OtaKing is working on an original mecha film project: >h

>generic western mech design
To the trash with it

Where's all the shading?

>>15119205
Makes me wonder if Otaking takes on assistants or interns.

>>15119205
Literally who?

>>15119205
His style is so fucking ugly. He's way too obsessed with "muh five tone shading" and he can't even animate. All he does is rotoscope over stiff CGI and his human figures move like robots. The fact that he's an e-begger is just the nail in the "overrated pleb" coffin.

But can it walk down stairs?

File: 975281289204.jpg (249KB, 970x545px) Image search: [Google]

249KB, 970x545px

>>15119567
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PN_CP4SuoTU

>>15119575
His animation looks good to me. But as >>15119211 said, his design is way too generic. It's appropriate for some grunt enemy, but no way can a main mecha be that indistinct.

yall suck desu

>>15119575
I think his style is fine. Well fine until a person shows up on screen and their head bounces around with no relation to how the person's body is oriented or moving.

>>15119205
Oh boy, another chicken walker.

>>15119567
Newfag

>>15119205
I'm excited to see it but I really don't like these generic western designs. It needs to look cooler.

He's a hack but he's our hack and a pretty humble guy.

>>15119211
>>15119654
Then tell him.
He took criticism from /m/ when it came to his Star Wars animation.

I know it's a WiP but the only big problem is everyone moves at one constant speed. If he could learn some better animation techniques for movement, it'd be golden

>>15120149
Yeah, I think I will. I'd probably send something like this:

It's not so much that the design is horrible, but it's just not 'special' enough. The whole premise here is that we have this solo guy who's going to do one for the community, right? He's going to make a mecha movie for fans by fans, and it's going to have stuff that we don't get to see very much in anime; field repairs, terrain, etc.

What's the point of breaking away to do your own mecha movie if you're just going to default on standard video-game trope designs? Since this is one of the rare opportunities that we're going to have a real down-to-earth fan production (probably the first time since Dragon's Heaven for chrissake), you should max out the creativity.

Come up with some visually interesting designs. At the very least, give the characters separate mecha, instead of repeating the same chassis four times with different attachments.

>>15120315

>down to earth
>but needs to have a unique design

Do you even listen to yourself.

Down to Earth means that the mechs would be a mass production deal where unique suits don't exist.


You want Japanese toy autism shit and not the 'soldiers use the same shit but slightly varied' stuff that even UC Gundam did and that was arguably the grandpappy of mecha.

>>15120361
Are you a bit dull?

By unique, I mean visually distinct from other shows.
And by down-to-earth, I mean home-made. Down to earth in a 'real-life' sense, as in "down-to-earth" production costs, not a "down-to-earth" setting.

And is 'soldiers use the same shit but slightly varied' really appropriate? Did you watch the trailer? This is a four-man specops mech team whose purpose is to clear out a target before the infantry can arrive. They're more than just grunt soldiers. They deserve SOME sort of differentiation beyond just having mix-and-match attachments on the same cookie cutter mech. They're being orbital-dropped out of their own damn personal aerospace vehicle.

Take a look at the A-teams: http://www.americanspecialops.com/special-forces/odas/
Notice how ... they do different things? Use different gear?

Yeah, because a small team needs to cover multiple bases. Do you think there would at least be a difference between the officer's mech and his subordinates? Or do you just want to watch fucking Edge of Tomorrow, another mechanized "saving private ryan", where grunts storm a beach?

If you just want uuber real CoD shit where you can add different scopes to your gritty realistic camo 360 no-scope sniper rifle, fuck off.

Not to mention the retarded example of UC Gundam, in which every single pilot on every single team in 0079, Zeta, and ZZ all pilot different, visually distinct mecha.

File: image.jpg (250KB, 600x847px) Image search: [Google]

250KB, 600x847px

>>15119205
Needs arms, with hands.

The hips shouldn't have those thin joint sections making them so wide, if you're gonna have thicc robit hips make the thighs big and keep them close to the body, don't have them jutting out on thin, weak looking rods.

>>15119567
Sup Newfag

>>15120361
>You want Japanese toy autism shit and not the 'soldiers use the same shit but slightly varied' stuff that even UC Gundam did and that was arguably the grandpappy of mecha.
This. Sick of /a/utists coming here and acting like the West cant draw a goddamn robot

File: photo_9.jpg (144KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 1280x720px

At least his R-Type was cool
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=876W253z6KY

>>15120702
They can, when they're not mindlessly cloning Metal Gear and Timberwolf.

File: tumblr_n70ktasy2J1s97aado1_500.gif (282KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

282KB, 500x281px

>>15121299
Holy shit
I never saw any R-type movie that satisfy me like that before!!!

Will it have 5-tone shading?

>>15119205
Looks like X-1-Alpha

>>15119205
Yeah the mechs look kinda generic, but he just showed the concept art. I wouldn't be shocked if they have custom paint jobs or something in addition to different load outs in the final product .

File: ED-209.jpg (15KB, 367x367px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 367x367px

>>15119205
Hei guise wots going on in this thredd?

>>15119575
>He's way too obsessed with "muh five tone shading" and he can't even animate. All he does is rotoscope over stiff CGI and his human figures move like robots
This. I appreciate what he's doing, but he's focusing too much on detailing when he needs to get the in betweens nailed first.

Getting basic shit done first THEN detailing is kind of a basic tenet in art

>>15119205
Yes, I remember him talking about it a great deal on /m/ about two, three years ago.

>>15122089
He's improved dramatically though, looking at his Street Fighter animation work.

>>15120315
>give the characters separate mecha, instead of repeating the same chassis four times with different attachments.

It makes no practical sense to have unique machines given the setting. Realistically members from would share the same type of vehicle. A jet fighter squadron is not going to roll into battle with tanks and helicopters. This isn't Gundam.

