like people who have not thought through what they are saying. You can have your landing gears but I say the usage of them in space is very limited which is why vf-17 barely uses them since the macross 7 is mostly in space. Please stop trying to reason why landing gear is so important in space, and think before you post. You won't convince me that the VF-17 or any spacecraft NEEDS landing gears. You can convince me that it can make use of them and having them is better than not having them (which I agree with - but that is not what the argument is about, it's about which of the three features to not make perfect transformable) but they are not crucial. Jesus people. I can't tell if they are troll posts or serious anymore. Just drop it and be happy we differ in opinions. Don't bother responding on this thread please just direct any responses to my PM to keep this on topic. Thanks. I'm happy to talk about toys and stuff but I always assume the worst and that yamato will compromise. So I think maybe I can convince people that pop-on landing gear isn't the end of the world. A quick example of a Gnerl fighter showing how spacecraft can still land without earth-styled wheels: http://www.macross2.net/m3/sdfmacross/gnerl/gnerl-lineart.gif Alternately hanging chains to lift them like we do with contructing buildings or using robot grip is another alternative so the maintenance guy can fix the bottom without lifting anything. maybe if adapted for earth they can easily swap out skis for wheels but if the primary fighting is in space who cares? If I want to stop I can use thrusters to slow down, why should I fly close to a wall? Why can't I dock normally and let a robot arm grab my craft? There is no up or down in space. Edited June 30, 2011 by 1/1 LowViz Lurker
reeoyuy Posted June 30, 2011 Posted June 30, 2011 I know I should've wrote 'sarcasm' in big bold letter (where is "banging head on wall" emoticon when you need it?). Eh, anyway, just dumping a pic of ruined 17S with some internal exposed from VFX-2. Dear Yamato, make Brando version or 17D Aegis version with purple stripe please .
Mog Posted June 30, 2011 Posted June 30, 2011 When I get the VF-17, I am SO putting it in a mid-flight pose with the LANDING GEAR ABOUT TO COME FULLY DOWN! Not completely down, just in the process of coming down. Don't limit the posing options on my toys. Ever since the original 1/55's, practically all of the large-size VF's have included integrated/built-in landing gear. It feels like a step back to make the landing gear pop-on/pop-off for the 17.
Reïvaj Posted June 30, 2011 Posted June 30, 2011 [...] A quick example of a Gnerl fighter showing how spacecraft can still land without earth-styled wheels: http://www.macross2....erl-lineart.gif [...] Sorry guys, going out of topic… One could say there's some logic in an alien spacecraft not having earth-styled wheels because, well, it's alien. Nevertheless, that wouldn't be the case either, it still looks very earth-styled:
raptormesh Posted June 30, 2011 Posted June 30, 2011 (edited) Sorry guys, going out of topic… One could say there's some logic in an alien spacecraft not having earth-styled wheels because, well, it's alien. Nevertheless, that wouldn't be the case either, it still looks very earth-styled: Kay. Edit: Original pic taken from Macross Mecha Manual. Edited June 30, 2011 by raptormesh
kyekye Posted June 30, 2011 Posted June 30, 2011 Kay. Edit: Original pic taken from Macross Mecha Manual. Reminds me of Dropship from Aliens - which kinda works
Actar Posted June 30, 2011 Posted June 30, 2011 I don't know... For me, I don't care about the logic behind the design and whether or not spacecraft should or should not have landing gear. I just go by the Anime. If it has landing gear in the Anime, the toy should have one as well.
mickyg Posted June 30, 2011 Posted June 30, 2011 Bingo! Back to another item that keeps coming up-gerwalk mode and the legs. Back a page or two ago I mentioned proof of normal, "nose droop, legs bent forward" gerwalk mode. Does everyone want the legs back mode or are people still convinced that there is no legs forward mode? I'm confused.
