dave reimer (njrotc_cadet@hotmail.com)
Mon, 19 Feb 2001 21:55:11 -0600

ok, the MG Zeta is special. you have to kinda lock in the
arms into the wing-gaps, it makes it stable.

----- Original Message -----
From: garrick lee <goner4sure@yahoo.com>
To: <gundam@aeug.org>
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2001 8:01 PM
Subject: Re: [gundam] "transforming" kits

> --- "Matt, defender of stuff that is pretty cool!"
> <mhanyo1@umbc.edu> wrote:
> > just wondering what the general consensus was on the
> > list regarding
> > so-called "transforming" model kits. I just spent
> > about 15 minutes trying to
> > get a VF-19 kai to go from gerwalk to jet mode, with
> > pieces falling
> > everywhere and things not connecting right. I have
> > trouble with my MG Zeta,
> > as well, as a Gundam it doesn't pose very well, and
> > as the wave rider it uh,
> > pretty much collapses on itself.
> >
> > What I don't get is, what's the big deal? They make
> > these toys that
> > transform - I've got a VF-19 that I took apart and
> > painted piece by piece,
> > and managed to reassemble it and it still works. Why
> > not just make the
> > "transforming" kits of higher quality plastics and
> > more flexible joints, but
> > more expensive?
> >
> > Any thoughts?
> >
> exactly my beef with all of the valyrie model kits.
> plus, the fact that they need part swapping, when
> they're already fragile as heck.
> which extends to my beef with the macross plus toys of
> toycom release. crud. bandai got it right the first
> time with the classic valkyries and the plastic mac7
> valks (superb toys!). what the hell is toycom
> mucking around with the macross plus valks for? i
> still think the yf-19 screw ups are inexcusable (and
> combined with the enormous price tag, almost
> unforgiveable) -- insofar as the mech design of yf-19
> (toycom) is a direct carbon copy of vf-19 (bandai),
> with only cosmetic differences, and no significant
> structural design differences whatsoever.
> the only reason i can think of as to why they are
> having a tough time with the fragile valkyrie kits is
> that they are prioritizing proportions and technical
> accuracy in ALL THREE MODES over workability of the
> entire kit.
> as for the transformable gundam kits...i don't like
> 'em. i'm not really fond of transformable gundams in
> the first place (amuro complex :P) or gundams with
> core fighters.
> technically, my problems with transformables are -- it
> essentially means that the structure of the suits are
> several magnitudes weaker (c'mon, the zeta is
> practically hollow in many parts when in mobile suit
> mode...ugh). it also means flakey unfeasible
> uberfunky mechanics (double zeta, fazz, sentinel,
> enough said) and that don't make my day any. most of
> the time, gundam transformables are also ugly like
> heck (wing gundam, airmaster, psycho, zz).
> hobbywise, i just can't stand the thought of paint
> jobs scratching as the various parts mesh and grind
> together while the mech transforms. ugh. hobbywise,
> also, the fragile structure of transformables mechs
> reveal themselves all too readily that it kind of
> hinders the suspension of belief regarding mecha model
> kits (and what they're supposed to simulate).
> -garr
> long live noble grunt mecha!
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
> a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
> -
> Gundam Mailing List Archives are available at http://gundam.aeug.org/

Gundam Mailing List Archives are available at http://gundam.aeug.org/

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Tue Feb 20 2001 - 12:55:03 JST