Jump to content
Graham

Bandai 1/72 Scale Macross Frontier Plastic Models

Recommended Posts

If that is true, then I'd say if you want VF-25 with super packs but don't want to buy it twice, just waiting until the super pack set. However if you are willing to buy 2 VF-25's then you can display both, with with packs and one without. Kind of a win win situation in my book, even though I'm not likely to buy 2 considering my money problems. Besides I am thinking of holding out for the DX, which is finally starting to look up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If we're lucky, the legs get a full frame and the torso and arms get at least some form of internal frame to add a bit of strength to the kit.

If we're lucky, they didn't. Adding an internal frame will just make the transformation that much more awkward than it already is. In fighter mode the model already looks fat; the air intakes are oversized and the aircraft looks abnormally fat compared to the line art. There really isn't much room or point to include one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If we're lucky, they didn't. Adding an internal frame will just make the transformation that much more awkward than it already is. In fighter mode the model already looks fat; the air intakes are oversized and the aircraft looks abnormally fat compared to the line art. There really isn't much room or point to include one.

They might not have a choice on that since part of the 25s internal frame is actually visible.

I've been wondering about that gap in the torso though, since the coloured prototype they showed seemd to have no gap.

hobbyshowmodel.jpg

Edited by d3v

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't say that about the legs, if your read what I said before. A frame seems to be a good way to do the legs because they need to show internal detail according to the lineart, and they must also allow the wings to fold in. However given the nature of the body it seems impossible to have any sort of frame there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've been wondering about that gap in the torso though, since the coloured prototype they showed seemd to have no gap.

Looks like black paint to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Looks like black paint to me.

No, I mean in the photo, the nosecone covers the whole lower torso unlike in the magazine scan where it seems to come up short.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Any word on a Macross Quarter kit?

I think a Revolvetech toy would be good :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't say that about the legs, if your read what I said before. A frame seems to be a good way to do the legs because they need to show internal detail according to the lineart, and they must also allow the wings to fold in. However given the nature of the body it seems impossible to have any sort of frame there.

I agree. Not only that, but it'd be nice to have some leg weight to avoid it being top heavy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The nose and front fuselage could have a bit of "internals" to it. I would imagine the nose cone needs something there to mount the hinge so it could swing down. This picture shows internals for the lower leg.

11.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So long as they avoid the whole transforming bit, which has seriously flawed their other Macross kits.

Poseable sure.

Transformable? No thanks...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So long as they avoid the whole transforming bit, which has seriously flawed their other Macross kits.

Poseable sure.

Transformable? No thanks...

I agree with ya completely - however, being the only kits available for the time being, I'll probably get them anyways and modify them to be in only the plane mode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why modify, just don't transform it if you don't want that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So long as they avoid the whole transforming bit, which has seriously flawed their other Macross kits.

Poseable sure.

Transformable? No thanks...

Well, "other" Macross kits were made so long ago that you just compare the two. Look at MG models from ten years ago and look at the ones made now. Same argument as the toys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why modify, just don't transform it if you don't want that.

Well... for one thing, I don't think there's that big ass hinge on the plane's back for the wings to fold up in the lineart. Also all the big gaps/seams between all the various moving parts should be filled, sanded and more panel line appropriate fine seams be re-scribed so its more like the drawings. There's probably plenty of bumps and pins along the way that needs to be cut off, or sanded to make it look sleeker and more like the design since transforming models always sacrifice "thin-ness" of parts for strength and durability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any news on the release of these kits? These kits might be my alternative for a "poor man's DX with some work" so I'm really looking forward to it. (Imma poor man :( )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, "other" Macross kits were made so long ago that you just compare the two. Look at MG models from ten years ago and look at the ones made now. Same argument as the toys.

You don't get it; It doesn't matter. This isn't even a question of technology either; almost every toy and transformable model suffers from the same problems, and bandai will never solve it; neither will Yamato, Tamiya or Hasegawa. Even from these photos its apparent that the fighter mode has suffered in realism in order to make the battroid looks good. Alot of us here are aircraft modelers and this bodes poorly for realism.

