How do modern mecha designs compare to older ones from the 80's and 90's? Di you think they've gotten better or worse?
Kawamori's gotten lazy as shit. Back in the 80's he invented the VF-1, Optimus Prime, Starscream, VF-4, and tons of other things. In the 90's the macross designs were all highly distinct. VF-11, YF-19, YF-21, VF-17, VB-6 all look very different, no two look alike and each of them transform differently. By comparison, the 25, 27, 29, and 30 only have minor cosmetic differences and are all really just variations on the YF-24.
OP at least post the updated VF-25 toy and not the shitty off model version.
>By comparison, the 25, 27, 29, and 30 only have minor cosmetic differences and are all really just variations on the YF-24.
For the 25,27,and 29 I agree but the 30 transforms differently enough from the others that I wouldn't consider it a YF-24 derivative.
Worse. Newer mechs seem to have a lot more details and greebling, but I'm of the opinion that less is more in most cases. Designs work best, I think, when they're centered around one aspect that is relatively unique (such as Tetsujin 28 and its potbelly), and then have everything else complement it instead of trying to have everything stand out, especially since in a lot of cases if you strip the colour and detail work from a modern mech, its hard to distinguish it from other modern mechs
But of course, it depends on the artist, and people making designs inspired by the 70s-90s or modern updated designs of mechs from that era usually tend to do well. I like the new Jeeg better than the original, for example.
all derivative of the Sv-51 design.
Kawamori wanted to stop doing designs basted of American airplanes.
I wouldn't say conservative so much as readily milkable.
Though, I say this as someone who'd argue the titular machines of Valvrave are kinda out there for what amount to an alternate take on the samurai bot aesthetic, and that's before you start tacking on the mission specific gear of each model. Still, they're all a common base machine, and that translates into cost cutting mold reuse which is a Very Good Thing(tm) in Bandai's eyes.
Which brings me back to my point about how it's all about the milking.
What happened to the business model they used in the 70s? One show, one fucking mold, that was all you needed. Obviously they can't do that with the things like Gundam we have around now, but they could easily do this with newer IPs.
If they went for quality over quantity, they could still save money and we'd still get unique designs. Everyone wins.
MOLDS ARE EXPENSIVE.
AND HONESTLY I LIKE THE IDEA OF ONE MOLD MANY VARIATIONS.
IT'S AN ENABLER FOR KITBASHERY.
I ALSO LOVE IT WHEN BANDAI IS LAZY AND INCLUDES UNUSED RUNNERS IN THEIR KITS, IT'S LIKE GETTING A KIT AND A HALF.
In all fairness, the YF-24/VF-25 and YF-29 are all sexy as hell.
VF-27...not sure I like the size of the rifle.
>only caring about Macross
Look, the contractors don't go out of their way to make jet designs visually distinct-- they just upgrade their old models. The only exception I can think of is the B-2 Spirit, and that thing is both functionally useless and ugly.
Kawamori didn't get lazy just because of Frontier. He got lazy because Nirvash looks like it was made in AC3.
In the case of Macross, most certainly worse over time....
In the case of Transformers, generally worse over time....
In the case of Gundam, worse over time except for some decent gains in the mid 80s to the early/mid 90's, then worse over time.
Unfortunately, i think mostly they've gotten worse over time, but i wish they hadn't, i hate being a part of the "muh 80s" /m/ userbase
>Unfortunately, i think mostly they've gotten worse over time, but i wish they hadn't, i hate being a part of the "muh 80s" /m/ userbase
Yeah, I don't want to be that guy who says
>the 80s were the best time for mecha
even if that might be true, but I genuinely can't say that, apart from some Gundam designs, I've actually liked any design from the last 16 years. Most of the mecha designs I like happen to be from the 80s and 90s, and I think that current designs are just incredibly boring.
Sorry you have no taste you fucking hipster.
At least use that complaint for the 505 or something man.
Except fuck you for complaining about the 505 anyways.
I almost called this Bastion for some reason...but yeah Chamber is really cool too.