CF18 Posted June 30, 2011 Posted June 30, 2011 And yes I agree in the actual cartoon landing gears are useful, and I agree with the usage of them for hangar storage (poor destroids don't get landing gears, I wonder why?) just that if given a choice between missile and landing gear to get scrapped I say landing gear, since personally I can deal with popping them off and on just like extra hands, side covers or intake covers. Take a look again: The missile bay take a large volume. It don't seems to conflict with the landing gears, but conflict with the gun storage and any hinges they would want inside the legs.
kanedaestes Posted June 30, 2011 Posted June 30, 2011 Ah ha see the missle bay sacrifice is more for the gunpod not the landing gears.
charger69 Posted June 30, 2011 Author Posted June 30, 2011 (edited) Take a look again: The missile bay take a large volume. It don't seems to conflict with the landing gears, but conflict with the gun storage and any hinges they would want inside the legs. Ah ha see the missle bay sacrifice is more for the gunpod not the landing gears. Nice to see clever comments about missile bays! I just put together these images to explain that... So please stop this non-sense skid landing gear story... Options are: 1) Landing gear + Working Gunpod Gimmick 2) Landing gear + Missile Bays 3) Landing gear + Working Gunpod Gimmick + Missile Bays Edited June 30, 2011 by charger69
EXO Posted June 30, 2011 Posted June 30, 2011 4. Landing gears + more landing gears. So you can land while you land!
Ignacio Ocamica Posted June 30, 2011 Posted June 30, 2011 4. Landing gears + more landing gears. So you can land while you land! I'm amazed at the level of nerdiness sometimes reached by some people (put desired name here) at macrossworld!!!
Chronocidal Posted June 30, 2011 Posted June 30, 2011 I always thought wheels were a nice thing for when you want to move things around on the ground without having to start the engines, but that's just me. Anyway, I'm just hoping to see some of these new cad images I keep hearing about. I can't wait to see what they can pull off with this design.
Lonely Soldier Boy Posted June 30, 2011 Posted June 30, 2011 I'm amazed at the level of nerdiness sometimes reached by some people (put desired name here) at macrossworld!!! What?! I thought this was the cool crowd!
EXO Posted June 30, 2011 Posted June 30, 2011 What?! I thought this was the cool crowd! I feel bad for the other forums you go to, which I'm gonna assume is backgammoncentral.com, RPS: The Rock/Paper/scissor online collective and Robotech.com...
1/1 LowViz Lurker Posted June 30, 2011 Posted June 30, 2011 (edited) Bingo! Back to another item that keeps coming up-gerwalk mode and the legs. Back a page or two ago I mentioned proof of normal, "nose droop, legs bent forward" gerwalk mode. Does everyone want the legs back mode or are people still convinced that there is no legs forward mode? I'm confused. I've already stated I want leg forward mode. There is no logical reason to me why this particular vf shouldn't be allowed to. I don't care if the mech designer thought it was cool, he has changed his mind before with vf-0 being grey for shin lol. They may say something like "oh that one pic of gerwalk leaning forward is an animation mistake" but so what? that did not prevent yamato releasing some of the animation mistake colour schemes from SDFM in their 1/60 vf-1 line. Money is money! If you don't like leg forward mode simply pose it with leg back. People say yamato are clever but they screw up too sometimes. (no upper torse lock in yf-19) May as well get in with input early on! Edited June 30, 2011 by 1/1 LowViz Lurker
mickyg Posted June 30, 2011 Posted June 30, 2011 I've already stated I want leg forward mode. There is no logical reason to me why this particular vf shouldn't be allowed to. I don't care if the mech designer thought it was cool, he has changed his mind before with vf-0 being grey for shin lol. They may say something like "oh that one pic of gerwalk leaning forward is an animation mistake" but so what? that did not prevent yamato releasing some of the animation mistake colour schemes from SDFM in their 1/60 vf-1 line. Money is money! If you don't like leg forward mode simply pose it with leg back. People say yamato are clever but they screw up too sometimes. (no upper torse lock in yf-19) May as well get in with input early on! OK. I feel the need to clarify a few things. Here's my post from a few days/pages ago: Concerning the gerwalk leg thing and proof of a proper forward bend-it is there and it's episode 35 that you'll want to check out. Has it quite obviously for most of the episode even. Episode 35 is not an animation mistake. Find it. Watch it. "Regular" legs bent forward mode is there throughout the entire episode. For large chunks of time even. There's no way they made a mistake. The VF-17 definitely was designed to have a forward bend in the legs, based on this one episode alone. Come to think of it, I can't actually recall seeing an ep where the legs are in that weird, back, precarious position. I'm not for a second saying that because I can't remember it's not fact, mind you. I also haven't finished watching the series so there's a great chance there are plenty of scenes coming where the legs are in that weird, back stance. To recap: The legs can be positioned in the "regular, bent forward, nose down" configuration. So Yamato, if it's not too difficult, please at least make this leg mode into the finished product. Thank you, that is all from me.
