David Hingtgen Posted July 2, 2006 Share Posted July 2, 2006 Or, again, make it removable and solve the problem entirely... Of course, Yamato is fond of making, huge, carrier-style dual-wheeled extra-beefy nosegears, even in planes which are clearly shown to have thin, single-wheeled nosegears. See their YF-21. I think someone at Yamato just has a dual-wheel beefy-gear fetish or something, and incorporates it into all the designs. Yamato's trademark seems to be big nosegears, regardless of accuracy, and always to compromise fighter mode. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sumdumgai Posted July 2, 2006 Share Posted July 2, 2006 Have it so that there are still the landing bay doors that open and beneath them are the plugs for your landing gear. Solves the problem of space like guys were saying, and we still have the option of using landing gear, and it would remain perfect transformation because the landing gear takes no role in the transformation. I'll wait and see pics of the prototype before further ragging on this poor girl. This new 19 may turn out to be a looker in the flesh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1/1 LowViz Lurker Posted July 2, 2006 Share Posted July 2, 2006 (edited) Is the landing gear really such a big deal? Why not make the landing gear collapsible? Have it so that you extend it outward and twist to lock it. Boom, landing gear size problem solved and you didn't have to ugly up the entire front of a jet to do it. Sounds like a good idea. Maybe have some kind of spring mechanism? They have something like that in the hips for the 1/72 yf19, (when you try to push them apart to do an A stance), and 1/72 vf11. (shoulders) This way you can still have the beefy wheel/tyres etc. I'm thinking like what you got with the Transformers Alternator Hound. You can push Alt Hound down to the ground and he bouces back up because of the suspension. At least something strong enough to bear the weight when extended but not too strong or it will be hard to push out. Have it so that there are still the landing bay doors that open and beneath them are the plugs for your landing gear. Solves the problem of space like guys were saying, and we still have the option of using landing gear, and it would remain perfect transformation because the landing gear takes no role in the transformation. I'll wait and see pics of the prototype before further ragging on this poor girl. This new 19 may turn out to be a looker in the flesh! My main thing is that I'm lazy. So I like to have everything in one piece and not lose the loose parts and stuff. Edited July 2, 2006 by 1/1 LowViz Lurker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jenius Posted July 2, 2006 Share Posted July 2, 2006 (edited) My main thing is that I'm lazy. So I like to have everything in one piece and not lose the loose parts and stuff. I HATE removeable parts. I don't even like removing the intake shields on the 1/48 VF-1 series. I would MUCH prefer a landing gear that could be extended in some way or another. Spring loaded would certainly be cool but there are a dozen ways to accomplish it and I really wouldn't care which one they went with... just don't make me go digging for my box everytime I decide to display it in a different mode. Edited July 2, 2006 by jenius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nani?! Posted July 2, 2006 Share Posted July 2, 2006 Guys, lets see this thing in the flesh first before we start suggesting spring landing gears here... Larger wings and canards, cool... but spring landing gears? That's a QC problem waiting to happen. My desire to have an all around good looking yf-19 supersedes any reservations I have of it's side profile in fighter mode. I'd advise people to look at the yamato CAD solely and stop comparing it to the official line art... We're never going to get a perfect match for all three modes... at least not as a practical toy... And certainly not as a perfect variable. The yf-19 is miles harder to get right than the vf-1 or the already 3 dimensionalized vf-0 so lets cut them some slack... The underbelly blows... so be it... we have the yf-19. Rejoice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vermillion21 Posted July 2, 2006 Share Posted July 2, 2006 ... we have the yf-19. Rejoice. I agree .... until we get the actual toy ... who knows, it might be another "Garland fiasco". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malich Posted July 2, 2006 Share Posted July 2, 2006 It's all good. I will definitely reserve some of the "Income Tax Return" for this! 1/60 YF-21 would be awesome!