Designs suffer a lot now from people not really knowing what to do to stand out. Homage has always been a part or mecha but not enough designers know how to pick and choose right. If you want to see how to do it right read Mead Gundam, it is great going over his notes and seeing his thought process.
But, this has always been the same issue. A lot of old designs from forgotten shows are best left where they are
Nirvash is the least AC and most unique of the lift board humanoids though. Mon Soono and 505 really could come right out of one with only tiny changes to the asymmetry while Nirvash is much more gangly and organic and has very unique details like the shoulder armour, back airbox, and head.
Chambro is seriously one of my favorite designs.
The mecha from Knights of sidonia are pretty awesome as well.
The one thing I can objectively say is, overall they've gotten skinnier. I know moving away from exceedingly blocky designs is normal (due to both advances in toymaking tech, and that mechs are slowly moving to exclusively pandering to nerds because kids don't care anymore and thus don't need toys thick enough to withstand kids playing with them) but then there are times when they get underwear model tier of skinny, with legs that look like they can't even support the rest.
>Look, the contractors don't go out of their way to make jet designs visually distinct-- they just upgrade their old models.
Because the F-4 Phantom looks just like the F-15 right?
>The only exception I can think of is the B-2 Spirit, and that thing is both functionally useless and ugly.
You just went full retard.
>with legs that look like they can't even support the rest.
>The one thing I can objectively say is, overall they've gotten skinnier.
Not really. It's just older animation gives the impression they're blocky when they're really off model most of the time.
The tendency has always been to draw robots in action sequences with thinner legs so they can move more naturally, what's happened in recent years is making that a core part of the design because of a much greater tendency for the things to actually be on fucking model (ie because of 3D)
Modern mecha seem to abuse the shit out of CGI and meaningless details and tend to forget the fundamentals of design, such as having a cohesive shape or theme to it. Even when it's -not- CGI, that mindset still seems to be in place. Even veteran mecha designers can't escape this trend.
>implying the GTMs aren't cohesive
They're lanky and bizarre for sure but there's a method to the madness.
Nagano should try combining the slender style with clockwork aesthetics though, I suspect there's a great idea to be had in clockwork-styled Nagano noodles.
There is a lot less of a problem with designers than the people who will make any random MS they never cared about before the best selling Gunpla of the year because it got a Ver.Ka and they are obsessed with Katoki for some reason. That kind of shit ends up reflecting back on what we get more of.
It's not even a matter of what's good in anime, because the Ver.Ka label is stronger merchandise marketing than anime.
I mean there is mecha design out there I really like these days but when you get basically one of them in an entire show because you don't get the budget for anything more since Bandai needs it to poop out more shit redesigns under popular brand names the volume seems lacking.
Untrue: Vectoring offers rear leverage via force application. Canards, forward leverage via aerodynamic application. Used together, you get a higher combined leverage than both because of how far apart they are.
Canards and vectoring do very different jobs. There is no "just turns" in aerodynamics. Air does all kinds of crazy things and different wing positions and shapes all serve to make the air do different things.
For one? The canards are raised, altering the speed the air impacts the wing in flight. The result is air above the wing is moving slower because its interrupted at higher angles of attack. The result? Higher lift at lower speeds.
Second? They offer the ability for the thing to "snap to" a specific heading and compensate for over-turning which is a common problem on heavy twin engine fighters - slowing into the end of a turn which is very very important during acquisition with guns or precision flight for radar aspect image systems or high alpha turns.
When you look at pics, Hyaku Shiki 1.0 actually seems more well proportioned as well as accurate. But having built both and putting them side to side together in real life, the 2.0 actually looks a lot more well proportioned.
I know, it sounds weird as fuck. I even didn't want to buy 2.0 because I thought it was too fucking skinny, but if you build the two you'll realize 2.0 isn't as skinny as it seems.
Skinniness was never a problem with it, glancing at a thumbnail it looks much better. But they flattened out the waist and fucked the overall shape then systematically screwed up nearly every part like the non-main SEED MGs.
