|
Post by xiombarg on Dec 16, 2007 13:20:02 GMT -5
With some of the more complex and multi-mode figures that have been coming out lately, it's got me thinking about the hang up with parts swapping. Clearly, parts swapping is not ideal and obviously second rate to perfect transformation. Parts swapping flat out has less engineering class. But with that said, I'm convinced that parts swapping is a sometimes a neccessary evil in order to get the desired details and/or to keep costs within a reasonable price range.
As an example, I bought the DX Baangaan this year. It has tons of parts swapping. But it also has at least 8 different modes/robots in one set. I wasn't happy that it was a parts swapper, but in the end I came to terms with it, because it was a relatively sturdy product that offered a lot.
Some of you might be wondering why parts swapping is less expensive than perfect transformations. Simply that there is less parts, which means less moulds have to be cut. Most moulds for plastic injection are cut from aluminum blocks. The more moulds you have and the complexity of the mould determines costs. Aluminum moulds can be anywhere from $2000 to $30,000 USD depending upon what is involved. So complex transformations have more moulds and probably more complicated parts, thus higher costs.
There is an alternative of using resin like we see from Studio Halfeye. The upside of resin is that you don't have to use expensive aluminum moulds. Instead you can make inexpensive silicon moulds. But the downside is that resin is relatively expensive compared to plastic, and you can only make a limited number of pieces out of silicon before it starts to fall apart. So resin casts are essentially a limited edition whether you want them to be or not.
So my question to you guys is whether parts swapping is permissable? And if so, why, and to what degree?
|
|
|
Post by roanstalker on Dec 16, 2007 18:16:13 GMT -5
Glad you bought DX Great Baan Gaan and like it To me, if a figure is so complicated and having a perfect transformation would A) Make the overal toy more expensive, or B) Make the overall toy's appearance be less than accurate to the very thing its trying to resemble, I say go for parts swapping. If perfect transformation can be done, at a good price and look accurate, I think they should go for it
|
|
|
Post by xiombarg on Dec 16, 2007 23:53:49 GMT -5
That's pretty much the conclusion I've come to roanstalker.
The fact is that specific figures and brand names are likely going to sell better than others, and these should not be doing parts swapping. Like Bandai. Bandai should never have any real need to parts swap because of the popularity of their figure lines and the popularity of their name. But when you get into stuff like maybe Megahouse or what we've seen recently with Yamato, I can understand it.
BUT.. These companies should also understand that the better the transformations the better they will sell. If I'm teetering on the edge of buying a figure, news of extensive or poorly implemented parts swapping can be enough for me to skip it.
Poor QC and parts swapping = instant death.
|
|
|
Post by Omni Existence on Dec 17, 2007 6:33:33 GMT -5
Fine by me.
As you said, part-swapping is a "necessary" evil especially if the transformation involves some anime magic. The SOC Gunbuster is a favorite example. If it wasn't for any part swapping, it'll have too many moving parts, and evenutally end up with a fragile and possibly floppy robot mode.
I don't mind compromises as long as it works well for the final product. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Kidchuckle on Dec 17, 2007 12:51:36 GMT -5
well lookat studio halfeye.. they have the perfect transformation. And what does it equal? HIGH HIGH costs! unfortunetly I will never be able to get a studio half eye. The closest I might one day get is a simple transformation getter robo g. and thats a tiny tiny figure! For that price of Studio halfeye figure, I can get a solid looking diecast figure (maybe several). I do have high praise for studio half eye... and I'm always amazed about their enginering capabilities. But I really wish I had the money to support them.
|
|
|
Post by mpchi on Dec 17, 2007 15:18:01 GMT -5
Its not ideal, as I always prefer clean transformation/combination without extra parts. But I'll let it be if the swapping is necessary & executed well.
|
|
|
Post by nikodiablo on Dec 18, 2007 21:48:41 GMT -5
If a robot design uses anime magic (parts growing/shrinking/morphing type) for transformation / combination sequence (getters, groizer-X), part swapping is just inevitable. SHE's getter robo, although claiming perfect transformation, the final combination does not represent "anime correct" getters. For these kind of designs, I would accept toys made without combination ability or with major parts swapping.
However, in the case of Yamato's Bryger, Yamato has had many experience in releasing many complicated transforming toys (valkyries), therefore their decision to make this toy a heavy parts former was questionable. Takatoku has already made a less parts swapping transformation bryger 25 years ago, so why can't Yamato improve this design, since they already improved Takatoku's valkyrie design?
|
|
|
Post by Ben-Ohki on Dec 18, 2007 23:22:50 GMT -5
Even when I was little, I viewed parts-swapping as lazy toy design. Today as an adult, being more pragmatic about life in general I understand that when it comes to anime-magic, some things you just can't do without parts-swapping. nikodiablo makes a good point with Getter - I mean, this is a robot that isn't so much a transforming mecha as it is a SHAPE-SHIFTER! I mean his major components actually change shape from one solid part to another solid part of a completely different shape! (The Shin Getter anime explained that this was actually nano-technology at work, but you know, it doesn't help the toy designer). I've always just felt that a toy that featured perfect-transformation was simply more "real" to me. I just have a hard accepting that a part of a mecha (a wing or even a limb) can fly off and then reposition itself and reattach elsewhere all without any noticeable form of power... I know mecha anime is fantasy, but I just had to draw the line somewhere.
|
|
|
Post by xiombarg on Dec 18, 2007 23:23:56 GMT -5
Whether Yamato has really improved the Valkyrie designs in any big way is debatable, and they're really not that good at engineering in general since it seems almost everything they release has some major problem. But you've got some good points nikodiablo. Anime correctness makes it tougher to do transformations. For me I don't really care if something looks exactly anime accurate as long as I can tell what it is and it looks good. Fewture is the perfect example here. I love their Getter 2. It looks awesome, but it doesn't look much like the anime version at all, yet you can still tell it's Getter 2.
|
|
|
Post by nikodiablo on Dec 19, 2007 0:44:00 GMT -5
That's why I would choose CMS's Genesic GGG over Max Factory's Genesic GGG, because although Max Facs GGGG looks better in terms of anime proportion, CMS has demonstrated that it's feasible to have a good, proportionally correct and transforming GGGG, the way it's meant to be.
Can't say the same about the getters tho. In this case, I'd choose aoshima or bandai (that includes any other non combining renditions) version over the "perfect transformation" SHE any time.
|
|