Graham Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Actually, I’m asking that because I have looked at the line art. The line art shows a hinge so the leg parts can swing from the underside of the wings to the outer side of the legs in a very simple way. The VF-17 toys have big slots for the SP connection and I thought hinges similar to those of the line art would easily do the job. Unless, as I understand you are implying, the leg parts are poorly engineered. The present solution is far more elegant, simpler and undoubtedly more durable and better looking than having hinges permanently built into the legs of the VF-17. Having a hinge on which you need to attach and detach the packs (when not using them), would be uglier and a potential breakage point. Graham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anime52k8 Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 The present solution is far more elegant, simpler and undoubtedly more durable and better looking than having hinges permanently built into the legs of the VF-17. Having a hinge on which you need to attach and detach the packs (when not using them), would be uglier and a potential breakage point. Graham why would there even be hinges in the legs? The hing would be part of the leg packs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 There's two ways it could have been done. 1) Hinges permanently attached to the leg packs, which plugged into holes in the leg. 2) Hinges permanently mounted on the leg, which plugged into holes in the packs. Personally, I'm fine with the solution they adopted as it minimizes potential weak points (hinges). And it's not a big deal to unglug the pack from the leg and move it the short distance and plug it into the wing. Graham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eriku Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Agreed - I don't mind swapping if it makes for a more simple, sturdy toy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reïvaj Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 (edited) There's two ways it could have been done. 1) Hinges permanently attached to the leg packs, which plugged into holes in the leg. 2) Hinges permanently mounted on the leg, which plugged into holes in the packs. Personally, I'm fine with the solution they adopted as it minimizes potential weak points (hinges). And it's not a big deal to unglug the pack from the leg and move it the short distance and plug it into the wing. Graham You mention two possible solutions –only one of them being realistic considering the way the legs have been designed IMO- but then you seem to suggest they’ve chosen a third one. I’m glad you’re happy with the solution they adopted but, unfortunately, nobody else can have an objective opinion yet. I like how the SP look and I’m definitely getting them. Too bad they’re the first SP that need to be removed for transformation. Edited February 16, 2012 by Reïvaj Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 If you have a VF-17 toy, you can see how they have done it. Hole in the leg to plug the packs into in battroid mode. and a hole in the underside of the wing to plug the packs into in fighter mode. The simplest possible way it could have been done. The hole in the leg has a hinged (or is it sliding, I forget) cover for when the packs are not attached. The cover is accessed through the rear landing gear bay. Graham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelsain Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Too bad they’re the first SP that need to be removed for transformation. The VF-11 boosters need to be removed before folding the arms out. I've tried skipping this step and they always pop off on their own. I just attribute it to mechanisms too intricate to be represented at tiny scale... and completely fictional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueMax Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 For all valks i own, i always pop off parts of the fast packs 1st before transforming them anyway, because more often than not, having the fast packs on simply obstructs the transformation procss. So for Yamato's approach for the 17, I won't say i support it, definitely not against but I can accept it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VF-18S Hornet Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 I don't even bother stowing the gunpod internally anymore and I'm actually thinking of gluing the two halves together. Graham So I take it you had problems with it before too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reïvaj Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 If you have a VF-17 toy, you can see how they have done it. Hole in the leg to plug the packs into in battroid mode. and a hole in the underside of the wing to plug the packs into in fighter mode. The simplest possible way it could have been done. The hole in the leg has a hinged (or is it sliding, I forget) cover for when the packs are not attached. The cover is accessed through the rear landing gear bay. Graham Yes, I have two, actually. Nice description though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacrossJunkie Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 I like how the SP look and I’m definitely getting them. Too bad they’re the first SP that need to be removed for transformation. The way I see it, it's not really much different from valks like the VF-11 and VF-25 having to remove the shield and put them in another place. At least it has somewhere to go in all modes. The crotch armor for the VF-25 super and armor packs for the version 1s more or less had to be removed for fighter mode and placed somewhere. Sure, you could kinda leave it attached in fighter mode, but it left things misaligned and I think stressed the plastic even more than it already was while in fighter mode. It was just ill fitting if you tried. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Yeah, I never kept the crotch armour on, in fighter mode on the VF-25 Super and Armoured. Just too difficult getting the plane locked together with it on, so I always removed it and stored it elsewhere. Graham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anime52k8 Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 The VF-11 boosters need to be removed before folding the arms out. I've tried skipping this step and they always pop off on their own. I just attribute it to mechanisms too intricate to be represented at tiny scale... and completely fictional. No they don't. If you take your time and transform it the right way the booster parts hardly get in the way at all, even going to gerwalk mode. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reïvaj Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 The way I see it, it's not really much different from valks like the VF-11 and VF-25 having to remove the shield and put them in another place. At least it has somewhere to go in all modes. The crotch armor for the VF-25 super and armor packs for the version 1s more or less had to be removed for fighter mode and placed somewhere. Sure, you could kinda leave it attached in fighter mode, but it left things misaligned and I think stressed the plastic even more than it already was while in fighter mode. It was just ill fitting if you tried. I was actually talking about Yamato's. The v.1 VF-25 just doesn't count for it's so badly designed. Wait and see the v.2 SP. No they don't. If you take your time and transform it the right way the booster parts hardly get in the way at all, even going to gerwalk mode. Exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raptor One Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 At least it has somewhere to go in all modes. Yea, for me as long as this is the case then it's all good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mommar Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Doesn't that technically mean you could leave the leg packs attached under the wings in Gerwalk mode too? That would make it look a lot different and you could always pretend it's a different/special configuration that way. It may not hold that weight up all too well with all of the packs connected but it still might look interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugimon Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 I was actually talking about Yamato's. The v.1 VF-25 just doesn't count for it's so badly designed. Wait and see the v.2 SP. Exactly. Well, I'm going to guess that the v2 25's fast packs are going to be even more wonky with straight up parts swapping for the crotch, hips and shoulder/collar armor attachments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacrossJunkie Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 I was actually talking about Yamato's. The v.1 VF-25 just doesn't count for it's so badly designed. Wait and see the v.2 SP. Well, I did mention that it was on par with having to remove the shield for Yamato's VF-11 and plug it into a different hole as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uxi Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 I can live with the D-head. Packs look great, too. Can someone summarize for me? D is only with FP or are there going to be single and bundle releases? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UN Spacy Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 FYI. Turn down the volume on your speakers...it's annoying as hell (unless you're into popping ecstasy tablets). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvcoxWeewiY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anime52k8 Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 (edited) FYI. Turn down the volume on your speakers...it's annoying as hell (unless you're into popping ecstasy tablets). So, as long as you're not a moron who plays with toys while on MDMA you should be fine. Edited February 18, 2012 by anime52k8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mommar Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 (edited) FYI. Turn down the volume on your speakers...it's annoying as hell (unless you're into popping ecstasy tablets). So does that mean if we enjoy Goa we're all drug addicts? Because I've never done a drug in my life and this track isn't that bad. Edited February 18, 2012 by Mommar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xrentonx Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 I think I'm more annoyed by the fact that the guy couldn't be bothered to just explain what he's doing instead of playing a music track over everything and using hand gestures. I think it would have been much more informative but that's just me... Plus the music is totally out of place Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kamadoma Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 (edited) I can't even understand his Engrish on his page. Was that broken part supposed to be plastic or metal? Could he have turned the legs on a point when they weren't supposed to turn? I mean, you do have to pull those legs outwards before moving them, right? Edited February 19, 2012 by kamadoma Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anime52k8 Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 I can't even understand his Engrish on his page. Was that broken part supposed to be plastic or metal? Could he have turned the legs on a point when they weren't supposed to turn? I mean, you do have to pull those legs outwards before moving them, right? Going by the spastic pantomiming in the video it looks like he decided to try posing the legs by viciously torqueing the transformation joints against each other until one of the diecast metal half-shafts sheared off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VF5SS Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 How do you even get that area apart? The nose hides two screws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jasonc Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 There are ways to get to things if you research it enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 How are these 17s breaking their hip bars Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 FYI. Turn down the volume on your speakers...it's annoying as hell (unless you're into popping ecstasy tablets). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvcoxWeewiY Yeah, agree, that's not my definition of pleasant listening either. Annoying as hell is right. Graham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renato Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 It's funny, just the other day the guy who made that video (I don't actually know him) sent me a message on Youtube telling me about how I should fix the VF-17 with silicon... I was baffled and didn't bother responding. Now he's made a video and I'm still no more enlightened... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anime52k8 Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 You know, I'm almost certain now that that guy and this guy: http://www.macrossworld.com/mwf/index.php?showtopic=35038&view=findpost&p=950817 are the same person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kamadoma Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 I haven't gotten a VF-17 yet and now it seems I'm being deterred by that. Then again, should I really be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Froy Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 (edited) I haven't gotten a VF-17 yet and now it seems I'm being deterred by that. Then again, should I really be? You should not be. There are 74 pages on this tread and only one catastrophic failure reported (and it seems to be derived from a bad manipulation of the toy). I own a VF-17 too and personally I think that the toy is only a little bit more tight than it should be. Out of that it is a very good toy. Edited February 20, 2012 by Froy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pud333 Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 (edited) I haven't gotten a VF-17 yet and now it seems I'm being deterred by that. Then again, should I really be? You should not be. There are 74 pages on this tread and only one catastrophic failure reported (and it seems to be derived from a bad manipulation of the toy). I own a VF-17 too and personally I think that the toy is only a little bit more tight than it should be. Out of that it is a very good toy. Exactly. The 17 is the best manufactured valk Yamato has put out besides the 19. It is tight and sturdy and you really get your money's worth. Go and grab one. You will not be disappointed. It's a beast. Like any valk, take your time transforming it and follow the instructions, and you will be fine. Edited February 20, 2012 by pud333 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VF5SS Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Or watch people like my play with it on youtube. Stroking it slowly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts