Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
wwwmwww

Hand Built Tread

Recommended Posts

Here are some more pics I wanted to re-size before posting...

Bomber.png

Gerwalk.png

Guns.png

Check out the size difference in those guns!?

Carl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

awesome. Is that 1/72 scale? It's funny how people always defend the toy company and say it's the only route they couldve taken but then someone makes one in their garage that looks so good. The Toynami Beta looks great, I'm wondering about QC though, of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Great design choices there. I specially like the feet. It's amazing how a single fan can match a whole toy company in every way and in some areas even outdo them.

Except that this is a scratchbuilt model that's not meant for mass production and probably pretty fragile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember seeing this at RT.com when someone mistakenly claimed that this was the MPC Beta. It is a beaut, that's for sure. I wonder how he solved the cockpit issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, this needs to be with the custom/scratch built models!

Jenius - it looks like the cockpit slides back into the chest; outer plate folds down over it.

The model actually looks rugged to me. He's used 2 and 3mm thick plastic. That's what's holding up about 30 pounds of motors on my ship! - MT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It accomplishes the cockpit shenanigans and connection boom via parts swapping. No kanzen henkei here:

http://policap-inside.cocolog-nifty.com/ph...ed/cimg1065.jpg

I love this guy's work, but comparing this to a mass-produced toy is apples and oranges. I can make a hamburger that trumps anything you'll ever have in any restaurant, but it takes more time, effort, and expense than a restaurant can afford to expend. Different sets of parameters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's funny when someone uses the apples and oranges analogy to explain toys. As if you can't compare apples to oranges but yet you can use them to explain the nature of plastic products. And if I walked into a place that charges me $10 to $12 a burger they better damn well serve me something I can do at home or better with all the conveniences of a restaurant as compared to a fast food place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:blink:

Wow. That's quite lovely. :wub:

Thanks for the link, wwwmwww!

Of course, we've come to expect nothing but the best Tread/Beta related news/pics from you, MW's Resident Tread Head Guru!! ;)

Edited by Mog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That Tread is thing of beauty and very nicely engineered. Part swapping really is probably the best way to go with that design when it comes to joining the two craft together, let's face it, there is a huge amount of anime magic in that part of the design. As for how it would compare to a mass produced toy, from the little i have seen, the thickness of the plastic looks comperable to toy plastic, except in certain areas like the hands, so really upscaling it to the size of the MPC would make it quite durable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have never quite understood the whole fan backlash against part swapping. Personally I'd rather have a better looking toy/model that was sturdier, simpler to use and cheaper to manufacture than the dainty, complex compromises we see around the market. The altar of "perfect transformation" hurts a lot of really good designs.

As for the apples to oranges, you can't directly compare a toy to a model but you can compare the mechanics between the two. From first appearances this guy's design choices seem much more logical and sturdy than the toys I've seen. His ideas could be easily adapted to a toy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When they face a new product, companies have resources that a guy in his garage can't have: CAD experts, designers, sculptors, quality control supervisors, well equipped workshops and more important: a budget. That means that all the guys that are working to deliver the product are being paid to devote to the project and are pros. Moreover, the Beta is a very straightforward design: blocky shape, little features and simple transfromation. And yet two modern toy companies accomplished the same thing than this guy who works alone on his garage in his spare time and never got a cent not even for supplies (except that this Beta has better detail than any of the others). I mean, this model can hold poses! How's that different from a Toynami Beta, (or Alpha which in terms of durability is not better than the model it was taken from)?

I think Toynami and CM's were lazy with their Betas/Treads. If this guy could do the basics on his own (like great sculpt, detailing, engeneering, poseability, transformation and apparently even durability), Toynami and CM's could've worked out the real challenge: a decent linkup.

As for the money, Yamato did an impressive job on a toy that's way more complex and expensive to produce than any Beta, and is at least just as risky in terms of sales: the SV-51.

Edited by Lonely Soldier Boy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When they face a new product, companies have resources that a guy in his garage can't have: CAD experts, designers, sculptors, quality control supervisors, well equipped workshops and more important: a budget. That means that all the guys that are working to deliver the product are being paid to devote to the project and are pros.

Do we know whether or not the person who created this is an industry professional?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have never quite understood the whole fan backlash against part swapping. Personally I'd rather have a better looking toy/model that was sturdier, simpler to use and cheaper to manufacture than the dainty, complex compromises we see around the market. The altar of "perfect transformation" hurts a lot of really good designs.

What's to not understand? For some people the main focus, the main fun and even the whole point of a transforming toy is that it transforms. Taking something apart and putting it back together in a different configuration isn't the same thing and doesn't satisfy that desire. It's no more right or wrong to want perfect transformation than it is to want parts swapping for the reasons you detailed, it's just a matter of different preferences that cater to different tastes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do we know whether or not the person who created this is an industry professional?

Even if he is, he obviously didn't do it as a professional. It's an obvious garage kit build.

I think Toynami and CM's were lazy with their Betas/Treads. If this guy could do the basics on his own (like great sculpt, detailing, engeneering, poseability, transformation and apparently even durability), Toynami and CM's could've worked out the real challenge: a decent linkup.

As for the money, Yamato did an impressive job on a toy that's way more complex and expensive to produce than any Beta, and is at least just as risky in terms of sales: the SV-51.

Amen my brother!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A little bit of parts swapping would fix nearly 90% of all the issues transforming toys from old series have. Half this stuff is "magic" to begin with and a little parts swapping is completely tolerable. It's the slavish dedication to "perfect transformation" that dicks up most transforming toys IMHO. It's not all about the play, the "fun" of fiddling with something for an hour... to some of us the appearance is paramount. I mean, who cares if the thing is "perfect transformation" but looks terrible when transformed? Or can't achieve a mode or pose right the way it can in the show simply because a joint is in the way, or a piece could not be the right size or durability because it had to "perfectly transform" and fit somewhere.

A Tread IMHO is the prime example of "just make some parts swapping in these few areas" and the design would probably work near perfect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Even if he is, he obviously didn't do it as a professional. It's an obvious garage kit build.

I don't doubt that this is someone's personal project, I was addressing Lonely Soldier Boy's comments that inferred the person doing this couldn't have some sort of professional expertise.

I wonder what kind of equipment they have access to. I see some design drawings in those shots that might be CAD. If so, it's possible they used some sort of rapid prototyping.

Regardless, the work is really good. It's too bad, the profile section of the blog doesn't say anything, nor is there an email address provided. I'd love to know who they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A little bit of parts swapping would fix nearly 90% of all the issues transforming toys from old series have. Half this stuff is "magic" to begin with and a little parts swapping is completely tolerable. It's the slavish dedication to "perfect transformation" that dicks up most transforming toys IMHO. It's not all about the play, the "fun" of fiddling with something for an hour... to some of us the appearance is paramount. I mean, who cares if the thing is "perfect transformation" but looks terrible when transformed? Or can't achieve a mode or pose right the way it can in the show simply because a joint is in the way, or a piece could not be the right size or durability because it had to "perfectly transform" and fit somewhere.

A Tread IMHO is the prime example of "just make some parts swapping in these few areas" and the design would probably work near perfect.

I think everyone can understand your point of view. It makes perfect sense to me why some people are fine with parts swapping in regards to how a toy looks. But what I think what you're not understanding, or refusing to accept, is that some of us put the toy aspect on an even level or sometimes above the looks of a toy. I'm not anal about a toy looking exactly like it does on screen. If it does, cool, I appreciate that, but I don't need it to be. This is why the giant shiney metal swing bars on the old Bandai 1/55 don't bother me in the slightest. My imagination erases them. For myself and those who like PT it's not fun to transform a toy that has to be taken apart and reassembled, it's as simple as that. Hopefully you and the fans who share your point of view will get something that is more tailored to what you want. Like I said before, neither preference is right or wrong or better or worse than the other, they're just different.

:EDIT:

Sorry for the off-topicness of my posts, this Tlead looks cool but I still prefer how the CMs Tlead looks.

Edited by eriku

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, Takatoku set the (swing) bar with their Macross toys in the 80s and ever since then, perfect transformation is considered a standard feature. Mecha shows aim for realism, and mecha toy collectors tend to want their toys to be as close to the robots in the show. That means no parts swapping. (They don't seem to realize that giant hands don't reach down out of the sky to transform the robots in the show, but don't tell them that.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My comments are mostly in regard to the older shows like Mospeada in which the designs where nowhere near accomplishable correctly in real life. When there were tons of rescaling and parts warping and bending to allow things to transform and look really good on the screen. Heck, most of the stuff was off model half the time anyway. All the junk today is made and rendered in 3D and the creators themselves can address the transformation issues which make the toys much easier to make IMHO... but stuff like the Tread was almost as if the creators said "have fun with THAT toy companies!" when they made it, but then again perhaps they never even thought of that. They just wanted to make something look cool on TV. Same thing with the Ride Armors... they look so good on the show but the toys, until recently (Beagle) have all looked really janky because so many concessions had to be made just to get some of the basic features to work.

I've always said my dream toy for Mospeada would be a Ride Armor that was ONLY in bike mode and that had tons of "real detail" features like working shocks, etc. and the rider would be like a Dragon 12" doll complete with real fabric armor pieces, real helmet that fits on and off with little weapons that really cock and have removable magazines. The Beagle appears to be -this- close to being my dream toy. But that speaks to who I am as a fan, I'm a 12" army doll guy and not a transforming toy guy. The modern army dolls have spoiled me in terms of detail and attention to "correctness". I suppose I'm waiting for a robot anime with toys to achieve this level of detail without so much of what I see as kluge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
but stuff like the Tread was almost as if the creators said "have fun with THAT toy companies!" when they made it, but then again perhaps they never even thought of that.

We've discussed this here before, but this is pretty much the case with the Legioss/Tread. Shinji Aramaki designed the Legioss, went home, and the next morning he came in to find that Hideki Kakinuma was up all night tacking the Tread onto it. "The sponsor wanted a transforming booster," he was told.

Definitely seat-of-the-pants flying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would also like to second the fact that this model, while outstandingly gorgeous, isn't ment for being mass-produced. Mass-production is just what it sounds like, and the more time something sits in the factory getting worked on, the more expensive it is for the factory and the less money you get per unit.

The phrase "time is money" is the driving force behind manufacturing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, let's not forget how cool the CM Tread looks. I thought the CM Legioss was hideous, but most of us agreed that the Tread looked nice.

A little bit of parts swapping would fix nearly 90% of all the issues transforming toys from old series have. Half this stuff is "magic" to begin with and a little parts swapping is completely tolerable. It's the slavish dedication to "perfect transformation" that dicks up most transforming toys IMHO. It's not all about the play, the "fun" of fiddling with something for an hour... to some of us the appearance is paramount. I mean, who cares if the thing is "perfect transformation" but looks terrible when transformed? Or can't achieve a mode or pose right the way it can in the show simply because a joint is in the way, or a piece could not be the right size or durability because it had to "perfectly transform" and fit somewhere.

A Tread IMHO is the prime example of "just make some parts swapping in these few areas" and the design would probably work near perfect.

See, I demand perfect transformation, but we shouldn't have to fight. You should be able to buy line art perfect, non-transformable toys, and I should be able to buy perfect-transformation toys with no parts swapping. I just don't think dicking around halfway with parts swapping is the answer -- go balls-deep, whole-toy-swapping (as in a different toy with each mode), or full-on, no B.S. perfect transformation.

A "transformable" toy with parts swapping pleases nobody.

Two other points:

* The Tread is easily doable without parts swapping, except for the connecting boom, which is just way too long to possibly retract.

* I think the Mospeada toys that are PT look great, so I don't get the argument that PT makes them look bad.

Edited by danth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the connection boom isn't too long to retract. It just requires a telescoping boom and that requires some high end materials and a good design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just don't think dicking around halfway with parts swapping is the answer -- go balls-deep, whole-toy-swapping (as in a different toy with each mode).

I've wanted super high detail single mode toys of my favorite anime transforming things for years, no one will make them... mostly because everyone sees transforming toys for what they are: a gimmick. Take the gimmick of transformation away from a toy and nobody but me wants it it seems. I mean almost all of us buy these things, transform them once, put them on a shelf or into a display cabinet and let them sit there and look at them. I just figure if that is what many people do you'd think someone would capitalize on that. I would pay big money for a super high detail Legioss in fighter mode that had opening hatches and stuff. That would totally kill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What's to not understand? For some people the main focus, the main fun and even the whole point of a transforming toy is that it transforms. Taking something apart and putting it back together in a different configuration isn't the same thing and doesn't satisfy that desire. It's no more right or wrong to want perfect transformation than it is to want parts swapping for the reasons you detailed, it's just a matter of different preferences that cater to different tastes.

Amen brother, amen. B))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...