RD>HGUC>1.0>2.0 in terms of overall sculpt but 2.0 has the second best "proportions"
Something that should be of note here is that there are far fewer new mecha designs out there today compared to the 80's and 90's because back then, every mecha anime was made with the intention of selling lots of toys, and there were a lot more toy companies than just Bandai that were willing to invest in animation studios to make new mecha design properties. Many of these mecha designsback then were designed with gimmicks or accessories in mind that toy companies wanted them to incorporate, making them much more interesting and varied overall. Nowadays, mecha anime is rarely ever made with the intent of selling mecha toys, and serves as more of a setting piece, and less new mecha properties are popping up because the existing ones (i.e. Macross and Gundam) are already more than profitable, and over saturating the market with more mecha designs for toys does more harm than good (which is why most of the toy companies that sponsored various mecha shows went bankrupt in the 80's, like Takatoku, Popy, and Clover).
Basically, because there are less mecha anime being produced with the intent of selling toys, there is less effort put into their design, especially now since CGI makes it remarkably easier to design mecha than in the past. Most anime nowadays is aimed solely at Otaku manchildren as opposed to kids, so the merchandise tends to be along the lines of expensive BDs and PVC figures to hotglue.
>CGI makes it remarkably easier to design mecha than in the past
I can't even slightly agree with that statement. In 2D you can have a barely thought out napkin scribble and a good animator will make it work, in 3D the onus is on the designer/modeler to plan it right in the first place. (or else you'll be stuck doing 2D cuts of the things your model can't)
>implying the 80s wasn't the king of lines and pointiness
The thing is, those "good animators" you speak of are far less frequent than in the past. Most new animators cannot draw mecha properly, because unlike the 80's which were oversaturated with mecha shows left and right, there is no need for this current generation of animators to draw mecha.
A CGI mecha design is less effort because all of its motions can be manipulated with a computer as opposed to every pose and movement of it being drawn out.
>A CGI mecha design is less effort because all of its motions can be manipulated with a computer as opposed to every pose and movement of it being drawn out.
Which is why current mecha designs focus too much on detail as opposed to silhouette and design features.
You can't see the massive logical breakdown in what you're saying? What does ease of animation (which is a lie, it takes a shitload of effort for 3D to actually look good) have to do with ease of design?
>Many of these mecha designsback then were designed with gimmicks or accessories in mind that toy companies wanted them to incorporate, making them much more interesting and varied overall.
I think an even bigger part of that was that the 80's were a time when people still didn't treat mecha very seriously as proper machines like most shows do nowadays, so designers were given a lot more leeway to make their mechs as goofy as they wanted, even in "real robot" shows. Pic related would never be allowed in a modern mecha show, for example.
Even if they are, most still look less serious than pic related, which represents about 90% of what a hero grunt design looks like in every modern mecha anime.
Because CGI allows extremely minute details to be incorporated into a mecha design that would be essentially impossible to draw by hand without a huge budget. The CGI animation itself can look terrible, but the mecha will always be on-model. And because designers focus too much on these small details, they miss the bigger picture as mentioned here >>13757616, resulting in designs that are ultimately less memorable.
Like digital animation, CGI mecha have every reason to surpass their old hand-drawn cel counterparts, but because Nips don't know how to utilize it to its full advantage, it's used as more of a shortcut than anything.
That once again ties with how 80's mecha designs were aimed at kids as their target audience, whereas most anime nowadays is aimed at old neckbeard Otaku.
>he thinks it's harder to draw with a CAD software than by hand
Who's the retard again?
>Try drawing a perfect circle by hand, then do it with any CAD software.
Actually, do it with any computer-based software, and it'll still look more perfect than anything you can do by hand.
Tell me when your compass can draw circles within a quarter of a millimeter, then I'll take your shitposting seriously.
Until then, use that compass needle to stab your hands, since you clearly don't know any other way to use them.
Drafting and sketching is a necessity for any kind of design job. Which is why most mecha designers you see have backgrounds relating to them
>muh imaginary cartoon robots
Get back to /a/ then, if you don't like what this entire board is about you fucking shitpissing shitposter.
>go back to /a/ if you want to discuss mechs
>because here at /m/ we're all about the technical behind the scenes minutiae that goes into drawing said giant robots!
DOES ANYONE ELSE SEE HOW ASS BACKWARDS THIS IS
IS THIS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN PEOPLE WATCH SHIROBAKO
Because it's easier to do with computer than by hand.
"easier" being the entire basis for this retarded argument that started from >>13757665
>inb4 HURR I never implied it wasn't easier with computer fagget
It's really irrelevant when you consider that an anon literally dumped a silhouette lineup of recent mecha that disproves any point about how the ability to have increased microdetail has led to a decrease in macrodetail.
Again, where does his quarter millimeter come into play with visual design? You've rested your entire argument on this difference yet you've repeatedly failed to explain the relevance in the realm of animation models.
>I've run out of arguments and am only posting so I can get the last word
So you believe somebody is going to be able to tell if the panel line on your 3D model is 1.1mm or 1.2mm and that this makes or breaks the design and thus modern mech designers have a much easier job because of this?
Do you even realize how retarded you sound?
>So you believe somebody is going to be able to tell if the panel line on your 3D model is 1.1mm or 1.2mm and that this makes or breaks the design and thus modern mech designers have a much easier job because of this?
Not at all what I said, but that if that's what you want to believe you are welcome to take your answer your own question.
>Do you even realize how retarded you sound?
WHAT IS THE RELEVANCE OF 0.1mm IN THE FIELD OF FICTIONAL ROBOT DESIGN?
THIS IS WHAT YOU NEED TO EXPLAIN BECAUSE YOU SAID IT'S WHAT MAKES THE DIFFERENCE FOR MODERN DESIGNERS AND THEIR FANCY COMPUTERS.
There, I wrote it in big letters so that it would be easier for you to read.
>There, I wrote it in big letters so that it would be easier for you to read.
So you're writing your own delusions and hoping I accept them as mine so you can grasp a nonexistent straw in your piss poor excuse of an argument?
I think I'll pass. Feel free to continue arguing with yourself if you would like.
>pulling an out-of-context context as an example for a different argument
Congratulations, you're about as proficient at getting your point across as People magazine!
>inb4 nice backpedaling
>"Self-projecting" doesn't even mean anything.
It means that all you're doing is taking whatever anyone else says and twisting it and the argument out of context to make it say what you -want- it to say. Projecting means something else altogether.
Did the babby enjoy his first English lesson?"It's easier to draw mecha with CAD than by hand." You have yet to disprove that original statement, so all you can do is move goalposts, backpedal, and self-project in hopes that your shitposting may actually have some kind of substance behind it.
>Is this the stupid shit /v/ or whatever is saying now?
At this point, I'm certain that you're even more retarded than anyone from /v/.
>CGI makes it remarkably easier to design mecha than in the past
>"It's easier to draw mecha with CAD than by hand."
One of these things is not like the other.
Bretty gud backpedal though, I give it a 7/10.
>"It's easier to draw mecha with CAD than by hand."
Which you tried to prove by saying a perfect circle is impossible to draw on paper.
A tool specifically designed to do this task easily and quickly exists, therefor you are wrong. Do you eally think drafting tools didn't exist before the advent of computers? For someone so obessed with "muh tradition" you sure don't know much about it.
Also, you still haven't explained why being able to tweek this circle by a quarter of a millimeter is relevant is he process of designing animation models for robots. Do you even understand how small of a space that is?
>implying CAD isn't used to make CGI models
>implying designing mecha isn't the same as drawing them
That's not backpedaling, that's basic reading comprehension. Sorry if you're a slow learner, m8.
>Which you tried to prove by saying a perfect circle is impossible to draw on paper.
No, I think you're the one who said that, just now. But thanks for proving my argument here >>13758163
>A tool specifically designed to do this task easily and quickly exists, therefor you are wrong.
And it's still nowhere near as decent, usable, and often used as a computer nowadays. Great counterexample!
>Also, you still haven't explained why being able to tweek this circle by a quarter of a millimeter is relevant is he process of designing animation models for robots.
I don't need to explain why you're an autist who doesn't know how to disprove an argument as simple as "Drawing robots is easier with a computer and modelling tools than by pencil and paper".