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Posted July 2, 2006 Share Posted July 2, 2006 IMO, the Yamato top view fighter mode CAD lineart is 98% spot on. The, Yamato side view fighter mode lineart is perhaps 70% when compared against the Hasagawa, TIAS etc side view lineart. However, when compared against Kawamori's 3/4 view lineart, the Yamato is much closer, perhaps 90%, as a lot of Kawamori's fighter mode lineart has a short nose, bigger curved belly, thicker forward fuselage and thicker lower legs and intakes. Anyway, the YF-19 probably uses the most anime-magic in it's transformation of any of Kawamori's designs. One of the prime areas being the intakes, which are a completely different shape in battroid and fighter modes. Graham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Posted July 2, 2006 Share Posted July 2, 2006 HI all,Anyone wanna bet that the "pelican gut" thingy will be removable for transformation? 413046[/snapback] Yamato is all about perfect transformation these days. Removal of major parts died with the 1/60 VF-1 line. While removal of small optional parts such as intake covers and pitot tubes is acceptable, they won't go back to large removeable parts. Graham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante74 Posted July 2, 2006 Share Posted July 2, 2006 Even with the upcoming SV-51? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vlenhoff Posted July 2, 2006 Share Posted July 2, 2006 Even with the upcoming SV-51? 413171[/snapback] Wow, G almost fell for that one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruskiiVFaussie Posted July 2, 2006 Share Posted July 2, 2006 It's all good. I will definitely reserve some of the "Income Tax Return" for this! 1/60 YF-21 would be awesome!! 413167[/snapback] Yes man, it's coming. wantwantwantwantwant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugimon Posted July 2, 2006 Share Posted July 2, 2006 What i can't stand is how the arms hang down further than the legs! They don't do that in the anime. Stupid heatshield, they should make that part removable! Oh, sorry, wrong valk... I got caught up in the batty fest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Godzilla Posted July 2, 2006 Share Posted July 2, 2006 HI all,Anyone wanna bet that the "pelican gut" thingy will be removable for transformation? 413046[/snapback] Yamato is all about perfect transformation these days. Removal of major parts died with the 1/60 VF-1 line. While removal of small optional parts such as intake covers and pitot tubes is acceptable, they won't go back to large removeable parts. Graham 413170[/snapback] Thank God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphaOne Posted July 2, 2006 Share Posted July 2, 2006 (edited) *Disclaimer (I apologize for my horrible photoshop job) I'm so happy they got rid of those HUGE ugly arm tabs from the 1/72 Yf-19. Man, those things were eye sores! Edited July 2, 2006 by AlphaOne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lechuck Posted July 2, 2006 Share Posted July 2, 2006 Hey Graham not really a directly related question towards the yf-19, but can you tell us if yamato has finally settled on one scale for macross valkyries. For e.g. if yamato were to produce a vf-4 would they scale it at 1/60 or would they make it aroud the 30+ cm mark. I'd much prefer one scale for all instead of constant scale changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danth Posted July 2, 2006 Share Posted July 2, 2006 The underbelly blows... so be it... we have the yf-19. Rejoice. 413094[/snapback] I can't have that attitude with something likely to cost around $150. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugimon Posted July 2, 2006 Share Posted July 2, 2006 The underbelly blows... so be it... we have the yf-19. Rejoice. 413094[/snapback] I can't have that attitude with something likely to cost around $150. 413225[/snapback] good for you, stand your ground! you tell Nani what's up! It's his money, not yours, what does his "attitude" have anything to do with you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1/1 LowViz Lurker Posted July 2, 2006 Share Posted July 2, 2006 (edited) Guys, lets see this thing in the flesh first before we start suggesting spring landing gears here... Larger wings and canards, cool... but spring landing gears? That's a QC problem waiting to happen. Anyway I do think it will look ok. Just a few refinements like the neck, wings, etc The lineart for the models has spoilt us. When it comes down to it we should all be happy it is finally being made. I do wonder if they'll have removable landing gears for a future yf21 FP release though. (will they have two sets like the 1/72? Removable ones for the FP, and non-removable ones in the plane itself?) Edited July 2, 2006 by 1/1 LowViz Lurker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danth Posted July 2, 2006 Share Posted July 2, 2006 The underbelly blows... so be it... we have the yf-19. Rejoice. 413094[/snapback] I can't have that attitude with something likely to cost around $150. 