Dreadknights are real now. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Re6 P7WP2N5w

>>51030453
but that's cg.

>>51030592
There's several additional videos, one of which was shot on a phone.

Looks realistic enough, other than the speed of the arms. What makes you think it's CG?

>>51031038
The obviously fake textures and greenscreen style appearance.

>>51031058
Could probably blame a lot of that on editing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMWuPKUza7Q

Which reminds me...

Whatever did happen to that megabot vs kurata match?

>>51031103
This doesn't make it seem less fake, anon.
I'm gonna be done mentioning this, because I can predict our discussion will be "yeah it is" "no it's not" for eternity and I just don't have the strength for another one of those right now.

Mainstream media seems to think it's real; http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/terrifying-giant-mech-isnt-hollywood-special-effects-its-real_uk_586b8d88e4b0f24da6e97764

Why would you bother to make a CG animation of what is obviously a far-from-finished prototype? I mean, they never show it walking with a person in it (because they probably haven't figured out how to do that, walking like a human is hard enough with a human body, the weight distribution is going to be all off), it needs to be plugged in to be powered (probably because it uses more power than they can realistically generate on the bot), etc.

The reason it looks so shiny and fake is because there's literally no reason to be developing this right now, we simply can't generate enough power in that little space to make one of these kinds of machines able to function without being plugged in. Also, there's pretty much no commercial application of this thing that can't be met in a more cost-effective way at the moment, so it's probably just a PR stunt, explaining the emphasis on appearance over function.

>>51030453
>not self-powered
>can't flex its fingers

>high profile

>>51031203
This is literally just a CG stunt to cover for lack of actual mech having.

File: 1420961953046.jpg (10KB, 180x180px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 180x180px

>>51031258
So do you not read before posting all the time, or is this a one-off anon?

>>51031294
>implying he would click that link
I wouldn't, desu.

>>51031294
Anon, you cited the huffington post, and then went on to ask why a company would fake having a result to get more money.

File: Spidy Whidy.png (59KB, 249x246px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 249x246px

Succession Wars, here I come.

>>51031203
>Mainstream media seems to think it's real
To be fair, mainstream media Thought Clinton would win.

File: madworld.jpg (121KB, 599x880px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 599x880px

>>51031325
So you don't read either? I said that it's not fake, but it's basically no better than a elaborate prop and not an actual product. It's just not CGI.

Why do I even bother.

>>51031361
Probably because you are desperate for more mechs, and don't like being told that a company faked shit with CG instead of putting in the bare minimum of work and making a prop.

>>51030453
It seems to have a crane holding it up, OP.

>>51031694
Look at the cables. If it was holding it up, they wouldn't be that slack.

>>51031130
Turning into a webseries
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdHfv7xa758

>>51030592
The tech for a robot to walk bipedally has been a thing since the early 90's

this one is just an upscaled version with new processors, sensors and software. Not really far fetched at all.

>>51031223
>can't flex it's fingers

4:40

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNhC0CP4sS0

>>51031694
it seems you don't know how cranes work, anon.

>>51030453
>>51030453
It's clearly not CGI, but it has to be fake because such a thing is so useless.

>>51032427
Nearly everything in our modern lives stemmed from a pet project that was at the time "useless".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEDrMriKsFM

>>51030453
and are therefore NOT /tg/-RELATED

File: this is no longer flavour town.png (91KB, 240x255px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 240x255px

>>51031203
>posting huffpo
no anon
no
these are not smart people

>>51032134
That's why I don't call bullshit on other walking robots.
But this one is CG.

>>51032929
It isn't though
>>51032162

>>51032984
That doesn't really help the argument along or disprove what they are saying.

>>51033010
You can't disprove something that is supported by precisely zero evidence, there's nothing to refute. No evidence has been posted in the thread that it is CG beyond 'it looks kind of fake'.

>>51033156
it looks really fake.
Especially in comparison with already existing robotics.

>>51033180
It looks like pretty standard robotics upscaled with a shitty plastic exterior. Has the same shitty ASIMO walking gait that all Asian robots have. None of this is really groundbreaking if it's real.

>>51033200
Nobody's saying it's groundbreaking.

>>51033215
What's the argument for it being fake, then? There's more than the one video, and those look a lot better.

>It looks fake!
>Nuh uh!
>Ahuh!

>>51033259
The argument is that they all look like CG, wheras the other robots in development look real.

>>51033180
It looks like the kind of thing bored university students would build, but with some shitty plastic slapped on to try to trick people into investing in your startup.

If you know anything about robotics, nothing about that robot screams 'they must have CGI, there's no way this could be built'. It's literally just what's already been built but this time they made the plastic shell shinier.

>>51031058
I've been following the industrial designer whos been working on this for the last two years.

You're an idiot.

>>51033277
It's not so technically impressive it's fake, it just looks fake.
This isn't some moon landing shit, it's some scammers-riding-the-robotics-wave shit.

>>51030453
Why have it walk on super slow unsteady legs?

Why not just put it on treds?

I can see the military utility of arms that can be manipulated separately and could possibly hold or just be attached to guns and aimed by any simple soldier with long arms training, but why have it walk around at a snails pace?

Also, there should be a LOT more armor on that windshield, or better yet just have it fully armored and have front and side mounted cameras relaying footage to the driver as if there were windshields

>>51033421
This one seems pretty impractical, honestly.
The competitors with wheels are both cooler and have more features.

>>51033421
>Why develop anything?
>Why not just make same thing over and over again?

You are the reason why NASA can't get funding

>>51033457
People are already currently doing robots with better legs and a wider gait.

>>51030453
Looks amazingly like the mechs from Avatar

>pilot not exposed
that's not dreadknight at all

>>51033457
NASA isn't spending its time and money building retarded mechs.

>>51030453
I mean that is cool and all, but it's pointless to build a "mech" (it's just a supersized walking robot with a chest hole big enough for a average Korean) that big. The operator seat is just wasted space, since you'll need all the same electronics as a non-"piloted" one, plus the room for a human. They'd be better off making it remote operated, with a generator in the chest to potentially power it.
But that wouldn't get them any extra dosh from the idiots that won't accept that Gundam will never be real.

>>51031058
>obviously fake textures

you've clearly never worked with specmaps

or seen a reflection

>>51033421
>Why not just put it on treds?

That would defeat the object of making a bipedal robot. You'd just be building a boring computer-assisted recovery/construction vehicle with two cranes. Those already exist.

>it must have military applications! my military-industrial complex bells are ringing! nothing is made without the say-so of the military!

nothing *goes to full production* without public funding

a load-lifter useful for environments where normal recovery/crane/forestry vehicles can't reach is a great idea, doesn't need lots of pointless (and top heavy) armor, and doesn't need an independent power source

so if you can build something that doesn't fall over immediately and can walk reliably (on harnesses, because fuck rebuilding something that falls over and kills the lead designer piloting it), you can attract funding from big investors - not public-level funding, because even big companies like Caterpillar or John Deere don't have anything like that level of investment in their entire budgets, but at least enough to keep research ticking over while you refine the walk cycle

> but it's so slow

It's large. You ever watch any large machinery up close? no

of course you didn't

you probably think it's like your Transformers movies

>>51030453

Looks better than the GW Shitknight.

>>51034056
Hey a leg platform to carry supply and/or put a gun on it could be very useful. When wheels and treads suck ass.

Like I do not know a thick forest or a collapsed building.

実物があるなら映画で実際に使ってどの程度戦えるか試せばいい

>>51030453
>dreadknight
Nigga that's a motherfucking battlemech.

File: Humaine.jpg (316KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

316KB, 1920x1200px

>>51030453
So, when is Cameron gonna sue?

>>51036345
>thick forest and collapsed buildings
I'd rather have infantry with light drone support, thanks. Your mech isn't gonna be able to utilize all that cover unless it's close to human size.

>>51037687
You can't sue cosplay.

>>51036345
>Like I do not know a thick forest
You don't want a tall robot walking through all the branches it can't see through.

>or a collapsed building.
Why would it be in a collapsed building?

File: Because fuck Kodiak.jpg (233KB, 1536x864px) Image search: [Google]

233KB, 1536x864px

So whenever these things hit the market, who wants to shell out like 8 million bucks and have a Battletech LARP?

>>51030453
>Video is 25 minutes long.
I'm on mobile and don't want to use my data: can someone make a WebM of the highlights?

Why? Mechs are cool, Ilove my Battletech, but IRL they're not pratical.
The biped thing need a gyroscope and stabilizer while treads deal better;
The high profile makes it unsuitable for some spaces and being too tall makes it easy as a target;
A human operator inside the mech when it could be remotely controlled;

Just snap two arms at a tank and you'll have a better combat machine. Or even rescue machine, or anything machine.

>>51030453
>Literally a giant NAO with a cockpit and motion controls

it's just mad of existing technology, no wonder this exists.

>>51032500
Why don't you just use your mod powers to delete the thread

>>51038582
>mech slowly shuffling forward for half an hour

There is no highlight. That's all there is to it.

>>51038923
>Or even rescue machine

"Or even" Oh, Battletech babbies.
Giant pilotable robots are a thing from toy shows, they were designed for entertainment and they never had any semblance of battlefield viability.

However, a bipedal rescue robot is a different deal entirely.

Make one that works and you might as well become the next saint. Getting human-like movement on a machine is wroth every penny in a field like that.

>>51030453
>Walking scopedog
>doesn't instantly explode
I'm not sure how to feel about this.

File: brain.png (22KB, 623x371px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 623x371px

>>51030453
Their business-model is excellent

>we are going to sell you this thing.
>it's going to replace a crane in your workshops
>It's just that you need an actual crane to use it and it's about twenty times slower and weaker and about thirty times more unsafe and expensive than an actual crane.

>>51032765
http://phys.org/news/2016-12-avatar-style-korean-robot-baby.html

>>51041746
>posting phys.org
LOL why not just post a Wikipedia link, it's equally as wrong!

>>51037704
>Light drone support

Anon, hate to break it to you, but Drones that have both enough power and enough weight to not get battered around by a small breeze are both cost ineffective as fuck and next to useless for any sort of "Support" of infantry.

>>51042082
>Anon, hate to break it to you, but Drones that have both enough power and enough weight to not get battered around by a small breeze are both cost ineffective as fuck and next to useless for any sort of "Support" of infantry.
It would be cheaper than giant robots though.

>>51038923
>A human operator inside the mech when it could be remotely controlled;
With you apart from this point. Military mechs could only be remotely controlled if you were fighting terrorist dipshits with no tech to back them up.

>>51042082
>drones
>useless
anon, having a few free suicide bombers that can fly seems invaluable.
It's like a grenade, if grenades can chase you down and cling to your face.

>>51041531

anon doesn´t know what a prototype is.

>>51030592
How does it feel to be retarded?

>>51031258
There is nothing unrealistic about the technology involved.
The fact that you think that "mech" is impossible proves you have no fucking idea how the field is like right now.

>>51042990
Yeah, I'll wait right here until it can do that Rocky run they're showing off in the CG illustrations.

That's when we can start talking.

>>51043199
The other mechs in development look way more real

>>51030453
Once it can do cartwheels, then I will aknowledge it as a mech.