Mommar

Could you hi-light what is so inconsistent between these two images? For the most part it's pretty much identical to me.

Looking at that set of profiles of the CAD, the side profile looks pretty damn good. I like it. That nose needs to come up (like that hasn't been said before), but if we can get that, and the details put into the CAD, we should be sitting pretty. I don't know if this is just my thoughts, but on the fighter front view, do the wings look a little short? Are there extra details missing that make them a little larger?

I noticed the first time I saw the CAD that the wings do look a little stumpy. They're not shaped quite right so they could just be basic place holders.

Who cares if it looks like a boner? I think we can all agree that fighter is the most important mode for this. Also the ZOE designs are badass, boners and all

Some of us like the Battroid mode.

If this is the "other stuff" Graham mentioned would fill the gap between the next 17 and 19 releases I am less than underwhelmed. I guess there are a lot of fans of these things on this board though.

actually, as of late, i've been working on a long planned effort on purchasing and building up a 2nd copy

of the old, long OOP 1994 1/1000 ERTL U.S.S. EXCELSIOR model kit, after first attempting one back in the early 1990's

and doing a TERRIBLE job on it, and i've been going back to the third movie for reference material,

and it has just hit me too just how BAD the film's scripting actually is.

take, for instance, the EXCELSIOR herself; it stands to reason, even by early 1980's thinking,

that space-fairing vehicles as sophisticated as ST's Starships are, even, nay, ESPECIALLY untried, experimental ones

such as the flagship of the EXCELSIOR class, would have more than sufficient checks and fail-safes

against all number of foreseeable issues, including the sabotage induced by Scotty in the film.

further, the whole sequence of the EXCELSIOR's TRANSWARP faltering out, while viscerally exciting and great for "Laffs" and all that great stuff,

has to be, IMHO, one of THE great groners in all of the TREK saga.

i mean, after all, this IS far into the distant future, is it not? with technology so far advanced that it might seem magical

to anyone from the late 20th century to present day, no?

well then, is the audience to assume that this cutting edge experimental spaceship of the far future

does not have even so much as a halfway sophisicated computer system that would clearly notify the crew

that the TRANSWARP drive system is malfunctional and positively not in any operational condition

BEFORE the crew attempts to crank it up?!?

like i said, great for Laughs, BAD for the cerebrum.

one more little anecdote that sticks in my craw; one would only natually assume that the TRANSWARP system

would have been long since modeled and simulated to death by computer before a prototype testbed tech demonstrator was made,

and yet TREK fans were simply left with the basic canon explanation that TRANSWARP was eventually proven to be a faulty technology.

yes, people, yet one more little piddly detail of the ST univers alone that gets overly anal nerds like me all in bind, god help us all...

Out of curiosity what line of work are you in? As a you're making a lot of assumptions that the project to 1) design transwarp and 2) design/construct the Excelsior were both managed properly and were not riding on the back of some high ranking person/funding/mutual political back scratching that got a project pushed through despite objections it would be a failure. Projects touted as the greatest, slickest thing are touted today. But when they're more ego then anything else, embodied by the personality of the Captain of the Excelsior, they tend to all apart and be giant embarassments (see our wonderfully flawed F-22 for reference.) I'm a software engineer who may or may not make use of government funds for projects from time to time and I can assure you MAJOR gaffs like that happen. Minor issues like a warning light not blinking happen. Doesn't matter what century it's in, if it's built/designed/managed by people screw ups like what was presented in that movie can happen. I've seen it with my own two eyes too many times the past seven years.

I've always really liked the way the 2S looks in Battroid but I've never understood why people like the fighter mode so much.

Look at the shape of the wings, that's a very rough cad model. They aren't even airfoil shaped yet.

I'm not worried about the shape of the wings/tails/etc much because honestly, for this design they play absolutely no part in the transformation. They barely even move, so there's really no reason they shouldn't make them detailed later on.

What does concern me a bit is the overall shape, which is a bit off in the nose, and such. They'll be using this model to plan how the transformation mechanism works, so key parts for the transformation like the nose and feet should be fixed at this stage.

That's precisely my point. I wouldn't be so sure they're going to chagne things like the shape of the nose. Adding/tweaking the wing shape won't affect anything. Changing the nose might. What's interesting is I remmeber some people joking about the nose cuving out in Battroid and looking like a boner. If they change the nose to curve out now... it will look like a boner.

To everyone saying "This is just a CAD." How different from the CAD is the final version of the 17? I'm not sure much changed on that. Just a warning to not get your hopes up, things could very well already be set in stone.

It took me about fifteen minutes to loosen the canopy enough that it would come up.

I thought we would get the VF-4 news in February, do you know guys why it happened now? Do they appear in a still-to-be-released magazine?

I like what I see by the way. There’s a lot of room for improvements yet so I’m counting on Yamato’s savoir faire.