Here is the best example;

Compare the lineart:

http://www.macrossworld.com/macross/Macross_F/MF-39.jpg

to this image

http://ga.sbcr.jp/mreport/009935/13.html

or

http://ga.sbcr.jp/mreport/009935/15.html

The problem is pretty apparent; The airplane body *seems* fat, the intakes look slightly large, and the open break points for transformation really mar the design. Put together it doesn't make for a very attractive static model, unless you take hours to glue it together fill the gaps, rescribe them, and pray for the best. Even so It still wouldn't look like a great model due to the blue wash canopy and slightly off proportions.

As I said, its still a great battroid, and its clear thats the main mode they are going for. Yet it comes at a heavy price for the other modes' realism. Its apparent from these photos, and I'm sure they will reflect the model we will get in our hands. Thats not to say I'm not going to buy one, two or three of them... I'm just pointing out the obvious problems with the situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, exactly... I'm a aircraft guy too. No surprise that Bandai would go for the Battroid mode eh - pretty Gundamish to me! I guess they stick to what they know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah the nose in the comparison is way short, which is unfortunate, the long nose is what makes it look cool I think. Noyhauser you are absolutely correct in your statement above and I would much rather have a static fighter kit whose lines follow the art.

badboy00z the problem with trying to make a transforming toy or model is that it's impossible to make all three modes look just like the line art due to "Anime Magic". The artists in the show just want to make each mode look the best as it can regardless of whether it is actually possible. If the actual nosecone from the fighter makes the battroid look "too tall" when it's transformed in the show then they just magically shorten the torso of the battroid to make it look right, hard to replicate with physical materials.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, "anime magic!" Until someone draws a variable mecha in CAD and animates it, the three modes never work out like they're drawn or animated. Even the simple Daedalus I'm working on has tons of anime magic in just the line art. I've studied the drawings for hours, made smaller models, and still one thing won't work as drawn or narrated in the text. A lot of line art also accentuates certain features on purpose - doubly frustrating!

Now, I'm ALL about taking a static valk and making it transform - -don't get me wrong. I think that's awesome. Big gaps and big hinges will always take away from the "realism" though. It just comes with the territory. Not to mention problems with styrene or even ABS being strong enough to be thin enough. Those pros who took a static model and made it transform and look good in all three modes had to "cheat" and use brass hinges. Once again, the problem comes with the territory.

All things considered, the model looks pretty good so far. No judgments until the final work is released from me. - MT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't all the mech done CG in Frontier? - I know its stylized rendered to look hand drawn, but I think most of the mech is CG (just like Yukikaze). Why didn't they just use the CAD models from the show? Do you think even with the show's CAD models that they "fudged" the proportions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Isn't all the mech done CG in Frontier? - I know its stylized rendered to look hand drawn, but I think most of the mech is CG (just like Yukikaze). Why didn't they just use the CAD models from the show? Do you think even with the show's CAD models that they "fudged" the proportions?

My take on it is that simply using CAD models isn't enough. "Anime Magic" is about more than just proportion and distortion. There can be Anime Magic Even though there is a CAD model. This is because when you try to bring that model into material reality you are hit with the laws of Physics as they relate to the design of the item and the materials you are using. Simply put it doesn't much matter if in the CAD model of the design can transform without any 'cheating' if in reality the material you are using can't handle the stresses involved without bending, breaking, warping or failing in some other way. I think what's happened here is a case where in order for this thing to transform it requires some parts be 'thicker' than they appear in the CAD model in order to handle the bending/folding/twisting involved with transformation.

Oh and for the record I don't think the above comparison of the line art and the model is a fair one. That lineart image is in extreme perspective and so being is, in my view, extremely distorted by foreshortening (to use an artisits term) and thus I don't think it is fair to compare the model to it unless the model is shown in the identical perspectival extreme. (Just my two cents).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh and for the record I don't think the above comparison of the line art and the model is a fair one. That lineart image is in extreme perspective and so being is, in my view, extremely distorted by foreshortening (to use an artisits term) and thus I don't think it is fair to compare the model to it unless the model is shown in the identical perspectival extreme. (Just my two cents).

Yep!

'Sup guys! I rarely post in the models forum, but I was looking at the color art posted for comparison above, and I think the nose of the fighter in the biggest shot is very stretched out, appearing very long because it's closer to the "camera". If you look at other shots of the fighter (or the guardian mode shot), the nose is not nearly as long. So, basically, what Chas said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just saying that the VF-25 model looks a hell of a lot better than the old 1/100 VF-19 etc. That and the old 1/100 is a "swapformation" and this one is a full transformation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh and for the record I don't think the above comparison of the line art and the model is a fair one. That lineart image is in extreme perspective and so being is, in my view, extremely distorted by foreshortening (to use an artisits term) and thus I don't think it is fair to compare the model to it unless the model is shown in the identical perspectival extreme. (Just my two cents).

Which is why I deliberately didn't point out the nose in that post. Yet I think it is clear the air intakes do not look the same, nor do the break points for battroid in fighter (which look particularly jarring if you examine them closely.)

Edited by Noyhauser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*sigh* I don't see the aesthetic turnoffs any of you do, but then again I think like an engineer. I know the model is designed to be transformable and that means the fighter mode has to be built for that purpose and not to just be a fighter. The way I see it, sometimes we don't like things being ugly but the way things are designed every part and the shape of every curve has a purpose (now I know this is just a model and not something real, but I think this still fits) so from an engineering perspective if to make it work means it will have to look ugly (or slightly misshapen from what we expect a perfect fighter to look like nowadays) then it is going to look ugly (or slightly misshapen).

However in that light I can understand why you then want a non-transformable, you want the pretty fighter that may or may not be able to be done with the ability to transform. So the only way to have that pretty fighter is to make it non-transformable. I should have thought of that earlier, I am frankly appalled at myself that I didn't understand why you'd want an only fighter mode. However that is why I am only currently a student of aerospace engineering and not actually an engineer yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My big demands are:

1) Articulated fingers at least on par with an MG Gundam model, and

2) No parts swapping to transform, or detaching/reattaching.

If they have to take some liberty in the shape of one mode or another to make that happen, I'm OK with it. The odd gap or panel separation line here and there is not enough for me to disown the model, so long as I get a cool toy that transforms without me having to dig things out of a box, set pieces aside (gunpods are the exception), or otherwise lose the fantasy of the toy transforming in my hand the same way it does on TV.

Dex - good to see another engineering student on the boards! The grass is much greener on this side of the fence - once you get your degree and start solving problems - so definitely stick with it and good luck :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My big demands are:

1) Articulated fingers at least on par with an MG Gundam model, and

2) No parts swapping to transform, or detaching/reattaching.

If they have to take some liberty in the shape of one mode or another to make that happen, I'm OK with it. The odd gap or panel separation line here and there is not enough for me to disown the model, so long as I get a cool toy that transforms without me having to dig things out of a box, set pieces aside (gunpods are the exception), or otherwise lose the fantasy of the toy transforming in my hand the same way it does on TV.

Dex - good to see another engineering student on the boards! The grass is much greener on this side of the fence - once you get your degree and start solving problems - so definitely stick with it and good luck :D

Thanks Dio, I didn't know if anyone else here was in engineering, nice to know someone in that now. I know I'll be sticking with Aerospace Engineering (I'm focusing more on astronautical truthfully, but I like atmospheric stuff just as much) for sure, it seems to be a calling now.