Ghost Train Posted July 1, 2011 Posted July 1, 2011 4. Landing gears + more landing gears. So you can land while you land! You can never have enough landing gears. Landing gears should also be present on platforms where you don't expect them - trains, boats, cellphones, Gundams, and giant transforming space cruisers:
1/1 LowViz Lurker Posted July 1, 2011 Posted July 1, 2011 (edited) Those episodes could have been animation mistakes. Remember when toynami created a jack archer toy? Jack archer is a result of a mech that should never have existed but now does in the robotech universe thanks to the mistake. Macross plus also features yf-19 with missiles in the leg but I don't think that is canon. Also in SDFM the GBP armor has hand grenades that are seen firing like missiles that go straight. You can never tell what is real from animation. They could have been drunk or just makingthings up that were not even there. For instance I remember seeing episodes where the monster is rolling down a ramp without moving the legs, but I don't think monster's have rollers. But it doesn't matter, I want the feature. Anyone got ahold of graham's phone yet? Edited July 1, 2011 by 1/1 LowViz Lurker
mickyg Posted July 1, 2011 Posted July 1, 2011 OT for a moment: The Jack Archer "phenomena" was a very short animation mistake. True. But that was completely different to episode 35 (kanedaestes - huge thanks! My HDD is at work or I'd have provided some screen shots myself). The VF-1 mistake was transient. Sometimes you'd see it with three head lasers, other times there's be only one. And it was for a very short period of time. In episode 35 of Mac7, it's there the whole episode. It's intentional! The legs bend that way on purpose! But since you've stated you now want landing gear. I guess the argument is now null and void. I think Graham is away for a few weeks. We'll just have to wait...
Firefox Posted July 3, 2011 Posted July 3, 2011 Any prototype pic? Yamato is way too secretive about their coming release. It's been a month or more after the first news. Bandai has shown the production V2 VF-25 and on sale in Oct. Yammie makes us wait too long.
Raptor One Posted July 3, 2011 Posted July 3, 2011 Any prototype pic? Yamato is way too secretive about their coming release. It's been a month or more after the first news. Bandai has shown the production V2 VF-25 and on sale in Oct. Yammie makes us wait too long. Yea, because it's not like Bandai had already made another version of that same Valkyrie. It's not like they had just released a new Valk that is identical in a lot of ways to the VF-25 and could serve as the basis for the new design. It's not like Yamato has to design the VF-17 completely from scratch based on a wildly inconsistent animation model as opposed to a CG model. Shame on Yamato.
1/1 LowViz Lurker Posted July 3, 2011 Posted July 3, 2011 I like the slow pace. Gives time for the wallet to heal.
Firefox Posted July 3, 2011 Posted July 3, 2011 With Bandai playing catch up, the wallet is going to get hurt anyway Can't deny they are getting better and Bandai has longer reputation in playability, though Yamato pays more attention to accuracy.
Renato Posted July 3, 2011 Posted July 3, 2011 Can't deny they are getting better and Bandai has longer reputation in playability, though Yamato pays more attention to accuracy. I won't deny they are getting better but Bandais invariably turn into floppy pieces of crap. I enjoy the Hi-metals because the floppiness is less of an issue on a smaller scale, but for larger toys ratchets should be essential.
Mommar Posted July 3, 2011 Posted July 3, 2011 You're both wrong about Jack Archer. He was a Character they made up for the Robotech: Battlecry video game for the Gamecube, PS2 and XBox. Those were the default colors for the Veritech in the game and Toynami made a special toy for it.
Loop Posted July 4, 2011 Posted July 4, 2011 I like the slow pace. Gives time for the wallet to heal. Amen brother! I have noticed that since the releases have slowed down I have a bit more flexible spending cash. Gave me the time to fill in the gaps in my collection. All I really need now, if I wanted to be an ultra completest is the 1/60 VF-1J CF and the 1/60 VF-0a unknown soldier. Oh crap, I would also need the destroids in the yellow/desert colors. back on topic: Why are so many people hung up in the missile bay?? none of the other toys in the newer 1/60 Yamato series have focused on that besides the Kai. My primary concern with the VF-17 is if they will be able to keep it slim in fighter mode but chunky in batteroid. I am not too concerned with the gerwalk mode knee joint either. I have faith that it will be present. If they can pull off stowing the gun in the leg and the beam adapter in the other that is a bonus to me. They don't have to be spring loaded either, I think it's just an additional point of failure.
Recommended Posts