Maybe February will actually be resin prototype images?

the idea i always got from macross was there is a better way when people become reasonable and have a common interest or look beyond a barrel of a gun and they might see something in each other that theycan enjoy( music love) Iknow it sounds cheesey but that was what I always thought macross was about. I feel this Macross II did it I just think it could do somethings better still I enjoyed the series.

I would take issue with that for one reason, while music tends to turn the giants minds so that they think for themselves SDFM ended with them turning on their masters, blowing up a lot of ships and killing a LOT of people. Guns were used. I would say the message is if you're clear of mind you can choose to fight for what you believe in whatever way you feel is reasonable. Hikaru was a fighter pilot, he fought in a fighter. Minmei was a singer, she sang a song to distract/inspire/awaken. Same goal, different methods. Guns were still used and people still died. In Mac7 Gamlin fought with his fighter, Basara with singing (it just wasn't nearly as good as SDFM in my opinion.)

Is that a fan created manual? - doesn't seem to follow the lineart in my official books as much...

It's a fan created website but they use images from whatever official, and other, material they can find. What does the lineart from your books look like?

You're probably really limited by what stock footage you can use to go along with animations too. I was thinking a demonstration of the vectoring thrust on the VF-11 with a crazy flipping manuver, kind of like in one of the dogfights in Macross 0. But that may be pretty tricky.

If only I could transform these toys that fast...

The fighter looks a bit more like the VF-X-4, and I kind of like that. I'm with WM, that the previous models have all looked to spindly. That being said, the legs look too skinny in this prelim design. I've never been a big fan of this batroid, but I'm curious to see how the actual toy looks.

(null)

I doubt there will be a way to get the legs thicker without making the fighter mode look absolutely ridiculous. Those two pylons on the wings are already larger on the CAD drawing then the line art. Just like the 17 those legs simply can't realistically get thicker.

^Macross Mecha Manual

The thing is I'm wondering if having the nose tapered up a little bit won't interfere with locking mechanisms when in Battroid? On the other hand the neck on the Yamato valk is stubbier and thicker so maybe if that were extended it wouldn't be such an issue either? However it could interfere with other internal mechanisms/alignments. Engineering is quite a trade-off sometimes.

I do think the CAD art for Battroid looks good... I also seem to be one of the few who really likes the chesty/shoulder-pad look on this one too (kinda like the line-backer look of the VF-17 as well.)

This is a cool looking custom. I have zero painting/art skills or else I would have attempted an YF-11 Max style color scheme on one of my VF-11C's.

Agreed!!! I used some old 1/72 scale Haesgawa decals and mine came out great. Speaking of, if the do reissue this with tamp printing, I'm never buying another Yamato fresh off the press again. I'm sure there'd be so many pissed off fans here, it'd probably have a negative backlash.

Well there was a lot more tampo on later VF-1's then the original releases so...

Ah, the on-top part what I mentioned before just accounts for the the calf differences.

I'm curious to see how you're going to pull this all off. I made a stab at fast-packs/boosters for the Vf-19S but gave up on that one. Mechanically I just couldn't put it together.

, thanks for your support. I will modify the leg but not redesign it. What I intend to do is add an on-top part to the current leg to handle the foldable stabilizers. Once the kit is released, I will make the assmebly process transparent like a crytal. haha. I will try to make the OD ready asap.

You're not going to worry about the differences in the calf either?

I disagree. I've been intrigued with the B variant ever since it's first appearance in Tenjin Hidetaka's first Valkyries with the words "Space Proving Wing" stencilled on the side.

As we're all well aware, the VF-0 is an atmospheric fighter. Therefore, the implications are that the 0B has some extra modifications for space use.

That's the first I've heard of this. Based on everything I saw of the B it was just a two-seater A to me.

Not just that, but the 0B, as well as a fuller explanation of the 0D's "enhanced EW capabilities".

I guess because the B is a two seater version of the A/S I don't find it nearly as interesting as the 0D which has a lot of different payload configs and overall looks different too.

If you ask me the 17's Battroid mode definitely is the more imposing of the two. If you're going to leave it on the shelf in that mode.

Overall the 19S is more solid in all three modes. However I've never had more fun posing a Valk in Battroid then the 17. So I guess it depends on what you want to do with it. If you want it completley solid in all three forms (give or take an ankle issue) and you're going to transform it back and forth again the 19 is your best bet. If you usually keep your toys in one mode and like to do different Battroid Poses I think the 17 is more fun in that regard and the other two modes look pretty good too.

Preordered. The stories should, at the very least, be interesting reads since we're dealing with purely terrestrial and relatively modern proceedings. It should be fun to see what fiction they come up with. I hope the CG/pics are up to snuff. The last four books illustrations were far too dark and their CG/texture work could be improved. Let's hope for some spectacular 0D pics as well.

Do you have a pic what the pods look like clipped onto the V2 25?