I agree, I don't like the idea of parts swapping. They can figure out how to do a full transformation for one toy, then they can do it for another/model. I was never much bothered by finger articulation, but I never used it for anything. As for shape, like I said before, in my mind if to make it transform properly and work as a figure/model then it has to be a bit thick or have some gaps, then that is the way it is and I am fine with that. I can use imagination to full in panel separation lines and gaps, and my imagination is huge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, sweet!!!!!! Two engineers and I'm a machinist. Maybe we should just build our own damn VF and be done with it.

Edited by Excillon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
*sigh* I don't see the aesthetic turnoffs any of you do, but then again I think like an engineer. I know the model is designed to be transformable and that means the fighter mode has to be built for that purpose and not to just be a fighter. The way I see it, sometimes we don't like things being ugly but the way things are designed every part and the shape of every curve has a purpose (now I know this is just a model and not something real, but I think this still fits) so from an engineering perspective if to make it work means it will have to look ugly (or slightly misshapen from what we expect a perfect fighter to look like nowadays) then it is going to look ugly (or slightly misshapen).

However in that light I can understand why you then want a non-transformable, you want the pretty fighter that may or may not be able to be done with the ability to transform. So the only way to have that pretty fighter is to make it non-transformable. I should have thought of that earlier, I am frankly appalled at myself that I didn't understand why you'd want an only fighter mode. However that is why I am only currently a student of aerospace engineering and not actually an engineer yet.

No, I'd like a "realistic display" more than anything else. The reason why there are gaps, distortions ect, is in large part due to the nature of the medium. If a valkyrie existed, you could be sure that panels would likely be flush to each other when transforming, in order to maintain aerodynamic shape. There are sure to be a number of fasteners and structures in place to ensure this occurs within tolerance. I want a model that looks like a real specimen, only a fraction of the size.

Yet the modeling medium does not allow for this to occur if a transformation is involved. Plastic does not join together in the same way as lets say real panels, its an imperfect medium. There are no underlying structures to keep it together. By adding a transformation sequence, it essentially comes at the cost of realism. Those panels will never look flush, and distortions in the size are almost certain to occur in order to make the design work properly. Thats not so much aesthetics, because I'd argue that I'm just as appreciative of the mechanical aspects of the valkyrie as you are, just in a different way.

In any case I see a pretty big gulf here between opinions. Besides the wait and see people; its either the classical modelers, who want a static display model that looks good, or the more gunpla oriented crowd who wants to build something and play with it a bit. I think Bandai has tried to placate both, we'll see if its a failure or a success.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Noyhauser

I actually do understand what you meant, of course a real life valk if existed wouldn't have those kinds of gaps, if they did I as an engineering major would be apalled. However in model medium it doesn't bother me, in the end to each his own.

Excillon

I agree, lets form an organization and start getting the funding to do that! Just because we haven't met any giant aliens yet doesn't mean a battroid isn't a good idea, lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In any case I see a pretty big gulf here between opinions. Besides the wait and see people; its either the classical modelers, who want a static display model that looks good, or the more gunpla oriented crowd who wants to build something and play with it a bit. I think Bandai has tried to placate both, we'll see if its a failure or a success.

Also, should the anime and/or the kits be successful, it possible that Bandai may expand the lineup to include non-transforming kits (especially if the call for one is loud in Japan).

Meanwhile some of the more skillfull modellers out there may find ways to convert or scratch-build pieces to make these kits look the way they want it to look. Aftermarket add-ons and conversion kits are also a possibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

all this talk of the kits sure has be excited. Wonder if I should get the kit instead of the DX 1/60 toy now! With kits being cheaper to produce it is more likely they will have more variants than the 1/60 toy.

So err, when are these due? I can't wait. Need to adjust my budget.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wouldn't be surprised if Bandai also made non-transformable kits. They've done it before for Macross.

In this day and age, with bandai's resources, I doubt it. Why bother? If they can make a PG Zeta Gundam, they can make an accurate transformable valk. I for one am willing to sacrifice minor gap issues for a well designed transformable kit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hmmm....I'd be nice if Bandai comes up with something better than Yamato could do, making macross toy/model competition and reduces prices

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...