413225[/snapback] good for you, stand your ground! you tell Nani what's up! It's his money, not yours, what does his "attitude" have anything to do with you? 413231[/snapback] I think you completely misunderstood me, dude. What I was trying to say to Nani was: I can't have the same attitude he has (namely, "stop comparing it to the official line art... We're never going to get a perfect match... cut them some slack...The underbelly blows... so be it...Rejoice.") regarding a $150 toy. For me to spend that kinda cash, it's gotta be damn near perfect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kensei Posted July 3, 2006 Share Posted July 3, 2006 What I was trying to say to Nani was: I can't have the same attitude he has (namely, "stop comparing it to the official line art... We're never going to get a perfect match... cut them some slack...The underbelly blows... so be it...Rejoice.") regarding a $150 toy. For me to spend that kinda cash, it's gotta be damn near perfect. 413254[/snapback] And it is. At this stage, demanding more is just nitpicking to the extreme. Who knows what some modifications to the underbelly might do to the funciton of the toy as a whole? It's as perfect as it'll ever be, and plus, it's a CAD drawing, not even the real prototype. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sumdumgai Posted July 3, 2006 Share Posted July 3, 2006 Spring-loaded crotch-gear-piece things, huh what? Sounds dirty! Seriously though, spring loaded stuff is a QC disaster waiting to happen. Expect to have a lot of people with their fingers getting snapped by the landing gear (oh the painful memories of my chunky monkey), a lot of cursing when the spring slips and you have it apart to put the spring back in place, or cursing when someone gets a valk with unattached springs. The YF-19 is better off without gimmicks like spring loaded landing gear, nose-cone radar, and moveable flaps. Although I'm sure that a number wouldn't complain at having replaceable nose-cones for use in fighter and battroid, depending on whether the person is a fighter-mode or battroid-mode purist (without NEEDING to switch nosecones, just having it be an option). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GobotFool Posted July 3, 2006 Share Posted July 3, 2006 Less focus on secondary gimmicks, more focus on the primary gimmick, in other words, the transformation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugimon Posted July 3, 2006 Share Posted July 3, 2006 The underbelly blows... so be it... we have the yf-19. Rejoice. 413094[/snapback] I can't have that attitude with something likely to cost around $150. 413225[/snapback] good for you, stand your ground! you tell Nani what's up! It's his money, not yours, what does his "attitude" have anything to do with you? 413231[/snapback] I think you completely misunderstood me, dude. What I was trying to say to Nani was: I can't have the same attitude he has (namely, "stop comparing it to the official line art... We're never going to get a perfect match... cut them some slack...The underbelly blows... so be it...Rejoice.") regarding a $150 toy. For me to spend that kinda cash, it's gotta be damn near perfect. 413254[/snapback] ah, well then, my bad. continue to hold the line then. more yf-10 goodness for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Posted July 3, 2006 Share Posted July 3, 2006 The lineart for the models has spoilt us. 413237[/snapback] Actually, the more I compare my completed Hasagawa kit to Kawamori's 3/4 view lineart, the more the kit looks completely wrong to me. The forward fuselage (plane's neck), intake section and lower legs are all far too skinny and lacking in curves compared to Kawamori's 3/4 view lineart. Plus the Hasegawa has almost no belly curve. It should have some. Also, based on the position of the gunpod in Kawamori's art, the Hasegawa gunpod also extends too far forward. It should only come as far as the angled line on the mid-thigh, whereas Hasagawa have it coming to the thick black vertical line at the top of the thigh. Not knocking the Hasegawa kit. It's still a great kit, but it's not the be all and end all as far as accuracy is concerned. The main problem is that even from Kawamori, there are so many differently drawn versions of the YF-19 and so much anime magic involved, that it's impossible to make a definitive perfect version in one mode, let alone a perfect variable toy or model in all three modes. Graham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted July 3, 2006 Share Posted July 3, 2006 However, the Hasegawa version just plain looks friggin' awesome, as well as having detailed perfect 3 view schematics, so people "accept" that as the definitive version nowadays, for how fighter mode should look at least. Hasegawa knows planes, and they made it as "real jet-esque" as they could, and so their version of fighter mode looks the most real/acceptable to most people--regardless of conformity to Kawamori's sketches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Posted July 3, 2006 Share Posted July 3, 2006 The Hasegawa is a nice kit, not sure I'd call it awesome though. Even before I knew about the new Yamato YF-19, I always thought it was far too skinny. Hasegawa's YF-21 and VF-22 kit have the same problem as well IMO. Graham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nani?! Posted July 3, 2006 Share Posted July 3, 2006 I can't have that attitude with something likely to cost around $150. 