It's ironic that your critique admonishes "video-game tropes," but recommends following another set of such tropes.

>>15123229
It doesn't really make any more or less sense. They shouldn't be using planes and tanks, they should be using distinct mecha. The mecha they are using already have wildly different attachments, clearly meant for different purposes. What's the harm in having different chassis as well? None, except that it makes the show look cooler.

Not to mention that it doesn't make any more sense for a single fighting unit to use both air and land, Gundam or not. But if you want to stick hard to 'muh realism', maybe five-story walking robots isn't for you. Ever heard of square-cube law, or been involved in any kind of robotics whatsoever?

What is the 'other set of tropes'?

>>15119205
Metal Gear!?

>>15123302
>What's the harm in having different chassis as well?
Because it doesn't make any sense. Why would pilots who work in the same unit and going on the same missions be using different platforms? Having everybody drive their own special snowflake mech would be a logistical nightmare. Maintenance and repair alone would require different sets of parts and specially trained technicians for each mech. With everybody driving the same platform, all the pilots are would be familiar with operating all the mecha in the inventory and should one of them go down for repairs or be destroyed, it's only a matter of re-equipping one of the other ones for the next sortie whereas losing a special purpose mech could fundamentally alter the battle plan to something less than optimal.

>>15120361
No that gigantor

i wanted more doctor who stuff

File: cg-suitup.webm (2MB, 720x406px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 720x406px

>>15119205
As long as everyone's wearing skintight pilot suits and all the women have impossible breast physics, I'll be happy.

>>15120433
You do realize besides the weapons they carry those spec ops would look largely the same. Their BDUs would be the same. Besides the comm man their sacks would be the same. They each don't have a specialized BDU that looks cool and has a color that matches their personality.

Basically you already describe what that spec op team would look like with this line

>They deserve SOME sort of differentiation beyond just having mix-and-match attachments on the same cookie cutter mech

>>15119205
Awesome. I really dig what I've seen of his stuff so far, and he's always seemed like a genuinely cool guy. I will agree that the mecha designs are a bit dull, but eh, I've seen far, far worse, and I reckon they'll look better in motion.

Plus I'm a sucker for shading.

>>15123904
alsoo floof

YOU HEAR THAT OTAKING?

>>15119575

All true. He should stay away from human figures. His cgi rotoscope style works well for ships in space and that's it. Which is why he should only be one part of a huge animation team instead of doing it all himself.

File: お断りします.png (1KB, 257x267px) Image search: [Google]

1KB, 257x267px

>>15119205
>generic chicken walker

Meh, let's watch the vid...

>"mech"
>Patreon
>uncanny valley tier character animation
>blah blah blah """oldschool""" cliches is the way to success, am I right guise?
>Patreon pls donate on Patreon

File: 1443921108042.png (61KB, 451x171px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 451x171px

Look, I ALMOST respect Otaking's drive to do stuff but here's the facts
>he can't draw
>he can't design
>he can't animate
He refuses to invest the effort to actually learn how to illustrate, improve his designs and learn the basic principles of animation. He's a fucking lazy cunt in that respect. If he genuinely thinks his style of drawing people looks decent, then he has no eye for art. I'm sorry, but it's the harsh truth.

>>15124201
his style is decent on still images
Even if it still looks too much like it was painstakingly engraved into thick slabs of stone and then colored with the paint bucket tool.

>>15124132

You know $609 a month is minimum wage, right? And he's working much longer hours than a normal job.

>>15124201
>it's the harsh truth
No. More like it's your harsh opinion.

> /m/ suddenly sucking otaking's dick

What the fuck happened?

>>15124237
>spot the guy who can't handle the truth

>>15124259
This is literally a shill thread, what else could you expect? It's probably otakangz himself.

>>15119205
I like the mech design a lot. I don't get why people are whining about it. Is it really just Gundam-fags who only like humanoid mechs that are whining?

The custom loadouts especially look nice.

>>15124314
>Is it really just Gundam-fags who only like humanoid mechs that are whining?
Yes. This board is 90% Gundam kiddies, you should've expected this.

>>15124259
Even if its not Gundubs, i'll appreciate his design?

Are liking things suddenly forbidden?

Holy shit /m/, i thought you're better than /k/eks

>>15124050
AND HIGHCUT! High cut!

>>15119205
>Patreon
God damn it Otakuking, we told you Kickstarter, or something. Patreon is for money laundering.

>>15124597
that post sounds like a falseflag but I'm not sure what its ultimate goal is.

He has a street fighter thing too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-z6odw5yYgo

File: Warframe.png (639KB, 1920x918px) Image search: [Google]

639KB, 1920x918px

I didn't know he finished his warframe thing.

>>15124259
>/m/ suddenly sucking otaking's dick
What?
This thread is the complete opposite.
Everyone's bashing his designs for being generic and people are shitting on his animation techniques.

This is the most hostile I've seen /m/ towards otaking.
In the past it wasn't like this.

>>15124736
I had no idea /m/ had so many newfags till this thread was filled with
>lol, who is this guy.

Granted not everyone can keep up with the tripfags, but Otaking has talked about possibly making a mecha project for years before he even finished his star wars thing.

And to be fair, even when he did his star wars thing people shitted on his animation techniques. He has a long way to go, but at least he's stopped relying on rotoscoping as much and is using animators survival kit.

>>15124314
Because only Gundam does humanoid mecha

>>15124736
Large influx of new people over the last year or so.

I watched the R-Type video, and it's rather detailed but it feels like it's played at a slower speed than normal. The guy's mannerisms and animation look kinda stiff as well.

>>15124736
>This is the most hostile I've seen /m/ towards otaking.
How new are you? Be honest.

>>15124853
I've been on /m/ 3 years

>>15124231
People have such a skewed idea of how much art costs. They think a $50-60 commission is too much yet that shit takes hours to draw. If it took the artist 5 hours that's barely making minimum wage.

File: 1442786948486.jpg (63KB, 625x531px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 625x531px

>>15125002
>I've been on /m/ 3 years

>>15120457
>that pic
Well my dick is hard now. I guess I really do belong here.

Honestly I can respect his style and how he does his own thing but I can't stand his faces. They are some of the ugliest faces since hiraiface. That and some of the movement looks to smooth to be realistic - like the characters sort of glide in their motions when I'd expect a shorter movement.

File: image.jpg (311KB, 600x847px) Image search: [Google]

311KB, 600x847px

>>15125395
Lewd version

>>15124314
>Is it really just Gundam-fags who only like humanoid mechs that are whining?

Most likely. Most of the people that post on this board probably hasn't even seen anything from Macross, Patlabor, VOTOMS, etc. I'm willing to bet that they're Toonami-babies.

File: 1354154687693s.jpg (2KB, 125x91px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 125x91px

>>15125724
Dude, stuff like this can get you banned.

File: 1461143788027.jpg (23KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 500x500px

>>15119205
I liked it.
Now I really want to see the end product.

File: dilandau.jpg (82KB, 500x386px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 500x386px

>>15119205
>exhaust intake

Wait...what?

File: UnJUST.jpg (87KB, 330x621px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 330x621px

He made it.

>>15119205
wtf are with those hip joints? They look really vulnerable.

>>15129445
Since he said he wants it to be tactical and the mech is called an artillery platform he probably will make mech positioning vital so I'd assume you'd need to have legs that can get into and across weird terrain, which would need a lot of joints.

>>15129934
>artillery platform
>can't produce a posture stable enough for shooting artillery
Genius.

>>15130389
Maybe it has stilts that will shoot out of the mech.

>>15123393
>Why would pilots who work in the same unit and going on the same missions be using different platforms?
Because they have wildly different jobs. Based on OP's video, one model is 'Ranged bombardment', one is a fucking satellite communication platform, one is forward assault, and one is a sniper.

Are you going to tell me that they should all share the same exact vehicle just because they share a unit? For example, 'ranged bombardment' is going to need a lot more structural support and ammo storage than the one with two satellite dishes on its back. In fact, the distribution of mass and thus the whole center of gravity will be different between the two models. They both have to do the bipedal-balancing act, so why put them on the same chassis? One should be arranged differently to cope with the stress of firing, carrying, and aiming whatever obscene artillery it has. Servo's aren't free, especially ones that can swing a giant railgun around. So why put servo's and bearings that can use a 'mortar turret' on arms that doesn't need to do anything more than realign a communication module?

Your example would be OK if this was a Stryker squad or something, but it's not. it's clearly shown that, unlike a Stryker squadron (where the SAME job is done by the same vehichles), these mechs are highly differentiated from the get-go. The only thing they have in common with the base model is that they walk.

>Having everybody drive their own special snowflake mech would be a logistical nightmare.
Nice buzzword, but do you honestly think it's a "logistical nightmare" to keep four different kinds of mech aboard the battleship shown in OP's video? Furthermore, there's nothing to say that the mechs can't use generally similar internal pieces, or that they'll all have separate control schemes.

At the very least, they would be modular-ly arranged in a way that goes beyond "lol pick ur kit & hardpoints, re-equip in a snap." Prototype vehicles generally don't work that way.

>>15127855
Well good for him, but I'm still not helping him as long as he's on patreon. The site is sketchy as well, and several people just use it for money laundering.

>>15132522
THANKS OBAMA

>>15120315
Well, actually he's sort of going for the Takahashi minimalism, and even Takahashi has said he would rather have not had mechs at all. He's not really making an homage to mechs, he's making, from what he's said so far, something not dissimilar to the vietnam arc of Votoms.

>>15125111
Oh, fuck off with that shit, we're all damned men here

>>15129934
That doesn't justify unarmored hip joints on a military vehicle.

>>15132862
>implying the length of time you've been here doesn't influence your perception of something that predates your own experience with it

>>15127168
Macross, Patlabor, and Votoms are the most popular mecha franchises outside of Gundam, most of /m/ has seen at least something from all three. To act like they're obscure and precious fucking reeks of newfaggotry. If you were here one day, you'd know how often those shows are discussed and referenced. If you want precious esoterica, go for something like Iron Leaguer, Dorvack, Demons of Steel, or the MaK movie.

>>15133122
Obviously you missed the point. That being that despite the popularity of other franchises, most of /m/ doesn't really delve into anything outside of Gundam.

>>15132449
I don't even know what it is that you're trying to argue any more. If you say that there's nothing to say that mechs can't use generally similar internal pieces, or that they'll all have separate control schemes, they may as well be the same platform to maximize that advantage. And you're also glossing over the point that just because a mech isn't swinging a giant railgun around in one sortie doesn't mean that it won't be doing just that in the next one.

Also, "logistical nightmare" isn't a buzzword. It can be a real problem especially within an organization with limited access to resources. This is why there are job descriptions in the military and civilian world where logistical management is all the job is.

>>15132913

How many military vehicles have hip joints?

>>15133064
Yeah, sure, but how can you actually tell who's been here for a long time or who just showed up. Some boards have certain tells, but the only unifying factor on /m/ is that we hate the Forbidden one. You know the one. Saying his name would summon him. Otherwise this has always been a place that fluctuates on everything, with no one prevailing opinion on anything for any length of time. That's why its pointless to grandstand on Newfag Oldfag bullshit.

>>15133336
>Yeah, sure, but how can you actually tell who's been here for a long time or who just showed up.
Well for one, someone who has been around for a while knows that Paul Johnson has been aggressively shitposted by both /a/ and /m/ for years.
>That's why its pointless to grandstand on Newfag Oldfag bullshit.
No, it isn't. Newfags don't know shit and need to lurk. It's for the best, because if you have no idea what you're talking then any opinion you have related to something you don't know is just pure shit and not worth anyone's time.

>>15119205
I don't think the robot designs are particularly bad, just uninteresting. Though the thin hip-leg joints, and lack of an obvious torso-swivel do leave something to be desired in terms of functions. I don't think generic-looking mechatronic should be discouraged, it will just not stand out as much.

>>15133328
Not many.

>>15121299
The dialog in this is absolutely terrible, but I dig the art style. It's like something out of the 80's, reminds me of Bubblegum Crisis.

>>15119226
That's his fetish.

>>15133322
I think you just don't understand the kind of problems that engineers face in constructing these things.

>you're also glossing over the point that just because a mech isn't swinging a giant railgun around in one sortie doesn't mean that it won't be doing just that in the next one.

Right, but the point is that design-wise, that just doesn't make sense. The amount of structural differentiation between the tasks shown in OP's video would be great - implying that using different chassis would be more, and not less, realistic. You don't rush to pump out general purpose, jack-of-all trades vehicles when you're in the realm of spec-ops prototype walking robot.

Control systems can clearly be the same. Most wheeled vehicles have the same control scheme despite having a vast variety of applications and structures.

>logistical nightmare isn't a buzzword
"special snowflake"
Nothing wrong with logistics. But again, it's all about weighing the consequences. Wouldn't creating a machine capable of doing anything from artillery to fast attack to communications routing and ECM be a ridiculous waste of resources? You might as well also make a vehicle that can fly, run, swim, roll, and blast off into orbit. Unless you are absolutely sure that you will be using every application on every vehicle at least once, you're logistically bleeding. Why take a mech that has the power and the ability to do long-range bombardment into the field as an ECM device? If it gets hit, you've just lost all the money and hardware behind the bombardment platform, without bombarding anything. and vice versa.

>>15136642
>Wouldn't creating a machine capable of doing anything from artillery to fast attack to communications routing and ECM be a ridiculous waste of resources?
Under normal circumstances, yes. But it makes more sense for a small, independent special forces team that's expected to be more or less self-sufficient during their missions. If one unit gets damaged or destroyed, you need to be able to cover its role with the remaining units. After all, take another look at the link in >>15120433:
>Each ODA member is cross-trained in other specialties.
The mechanical equivalent of that is to make sure that each unit is fully capable of mounting and utilizing the other units' weapons and other hardware if necessary. And the cheapest/easiest way to accomplish that is to use the same basic frame across the whole team.

File: 594.png (388KB, 680x452px) Image search: [Google]

388KB, 680x452px

>>15123302
>The mecha they are using already have wildly different attachments, clearly meant for different purposes. What's the harm in having different chassis as well? None, except that it makes the show look cooler.


Nigga you just went full retard

Shared platform with interchangeable weapons/equipment is GOAT, has always been GOAT, and will ALWAYS be GOAT. Having unique machines for every person when you have the option not to is FUCKING RETARDED. I guess you've never had to maintain anything, inventory parts for anything, repair anything, or been anywhere near heavy machinery but I can tell you what youre saying is so monumentally stupid I cant even properly communicate it

>Have five machines
>Send in four
>Brawler gets fucked hard
>Reserve on the ship is EWAC
>Yank off the EWAC equipment and throw on the autocannons and whatnot the brawler would use

as opposed to

>Five machines
>Send in four
>Brawler gets fucked
>Reserve is EWAC
>Pray the wreck is salvageable because nothing you have can fill that role

File: 975281289204.jpg (158KB, 1024x561px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 1024x561px

>>15136642
What engineers??? You seem to forget that this is a fiction in which bipedal walking robots is the norm. It's safe to say that any engineering hurdles in designing these mecha that don't actually exist have been cleared and resolved in order for such weaponry to be deployed onto the battlefield of that reality.

And I don't know why you think modularity in design is bad idea and doesn't make sense. Modular designs allow adaptability out in the field instead of relying on resource channels every time a new situation arises. In your scenario, if the long-range bombardment mech gets destroyed, the only way to replace it is to either return to base to get another one or wait while a replacement is delivered. Either way, it severely cripples the unit's effectiveness for long-range bombardment at least until they get a new replacement.

However with a modular platform, there is no waiting since the unit only has to retrofit one of their other mechs for "long-range bombardment" as needed which means less time out of action. It also poses a cost benefit for the organization paying for it because not only are they saving money in cost per unit by paying for a single platform design, but the kits for each role will probably cost less than replacing a whole mech.

I'll concede to you that the downside with modular designs is that typically they don't do as well as specially-designed platforms. My counterpoint to that is that within the fiction that OtaKing has given us, the performance advantage of specialty systems seems to be minute or negligible enough for it not to matter in the face of performance of the mech design we got in addition to the aforementioned cost and logistical advantages.

And yes, "special snowflake" is a buzzword, but it still one that applies here because you were basically arguing that the designs should be different for the sake of being different than for any practical reason.

>>15119205
I don't mind the mechs too much, considering he is a western artist generic westernshit designs are appropriate.
But seriously, even if he is set in doing it western style, the overall design could use a bit of improvement.
Also, holy fuck, even after tiefighter, he never learned how to animate people moving their body properly. Especially when the purple haired girl is putting down her coffee. His perspective is nice, I will give him that. But seriously, learn how to properly animate people moving their body so it doesn't look that awkward.

>>15137427
I understand your point, but if you're going to disregard engineering as 'taken care of', you might as well disregard logistics, base resources, and everything else that inconveniently blocks your ideal vision of a mech. In short, when arguing realism, you have to take design into account.

And all this is not to mention the fact that bipedals don't seem to be the norm in Otaking's setting. At least these bipedals aren't, because the first lineart implies that these are "prototype" machines.

I don't hate modular platforms; in fact I actually agree that they're generally great - but not in this context. The mechas' goals are too different and the requirements for this kind of versatility are too high.

>because you were basically arguing that the designs should be different for the sake of being different than for any practical reason
It did apply, but to be clear I certainly don't think this should be anything like Gundam Wing or Braves. In the end, it's up to Otaking and he seems to have made up his mind, for what it's worth.

>>15139566
Engineering is not the same as logistics. It's a false equivalency to assume that just because one discipline has advanced, so to does an unrelated one. That's like saying a cure-all for cancer exists in a story, then we should assume that an organization shouldn't be struggling financially. However medicine is not the same as finances much like engineering sciences are not the same as management and logistics. So no, you really can't disregard logistics just because science has figured out a way to make walking robots.

And to reiterate, or rather, rephrase my point the fiction we are shown so far leaves us with a solid deduction about the world the characters live in: First, the technology has advanced to the point where bipedal robots are at the very least feasible for military use regardless of whether they are the norm or just prototypes. We aren't shown anything about how these mechs stack up against other mecha designed for specific roles (if they even exist in the story). All we do know is that these characters were given a modular platform which can be fitted as the mission requires which has practical benefits.

I mean, I guess there is the possibility that Otaking is making his project about how laughably dumb bipedal mecha would really be for military operations, but that's another discussion.

>real robot shitposting: the thread

>>15119575
I think his still is fine and it's well animated for a single guy doing this in his spare time

File: __star_wars_drawn_by_jamga__sample-bfc71872172f92e2770697464a5e4a37.jpg (281KB, 850x1187px) Image search: [Google]

281KB, 850x1187px

>>15119575

It's by no means perfect, but it's entertaining and even impressive for one guy doing it on his own as a hobby (as far as I know). Take the TIE Fighter animation, for exampke--let's face it, we're never going to get a large scale military/sci-fi war story for the faceless antagonist pilots in a Disney property, much less a genuine epic, even with their once a year film plan. It's practically the antithesis of the franchise. So, it seems like beggars can't be choosers (or at least it's damn hard otherwise).

Again, not without its flaws--lots of flaws--but I don't think we're even going to ever get an HD remake of 'TIE Fighter', much less an actual narrative production. So it's nice we got something at all.

You can rationalize it all you want, but the simple fact is that johnson cannot animate at even a decent amateur level.

File: 975281289204.jpg (92KB, 940x529px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 940x529px

I actually like Otaking's animation. He does mecha really well. Honestly i think it some of the very best in recent years and quite possibly ever.

>>15143003
t. we wuz otakangz

File: ShowImage.ashx.jpg (46KB, 758x530px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 758x530px

>>15133328
Almost 80% of tanks have one, or they get their "leg joints" busted like the good ol' WW II

>>15139852
You skirt the reasons why engineering can be disregarded. Sure, they obviously aren't the same thing, but think about it this way: If you want to magically wave your hand and say that a super-light, super-strong material has been created that can balance the mech perfectly and make sure it's also incredibly modular and versatile, why not also assume that materials science has progressed to the point where converters can harvest space dust, atmosphere, fines, and samples of dirt to create crystalline super-materials that can match any level of conductivity and tensile strength, thus "engineering away" most material needs? If that's too extreme, you can easily imagine a variety of other situations in which not all logistics, but many of the logistics you specifically mentioned (finding field replacements, fixing things, control) are no longer issues of concern.

Perhaps the problem of control has been nixed by the introduction of direct neural interfaces. Logistics could focus on something else, like maintaining the pilots' morale and mental health, rather than teaching them which pedals to step on. But we haven't seen enough of the story to tell.

The deductions are fair enough.

>I mean, I guess there is the possibility that Otaking is making his project about how laughably dumb bipedal mecha would really be for military operations, but that's another discussion.

Now this would be hilarious.

File: because it looks cool.jpg (43KB, 640x1442px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 640x1442px

>Trying to make super serious engineering or military cases for and against giant humanoid robots

I think we're overthinking things here

>>15143572
>why not also assume that materials science has progressed to the point where converters can harvest space dust, atmosphere, fines, and samples of dirt to create crystalline super-materials that can match any level of conductivity and tensile strength, thus "engineering away" most material needs?

Mostly because we haven't been shown that any of that is possible in the world. Your logic is basically arguing that car engines from 100 years ago should've been at least as powerful and efficient as modern cars because they operate under the same principles of combustion. However there's a huge technological gap between a modern engine and one built a century ago. Building a mechanical articulated joint is nowhere near the level of a building a spaceship that can make manufacture robots on board from dirt and air as well as serve as a military vessel.

File: 477667576.jpg (589KB, 1000x1415px) Image search: [Google]

589KB, 1000x1415px

New shit- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79NYl6phdyc

>>15125724
saved

>>15143800
Worst part is that their "logic" shows that they have zero knowledge of what they're trying to debate.

>>15143800
Wierdly we wasn't this autistic when we first made the first powered airplanes

>Guys GUIS
>what if, IF
>we put those truck's engines INTO our oversized kites
>So we can fly it even when the winds are gone to shit.
>Thats insane
>Lets try it

And then, we got Raptors

>>15144565
Nah that's bullshit, the future of warfare is stringing countless hot air balloons together to form flying battleships

>>15144159
Of course Tarkin would be funding all this Empire propaganda art.

File: Welp, there goes our future.jpg (16KB, 345x215px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 345x215px

>>15144571
Honestly i would agree if not the fritz who made it

>>15144565
>>15144571
Yeah man, let's dumb down the evolution of aviation and powered flight into meme posts with zero insight into what actually occurred. Great post. Totally not fucking stupid. You're smart, brah.

>>15144593
Still the same point that always makes people argue pointlessly for 1000+ years, just with different subjects.

>>15144606
No. Your "point" is shit.

>>15144611
My "point" isn't you

Autism powered robots!?

File: 4chan - predicting the future.jpg (433KB, 1330x1405px) Image search: [Google]

433KB, 1330x1405px

>>15144593
>zero insight
That's still more than there is in your post.
You can go away, we already had a field day mocking /k/ for their nostalgia-google and inability to project into the future.

>>15145179
>maybe if I strawman generalizations hard enough with an oh so funny image, it'll negate the fact that I have literally no idea what I'm talking about

Something has always bothered me about the art. It always seems messy, dirty, busy, not in a good "gritty" way. I don't know exactly what the specific issue is here, cause on stills it looks okay.

>>15145192
>oh-oh, you cannot say shit about something that already exist for 200+ years!
>Memes absolutely wouldn't happend in the past because we see the base technology today!

Lets see if we pull back for couple of centuries, are you can say the same about the subjects?

Nah, in the end you'll be the same people as the one who said the earth was flat.

>>15145277
The shades mang, he's to hard on the shades.

>>15145655
Your image literally makes no sense. Those flaws never existed or it never happened like you claimed. Your claims are entirely fictitious. For example, battleships were phased out by missiles, not planes. Cavalry always included horseback. Crossbows did not begin with a complicated firing mechanism that made it more fragile than normal bows. Handcannons came and saw use before muskets were ever invented. All you're doing is showing that you know absolutely nothing about anything you're debating about. You say that people decry robots are impossible, but everyone is just telling that the roles you imagine for those things don't make any sense because it's just physically stupid to do. You can't predict the future because you're a fucking idiot, not because everyone else is luddites.

>>15145717
Those flaw never existed because people was actually works on it instead of theorizing something back and forth with 0 actual works. How much do you think handcannon blow up in the soldiers hands huh? Alot.

And also im actually pointing out that decrying and debating something with 0 actual practice is an absolute bullshit, not about "muh mech replacing tonks im sure" shit. You miss the point entirely.

Also, im not the guy with that wierd ass comics

>>15145179
Every time you shitpost on /k/ your arguments get absolutely destroyed to the extent any normal person would walk away totally humiliated, but fortunately you were blessed with impenetrable density.

File: bait 300.jpg (172KB, 1518x828px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 1518x828px

>>15145179
Actually there's some instances where spears never took off like the Maori and pretty much every Native-American tribe where club-like weapons were the preferred weapons of choice (until guns).

Using horses for combat was also a natural use because they were used for pretty much everything else in civilization. Their speed would prove useful for getting around on the battlefield. The cataphract unit is also a fairly simple concept for breaking through enemy lines.

Historians believe the bow and arrow, like the spear, started as hunting weapons for killing game. I don't think anybody would've actually argued their effectiveness against a human target for warfare.

Early "guns" did often blow up in the users' hands and were useless when wet. However, spear heads could already penetrate plate armor so there was no reason to doubt that shrapnel or a small metal ball moving fast enough would be able to penetrate plate armor and probably shields, too. Not to mention that not all soldiers on the field were using plate armor.

The conception of the tank came about from armored wagons and other siege engines which protected the men inside and be moved as necessary. Da Vinci famously had drawings of an armored vehicles on wheels with cannons and armored wagons drawn by animals were used as early as the 15th Century in Europe. Armored cars were also a thing before tanks showed up in WWI.

So is Otaking actually an asshole or what?

>>15147696
He's nice enough as a trip, can't say if he posts anonymously or not. His opinions about animation and art are pretty crazy and narrow minded, though.

>>15127257

You're one word short mate. Read the whole thing and it'll make sense.

File: mi-10_14.jpg (55KB, 550x382px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 550x382px

>>15133328
There are many kinds. This one is an exaggerated one.

>>15147696
How'd you get that idea?

Also >>15147702
While his style is by no means perfect, let the man do as he wants is what I'd say, it's his style anyway. That, and he's steadily getting better with no signs of letting go of this hobby of his any time soon. Slapping everything he does on the tube for free, makes him a pretty cool guy in my book as well.

>>15119205
What's a hardpoint?

>>15147987
Where you put something, youngfag.

>>15143992
It was more of an example to show that engineering can't be taken for granted, because it has implications everywhere. Consider the dust-robot-maker hyperbole.

Throwing aside design issues like "these gun barrels clearly throw the center of mass way off compared to the satellite dish configuration" implies some kind of technological solution. A thorough writer looks for that solution elsewhere, and it may or may not have story impacts. Either way, I object to taking engineering for granted -- just because we have the tech, we can forget about the process of its design. It would be akin to shoving a ferrari into a 19th C wild west setting and saying "well, someone created this. We don't care how."

File: 1434677926824.jpg (1MB, 1439x2000px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1439x2000px

>>15145717
Nice strawman, you should learn irony next.

The joke was never that weapons follow a technological order of progression, it's that some people have an emotional bias against things they don't like, regardless of how logical it is.

Just like the way you are trying to be edgy, mocking a strawman you built over fictional robot because you understanding of the world is superficial. Making you no different from the nay-sayer luddites who mocked change they didn't like.

>battleships were phased out by missiles, not planes.
...and yet it doesn't make the battleship any less phased out or planes any less of a breakthrough.
Thanks' for demonstrating how emotional bias lead one to wear nostalgia googles.

>>15146641
I've got to thank you for the new bait picture, I collect them.

However your arguments are flawed, the big majority of weapons & new concepts have been discussed early, developed & tested for their expected effectiveness.
Arbalest were built precisely to help piercing plate armor.
Cannons were not built without knowing of what we would use them for.
Same for portable guns. We did not created them while believing them to be useless.
Similarly Tank during WWI were created specifically to cross trench & combat bunker.

The belief that great technological breakthrough come from perfecting old weapons and avoiding the unfamiliar is what was mocked here >>15145179

It work for /k/ but here the common strawman to troll /m/ is to pretend your opponent defend a magical robot as the solution for everything.

Speaking of trolling, Otaking know his way to /v/

>>15148067
Holy fuck, you are retarded. Like the actual mentally ill kind of retarded.

>>15147897
>Read the whole thing and it'll make sense.

Then help me out here: Wouldn't an "exhaust intake cover" be a cover for an "exhaust intake?" What is the point of an outboard intake for exhaust?

>>15148067
>However your arguments are flawed, the big majority of weapons & new concepts have been discussed early, developed & tested for their expected effectiveness.

That's not even the argument that I was making.

My point was that the naysayers in the image from >>15145179 were non-existent because warfare technology was just a matter of adapting technology that already existed for use in combat. Whatever new gimmick was proposed, there was always some kind of principle advantage for it to exist and be brought to the front lines. Convincing people that things like bows and cavalry on the battlefield were a good idea was a non-issue as opponents would likely have been overwhelmingly shut out.

File: 1355269427085.jpg (1014KB, 1300x2915px) Image search: [Google]

1014KB, 1300x2915px

>>15148164
The way you focus on a ridiculously specific example don't help whatever point you think to you are making. That's part of the naysayers parody.
The way you simplify the Art of War to "let's fight with bow & horse" is also a continuation of the bias against the unfamiliar.
A lot of naysayers reject vehemently new ideas because they can't imagine the change of doctrines & tactics that would come with them.

It surely was easy to convince naysayers to adopt the horse, but it definitely took a lot more (their death usually) to convince them to abandon them (and their lives) for machines.

Might as well post something cool since we are ignoring the topic
http://www.mangareader.net/gunka-no-baltzar/1/2

>>15148210
Not that guy, but
>The way you focus on a ridiculously specific example
He's pointing out why your argument makes no sense. If there's some secret real point you're trying to make, then just say it in plain English.
>The way you simplify the Art of War
Fedora
>"let's fight with bow & horse" is also a continuation of the bias against the unfamiliar.
What?
>A lot of naysayers reject vehemently new ideas because they can't imagine the change of doctrines & tactics that would come with them.
>It surely was easy to convince naysayers to adopt the horse, but it definitely took a lot more (their death usually) to convince them to abandon them (and their lives) for machines.
You still don't even understand that motorized combat vehicles is just an evolution of an ancient form of siege engines and the only concern was the reliability of the technology in the field. Literally all of your arguments don't even make sense. You have absolutely no idea about what you're debating.

Stop coming up with all of these unrealistic examples and just say what you mean. But to be honest, I don't think you even posses a coherent viewpoint which is why you make these walls of text that say absolutely nothing.

>>15148106

Alright, so think about it like this: You have an exhaust over there, but that exhaust is not supposed to have anything going inside of it, therefore a valve of some sort is in place preventing that, hence an intake cover. Honestly, didn't even have to ponder over that, it felt perfectly clear.

The thing about giant robots on the battlefield is that you have to think; what do giant robots do?

The answer is that they're offensive arms; they go out and kill the enemy.

Now why are giant robots so effective in these shows? Because, most of the time, they're better armoured, more mobile and carry bigger guns than anything else on the battlefield.

But in reality, that's a hard trade off, and then you add in the fact you're dealing with a technology that doesn't exist. And will essentially give armoured vehicles the disadvantages of an infantryman in exchange for... what? Greater mobility? I've seen conventional tracked vehicles tackle terrain that's slowed down infantrymen; why would what is essentially a giant infantryman be better at traversing rough terrain than a vehicle designed specifically for the task?

I love giant robots, but really, they're not realistic in the slightest.And are best in space anyway.

>>15148293

Well if you think about terrain alone, theoretically, bipedal machines could simply walk over obstructions with relative ease rather than to be built around tackling said terrain head on. Given that they are of greater size than a Scopedog or Dunbine, but am sure even those could tackle terrain relatively well. Now if you add in flight, or hell, even jumping akin to L-Gaim, as unrealistic as that was, they could make sense. The trade off, if you ask me, consists solely of speed on level terrain, in which case anything with wheels or tracks should easily outpace, and even outmaneuver any kind of bipedal unit. Well granted that it doesn't have bullshit limitless or near limitless flight akin to Gundam units. But yeah, anyway, that's my two cents on the subject.

>>15148318
What sort of obstructions are you thinking of? A forest is an awful place for a robot while a tank could take advantage of the trails and easily has the horsepower to push through the odd tree or two.

>>15148274
>You have an exhaust over there
Where? Exhausts are not intakes and engineering it so that they share the same opening is absolutely retarded because you're taking in hot air.

> but that exhaust is not supposed to have anything going inside of it, therefore a valve of some sort is in place preventing that, hence an intake cover.
Wouldn't the "intake cover" just be an exhaust cover? Because, you know, it's like covering the exhaust?

>>15148331

Well if they do rely solely on trails, vehicles would be forced to move both in line, and only wherever the trail leads. Also, if we're talking bigger than Dunbine at least, I'd expect them to one, be able to use trails just as well, and two have at least the same weight to them to quite literally step on or over trees that are in the way. I mean width wise it should be about the same as a tank or a half track, just a lot taller. And again, considering it's weight, branches shouldn't be that much of a problem if the forest gets thicker. In my opinion, forested areas are where it would shine, even without the bullshit flight.