I can't even take this post's utter stupidity and blatant contradictions seriously enough to reply properly so have a reaction image.
>I'm too retarded to come up with any decent argument so I'll post an /a/-tier reaction image
Wow so cumbersome.
And why are you comparing 2D and 3D tools now? You don't technically draw in 3D. And making a proper 3D model is generally going to consume a more time than drawing a 2D image of the same subject unless that subject is covered with with a single repetive feature (ie: scales).
>No, I think you're the one who said that, just now. But thanks for proving my argument here.
>And it's still nowhere near as decent, usable, and often used as a computer nowadays.
>I'm not making that argument, but also that's my argument.
>And making a proper 3D model is generally going to consume a more time than drawing a 2D image of the same subject unless that subject is covered with with a single repetive feature (ie: scales).
>he doesn't know how to use a cube template
>he doesn't know how to fillet said template into a uniquely shaped object
>he doesn't know how to use a toolbox to add repeated textures throughout the object
>he doesn't know how to combine objects into a whole model
You could make a proper 3d mecha design in 10 minutes, that will stay on model with proper working joints. Drawing the same thing in 2d with proper depth and perspective, with multiple different reference angles and separate schematics to illustrate how the joints work is going to take a hell lot more time than just 10 minutes. Not to mention the amount of times it'll have to be drawn over and over again by every animator.
>saying it's easier to draw something on a computer is the same as saying it's impossible to draw by hand
Serious question, are you trying to shitpost, or are you actually retarded? I would feel much better for your sake if it were the former.
>Wow so cumbersome.
Indeed, I can do that with two fingers on a keyboard and touchpad in two seconds and change the size to anything I want, so why would I want to use both hands on a huge-ass tool to draw a shape that will probably have to be redrawn multiple times? It's like comparing your counting fingers to a calculator. Thankfully the rest of the world doesn't follow your retarded train of thought, and if you think it did you should probably turn off your computer and reply back to me by manually creating electronic signals on a router.
Why the actual fuck do you think that the primary challenge of design work is just overcoming the barrier of actually being able to render anything?
Your stupidity is outright insulting to everyone.
And just for kicks, please, show me a 2D version of this design from multiple angles that is drawn as with the same level of accuracy to this 3D model.
>Why the actual fuck do you think that the primary challenge of design work is just overcoming the barrier of actually being able to render anything?
Once again, that's what you said, not me.
I'm simply saying it's much easier to draw something on a computer modelling software than by hand. And you have not once managed to disprove that specific statement because you're too busy moving your own goalposts.
>You could make a proper 3d mecha design in 10 minutes, that will stay on model with proper working joints.
Slapping a few primatives together isn't much of a "proper" design.
Well, I guess that's what that robot from Interstellar was, but I don't think anybody is going to line up to buy plamo of him. See >>13758343
>unless that subject is covered with with a single repetive feature
Wow it's like he already accounted for it or something.
Also spoilers: Bayformers were designed in 2D you fucknut
I forgot to add, functionality as well. Like, show me some 2D hand-drawn schematics of how that transforms into this.
>Slapping a few primatives together isn't much of a "proper" design.
It's more of a design than a single drawing on a piece of paper.
>concept art is the same as a CGI model
Wow, where are all the joint diagrams and working guide to the transformation then?
What the fuck do any of those things have to do with whether Bayscream is a shit design or not?
Also there is no guide because the transformation doesn't actually fucking work you immense motherfucking retard. I can't believe I have wasted time replying to someone this fucking stupid.
>What the fuck do any of those things have to do with whether Bayscream is a shit design or not?
We're not arguing about whether something is a "shit design" or not, we're arguing about whether it's easier to draw a design by hand or by CAD. But of course, you once again HAVE to move your own goalposts because you can't come up with any kind of counterargument for it.
>Also there is no guide because the transformation doesn't actually fucking work you immense motherfucking retard.
The CGI model does. I can't believe I have wasted time replying to someone this fucking stupid.
Frontier was particularly heinous.
Delta looks like it'll be the same.
Shame, because when Kawamori was talking out of hia ass about using the SAAB Draken as a base, i was expecting something simplistic but eye pleasing.