413225[/snapback] good for you, stand your ground! you tell Nani what's up! It's his money, not yours, what does his "attitude" have anything to do with you? 413231[/snapback] I think you completely misunderstood me, dude. What I was trying to say to Nani was: I can't have the same attitude he has (namely, "stop comparing it to the official line art... We're never going to get a perfect match... cut them some slack...The underbelly blows... so be it...Rejoice.") regarding a $150 toy. For me to spend that kinda cash, it's gotta be damn near perfect. 413254[/snapback] I understand your point of view as far as price... $150 isn't a chump change by any means. What you feel is worth that hard earned money is your decision to make. However, I think it's closer to "perfection" than most people think it is... If you consider all the elements this valk has to have (perfect transformation, landing gear, good looks in all three modes, and sturdy build) and the fact that yamato doesn't have the benefit of anime magic, I think you'd start to appreciate the effort more... Suggesting changes is great... we have every right to... but that doesn't mean lets just go wacky~ Also, I've noticed that if you slim down the neck, then you also have to slim down the legs to make it look smooth... If that happens the we'll have stick man for battroid... Like I said... it's a compromise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1/1 LowViz Lurker Posted July 3, 2006 Share Posted July 3, 2006 (edited) Actually, the more I compare my completed Hasagawa kit to Kawamori's 3/4 view lineart, the more the kit looks completely wrong to me. The forward fuselage (plane's neck), intake section and lower legs are all far too skinny and lacking in curves compared to Kawamori's 3/4 view lineart. Plus the Hasegawa has almost no belly curve. It should have some. Also, based on the position of the gunpod in Kawamori's art, the Hasegawa gunpod also extends too far forward. It should only come as far as the angled line on the mid-thigh, whereas Hasagawa have it coming to the thick black vertical line at the top of the thigh. Not knocking the Hasegawa kit. It's still a great kit, but it's not the be all and end all as far as accuracy is concerned. The main problem is that even from Kawamori, there are so many differently drawn versions of the YF-19 and so much anime magic involved, that it's impossible to make a definitive perfect version in one mode, let alone a perfect variable toy or model in all three modes. Graham Well as I mentioned there are two types of fan: robot mode and fighter mode. So it was inevitable there was going to be a tug of war over what is the ideal shape. Personally I have always gone for skinny overall frame/body (for posability reasons like crouching and stuff) with big shoulders (like a football player wearing shoulder pads) and beefy forearms. (a bit like the Qrau really) With beefy forearms the bonus you get is big hands. (for holding the gunpod?) So for me I don't mind chicken legs (these get beefed up when wearing the fast pack). As for fighter mode: I guess I got to say I am a fan of the curved neck and long wings more for aesthetic reasons. I think if the neck was slightly curved up and then down, it would make the fighter more sexy as some put it. ..But if kawamori himself says the fighter should have a beer gut who are we to stop him? Edited July 3, 2006 by 1/1 LowViz Lurker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyde01 Posted July 3, 2006 Share Posted July 3, 2006 However, when compared against Kawamori's 3/4 view lineart, the Yamato is much closer, perhaps 90%, as a lot of Kawamori's fighter mode lineart has a short nose, bigger curved belly, thicker forward fuselage and thicker lower legs and intakes.Graham 413169[/snapback] I would say more like 85% because 1. the curved belly isn't that big and flat, and 2. you said Kawamori draws thicker lower legs and intakes, but the lower legs and intakes on the Yamato CAD aren't that thick at all, they're actually really skinny. Anyway, the YF-19 probably uses the most anime-magic in it's transformation of any of Kawamori's designs. One of the prime areas being the intakes, which are a completely different shape in battroid and fighter modes.Graham 413169[/snapback] True, the intakes do change shape in Kawamori's line art, but the Yamato CAD intakes right now look like neither the fighter mode intakes or the battroid mode intakes. I think if they were shorter and rounder and a little wider they still would look closer to both the fighter version of the intakes and the battroid version of the intakes. Anyway, like I said before these are extreme nitpicks and I am still happy with the way things are coming along (although I can't say the same for others here). I am a fighter guy and most of my nitpicks are concerning battroid mode so I don't really mind as much. The CAD still looks way beautiful compared to my 1st ed. YF-19 that's in a box somewhere. As I am a fighter guy, I think the proportions can be more off in battroid mode for the sake of a good fighter mode, especially because good articulation would drastically improve the look of the battroid, even if it looks skinny or out of proportion like the Yamato CAD. I would be 100% happy with the battroid mode of the CAD as-is if it has just as much articulation and posability as the 1/48 VF-1 and the VF-0 (and the shoulders angle up). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sumdumgai Posted July 3, 2006 Share Posted July 3, 2006 Hot damn, I keep looking at it from the front and top view and keep getting all excited about this! New YF-19 woohoo! I just hope that the shield is either fixed to the arm, or that they have a better system than on the old M+ valks. Sometimes the shield on my VF-11 liked to throw a tantrum and pop off in fighter mode. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
striderhiryu Posted July 3, 2006 Share Posted July 3, 2006 In my opinion i think that making the 19's intake shape so it benefits more the battroid mode is definitively a bad move, to set an example for all of you who had owned a bandai 1:100 VF-19kai/F/S model, you might remember that even tough a shorter and smaller air intake benefits battroid it makes the fighter mode look bad. Also remember that the mode that should receive the most priority is fighter since battroid and gerwalk are suposed to be optional modes. BTW. i think that if the YF-19 were to be featured in a CG remake the battroid mode would look completely different to the more robust and short interpretation given in the original line art, think of it as the liquid stone battroid mode, however it would still look awesome, just like with the Sv-51. Now that i mentioned the LS variable model i think that the yamato YF-19 will have if not the same at least a very similar variable sequence (an elegant way to say transformation), tough neither have the correct crotch piece at least it is the closest thing to a YF-19 that stays within the boundaries of realistic physics and less anime magic. Changing subject it would be cool if they include the following: * optional back seat * figure of yang * figure of naked sharon apple * opening missile bay on lowwer legs * retractable feet (as seen in ep.2 of m+) * right arm optional weapon module (the one isamu uses to blow the destroid monster) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugimon Posted July 3, 2006 Share Posted July 3, 2006 Should it only be half of naked sharon apple, attachable to the cockpit console? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aegis! Posted July 3, 2006 Share Posted July 3, 2006 I wonder if Yamato could actually pull off opening missile bays on the lower legs in this toy , I really hope so though , that´d be a nice touch. Right now , the only thing bothering me is that foward fuselage underbelly and I cannot stop thinking about removable landing gear as David said ealier. It just seems the right thing to do. But I have to agree , these are just CAD drawaings , the actuall toy may differ quite a bit , just like the VF-0 did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyde01 Posted July 3, 2006 Share Posted July 3, 2006 (edited) In my opinion i think that making the 19's intake shape so it benefits more the battroid mode is definitively a bad move, to set an example for all of you who had owned a bandai 1:100 VF-19kai/F/S model, you might remember that even tough a shorter and smaller air intake benefits battroid it makes the fighter mode look bad.Also remember that the mode that should receive the most priority is fighter since battroid and gerwalk are suposed to be optional modes. 413390[/snapback] I'm not saying change the intake shape to just benefit battroid mode, I'm saying the way the intakes look now they don't look like they do in the lineart in fighter or battroid mode. If they changed the intakes to look more like they do in the anime and the lineart in fighter mode, I think they would look a lot better than they do in the CAD, in all modes. I said it once and I'll say it again, I am more of a fighter guy as well. Even if they don't fix my nitpicks in battroid mode I will be happy as long as the fighter looks good and the battroid has good articulation/posability. Good articulation and posability would make the battroid look good even if it's on the skinny side or a little out of proportion. edit: I bet if Yamato tried hard enough they could do the opening missle bays on the leg fast packs. The opening arm cannon that Isamu roasts a monster with would prob. be too hard but I wish they would include it in a fixed-open position. Here's to hoping they include a fold booster as well. Edited July 3, 2006 by cyde01 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts