me i just use one of these:



why? so i can lock it from the children .

This post has been edited by zeroglyph: Apr 12 2013, 03:57 PM

i hate that statement. i never had any love for rx-78, and bandai will never get my money from it. the only thing good about it is after rx-78, comes the zakus.

IINM, that tech was 1st use on the F91 kits.


agreed. what's the fun with pre-build inner frame?

no more "i hope they make MG more like RG" suggestion, please. seriously, as admiral said, RG is only more cosmetically advance compared to an MG. that's not really a good thing. realistically speaking, have you ever seen a tank with many separations on the armour? armour plates works best when it is one solid piece, not pieces. so an RG may look more detailed, but a real battle machine won't look like that. an MG zaku ii v2(old kit) may not look as cool as an RG zaku ii(relatively new kit), but it's way more advance as far as plamo engineering goes.

now that's something to wish for. except that "new innovation" are rarely "cheaper" .

so what? does this "innovation" means no MG Sazabi V2 possibilities anymore? !!

i disagree with that bold statement. degree of success in RG is how many kits? degree of success for current MG style frame is how many kits and years? do the math.

some MG kits are heavy, having many detachable parts allows it intentionally break-apart upon impact, spreading the impact stress. you put a solid 1 piece "skeleton" in there, the heavier kit will definitely be irreparable if it falls. that's not "revolutionary".

Real man always likes it bigger . small stuff are for the ladies .

yup, agreed. enough rx-78 already. it's not a "real" step up anyway. just minor stuff. won't even noticed it.

you can't compare MG's inner frame to RG's. RG's inner frame is just for sturdiness/gimmicks. MG's inner frames are designed for the looks/sturdiness/gimmick/functions/realism. MG's inner frame is always better than RG's in 99% of cases.