Chris Beilby (email@example.com)
Wed, 23 Jun 1999 10:33:44 -0700
Dom Tetreault wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jun 1999 18:32:07 EDT Chaos025@aol.com writes:
> > Conversions in modeling refer to creating a new or different model
> > out of
> > another model. A good example is when someone takes a Master Grade
> > RGM-79 and
> > turns it into a Master Grade RX-77-2.
> Hmm. This may seem incredibly dense, but isn't that redundant for most
> regular 1/100 and 1/144 kits when there seems to be a kit for every
> mobile suit ever conceived? =) I can understand doing it for MG kits,
> I guess I feel confined by the 'rules' of what's already been shown in
> each series. I mean, I've already mentioned I like beefy MS's so I could
> put the Leopard's legs on my X Divider and paint it to match, but it just
> *feels* wrong to mess with the design the creators have laid out. Are
> variations a bad thing? It just seems so cheap to slap new components on
> an old kit and say 'Voila! This is a conversion.' (Actually, I really
> don't like the Divider's legs. They just have such a limited motion range
> compared to the Lep's.)
> Like the Heavyarms conversion I mentioned before, did the modeler just
> make that up out of the blue or was it an existing design from somewhere?
> I don't know. I just feel like I'm detracting from the essential
> Gundamness of the kits if I make something new. It doesn't feel Official,
> if you take my meaning. Does that sound weird? *sighs and heads off to
A lot of modellers come up with their own designs and do conversions.
Myself, I'm in the planning stages of converting a Gundam Leopard (from
Gundam X) into a U.C. GM variant called the GM Assault.
As to there being models of almost every mobile suit, perhaps, but for a lot
from the original series, they only exist in the 20 year old 1/144 line and
the designs aren't up to today's standards.
Gundam Mailing List Archives are available at http://gundam.aeug.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Jun 24 1999 - 11:34:42 JST