>>15148336

Actually, I think I just got what it was for looking at the model again. First time around thought it was simply an exhaust covered up to prevent unnecessary things seeping in, but looking at the model again, you can see that's an actual intake, and at the back seem to be the boosters. Think of a jet engine and how it sucks air from the front and blows it out the back. Basically the same thing, only covered when unused I guess. Somehow my first understanding of this still makes sense in my head, but it obviously doesn't apply here.

>>15148210
>The way you simplify the Art of War to "let's fight with bow & horse" is also a continuation of the bias against the unfamiliar.
Again, that's not the point I'm making. That strawman is something you made up yourself. I don't even know how you think that taking a concept's rudimentary elements and applying them in other areas is somehow biased against any truly original ideas especially if they are used within the same field.

>A lot of naysayers reject vehemently new ideas because they can't imagine the change of doctrines & tactics that would come with them.
Ever notice how how the ones that refuse to adapt and adopt the new doctrines that prove useful usually the ones that end up on the losing side?

> it definitely took a lot more (their death usually) to convince them to abandon them (and their lives) for machines.
That's not what happened. Cavalry units were already on a downtrend at the turn of the century before mechanized machines would prove themselves in WW1. Even during the war there were instances where horses would still prove useful in certain instances. In the end, it wasn't the machines that displaced cavalry, but the infantry lines armed with rifles which would fire several rounds per minute during those times and able to neutralize the horse and the rider shutting down any kind of cavalry charge. The arms race would continue to counter infantry rifle fire with tanks and armored cars which provided a mobile platform which occupants could be protected inside of while they deliver offensive fire.

>>15148448
Isn't it crazy how >>15148210 knows absolutely nothing about the subject, yet still asserts wild generalizations about it? What a moron!

File: 1361164317111.jpg (469KB, 1778x1000px) Image search: [Google]

469KB, 1778x1000px

>>15148228
>You have absolutely no idea about what you're debating.
Accusing me of that won't hide that yourself you don't.
It all started from a simple & straightforward satire >>15145179 of people who will piss on idea not for justified and logical reason but because they have a natural bias against the unfamiliar.
Some anons got upset that they could be bigoted and try to justify their owns bias.

>motorized combat vehicles is just an evolution of an ancient form of siege engines and the only concern was the reliability of the technology in the field.

You are confusing cause and consequence with a bad case of tunnel vision, we only accepted that as an evolution because those technological managed to breakthrough.
For every motorized combat vehicles there was peoples who didn't understand the good these would bring and argued against them.

You simply don't get to remember that because those people are long dead and the "silly ideas" became our current references.

>>15148448
>Again, that's not the point I'm making
I'm assuming you are >>15146641 and still trying to minimize "strange idea can become the new standard" into "no one ever mocked the strange idea it was always considered logical evolution"
Because that's just how you sound.

No matter how you try to diminish it, you only demonstrate that there was an huge resistance to crazy (but now successful) technology because of their inability to see why those tech would succeed.

Stop taking that as a personal attack, you too will surely someday defend an awful prediction like
> "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."
> "the horse is here to stay, but the automobile is only a novelty - a fad"
This is not because horse are still used for 0.0001% of transport that it didn't, in practical term, made those guys foolish.
Now that it's said you can just accept that >>15145179 is a legitimate satire.

Myself I don't care to continue this discussion.

>>15150654
>Accusing me of that won't hide that yourself you don't.
Except every example you've given has been flat out fictitious.
>people who will piss on idea not for justified and logical reason but because they have a natural bias against the unfamiliar.
No, your ideas are just plain dumb and make no sense.
>Some anons got upset that they could be bigoted and try to justify their owns bias.
"Everyone is stupid but me" is not a defense. You're just an idiot and everyone else is trying to tell you that you are.
>You are confusing cause and consequence with a bad case of tunnel vision
No, I'm giving you the facts about a facet of war technology.
>For every motorized combat vehicles there was peoples who didn't understand the good these would bring and argued against them.
Not only is this an absolutely retarded statement because literally no idea is ever universally agreed upon, but you seriously are just making up things.

Again, what even is your ultimate point? Your "arguments" are all over the place and have no cohesion. Make a single paragraph that explains your position.

>>15121299
Did they play parasite in city next!

>>15150654
>still trying to minimize "strange idea can become the new standard" into "no one ever mocked the strange idea it was always considered logical evolution." Because that's just how you sound.

My argument is that those "strange ideas" weren't strange at all to begin with because each one builds upon what was needed on the battlefield at the time. Some of the solutions are ones that have proven themselves off the battlefield and simply became a matter of adapting them for military use. This is why there most likely weren't a whole lot of people who argued against the introductions of such tactics and technologies. Conceptually, they were all very sound at the time.

The ideas that do meet a lot of opposition are generally the ones that try answer a question that nobody asked like a self-swinging sword or and extended pistol magazines.

>Stop taking that as a personal attack
I wasn't. You haven't said anything that insulted me directly.

>you too will surely someday defend an awful prediction like
More strawmen.

>Now that it's said you can just accept that >>15145179 is a legitimate satire.
I recognized it as satire hence the bait image. Obviously I never assumed that people where posting on 4chan in the Paleolithic era. My problem with the image in question was that it was bad satire and tries to assert that there were enough people back then who thought conceptually sound ideas would never work. The only one that it was sort of right about was the one about the chariots.

>>15124644
Not one comment about the clan names he has in there?

>>15151367
Because nobody cares about Warframe or zeekfags.

>>15145179
Oh god. That is amazing. I wish I had been in that thread.

>>15119211
This

>>15151367
He had a thread here looking for suggestions