never EVERYONE BURN IT INTO YOUR MINDS

You were merely making sure that we were paying attention. Thanks for the pop quiz!

"But, aren't those just Solar Panels?" - Totally Not Gyunei

I am actually liking this one

And the antenna on the right chest is like front side back😂

When I was posting progress builds of mine, someone mistook it for the Narrative Gundam lol.

@@kanadetone Narrative was the prototype/test bed for most of Nu gundam's equipment so there going to look similar.

Good for u mate

That was mostly Zaks opinion. Kakarot197 didn't even build both at the time so he really didn't have a say in the matter and just went with what ever Zaks said.

@@Darth_Anomalous True. Zak made it clear even in his review of the RG Nu that while the kit is outstanding, he wasn't really a fan of the Nu Gundam itself... although to be fair, both the Sazabi and Nu are GREAT kits that it could sometimes just boil down to personal preferences. That being said, I'm looking forward to Kakarot building the Sazabi (if he does plan on doing so) and on his own judgment on which kit is the better one.

i think the rg sazabi looks better than the rg nu. but in terms of the solidity and articulation rg nu is superior. rg nu is highly overrated for its look. to my eyes it just doesn't look handsome enough. i expect a 2019 kit beats a 2012 kit in the look department but the ver ka nu is still far better to look at.

They're both fantastic but the RG Nu looks really good on a stand where the Sazabi looks better standing on its own. They both build well but I will give the edge to the Sazabi in terms of out of the box builds.

100%%

*1/100

No, the destroy mode height is 21.7m, nu gundam head height is 22m and overall height is 23m, so no they aren't the same height but similar though

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/g7polbWh3Jy8eWg.html

It depends on the kit regarding the pre molded inner frames. There still good ines with the Wings, 00s and Gundam Mk 2

​@@Solbrave00 I'll explain. The last RG I built is RG#04 - Zaku II and the limbs are great, no issue at all so far. The one I built before that was RG#01 - RX-78-2, which immediately upon completion had sloppy limbs (by far the worst kit I own, it's actually terrible, already lost parts, trash part tolerances and it's overdesigned to all hell - looks great though). The RG#08 - Mk II I built a while ago had somewhat weak limbs upon completion, so despite being newer than the Zaku my kit is not as solid, but on the other hand it hasn't gotten worse. The first gunpla I ever built was the RG#13 - Full Burnern, which is to this day solid as a brick despite having been posed a hundred times over and being my oldest gunpla. Not a great kit, wouldn't recommend it, but its faults are the design, not the premolded joints. The newest I own is RG#34 - Zeong, which has the pre molded frames in its fingers and upon moving all of them for the first time I could immediately feel that some of them were looser than others and would need more care. I avoid moving them at all. I've built models since I was a kid, so for around 3 decades. I picked up collecting gunpla a couple of years ago. The reason I'm explaining it like this is to illustrate that the age of the kit doesn't seem to matter and that it's unlikely that I've treated them poorly during assembly. The technology is just inconsistent and it probably has to do with varying temperature during the process. You might go out and buy an RG#01 tomorrow and it'll be perfectly fine, completely opposite to my 01 which I refuse to touch because I know things will fall off and I'll have to spend time putting it in a pose that it can actually hold. I'm considering gluing it in place, that's how bad it is.

@@Smilomaniac fair enough

Can relate

Many kits has these pink sabers nowadays.

Yes it still is a RG, because after unicorn gundam published in 2017, new RGs are going on a new path like minimised highly detailed MG, I think maybe that's the strategy made by Bandai for RG, totally fine for me

Yes, because the other feature of RG kits is still present, i.e. it is a "realistic" interpretation of what the MS would look like if people build it IRL (although IMO the RG Wing TV version kinda did not follow that "realistic" interpretation).

Hmmm...or I'll wait for a "revive" HG

Get both

Just buy the MG

@@zulhaidaryudha1471 OH i do when i can afford it.. and its still a nice kit... just a personal preference.

Keep in mind that the RG line is meant to be less stylistic and more “realistic” (according to themselves). Personally, and obviously subjectively, I vastly prefer the head on this one, over the original “long face” design.

@@Smilomaniac i don't see how the rg is more 'realistic' than the mg ver ka how ever i look at it. you could argue that better articulation is more practical if gundam doing sword fighting in space is a real thing. but exposing a huge gap while bending the waist exposing all sort of internal mechanics that are very close to the cockpit? lol that's not realistic at all by any means. to me the short face is just too generic.

@@blipblip Doesn't matter what you think is realistic or not, the point is what the line is supposed to represent. From the manual: "Real Grade is designed to recreate the "real thing" with fine details and an abundance of color parts." From the wiki: "Also, the RG line reflects what a mobile suit would look like if it were built in the present day." You wouldn't judge an SD as having "poor proportions compared to an HG" for example. You'd be right, but that's the point of the product line. Point being, if you judge the kit on the merits of an MG Ver Ka, you're making a false comparison, because the RG is not supposed to look like that, on purpose. Similarly, Ver Ka is Katoki's reimagining of a mobile suit design and not meant to be an accurate representation of the mobile suit either. Obviously you can compare them anyway and tell others what you prefer which is entirely fair, but I'm only pointing out that RG's are intentionally made to look different - Which explains some or all of the issues you have with it. If you want to argue semantics, then mobile suits are entirely unrealistic as they'd crumble beneath their own weight, have a massive front facing profile, which is impractical in combat to the extreme and even if they could support themselves and the ground could take their weight, they'd be so hard to balance that the amount of engines, pistons and pneumatics required to adjust the limbs would be so complicated that a shot anywhere would cripple them. So yeah, there's nothing "realistic" about them, you have to have some measure of suspension of disbelief :) I'm not trying to be a dick, I'm explaining that if you look at something from an angle that it's not meant to be looked at, then you can find problems with it that may be entirely intentional. With that knowledge in mind, you can judge it on the merits and for what it is.

@@Smilomaniacsome of your points are fair enough. but what's it so realistic about the rg nu compared to the mg ver nu? the shorter face? the more 'muscular' forearm? the almost immobile thruster cover at the rear side of the calf? what about those busy and not so functional panel lines on the leg armors? we all know that mobile suits are all fantasy and have no real practicality in realistic modern warfare in any scenario. so what's it even the point of bring a salesman's rhetoric up from the first place when all the changes are purely stylistic? it is a just a red herring fallacy you are trying to deploy in this so-called debate to make your argument appear stronger. but if you read what you wrote you pretty slapped your own face a couple times lol. so yea at the end of the day it all comes down to personal taste and it seems like you agree that the changes from ver ka to rg are nothing but stylistic. and yet you have to go that distance to type research paper with your nonsense for no apparently reason other than trying to one up me. sure you are absolutely not trying to be a dick :)

@@blipblip I really am just trying to have a conversation. Sorry for the oncoming "research paper" but I'm trying to answer your questions too. I'm arguing for why I think it's better to approach the design of an object as it is intended/presented, rather than making a direct comparison to something intended/presented differently. Why are the calf covers immobile and forearms larger? Because while it's intended to be realistic, that's just one feature, it's also a 1/144 model and that leads to compromises on exterior parts that move. Makes sense that the forearm is more beefy if it has to hide a mechanism. Why the midsection? Because articulation is a strong feature, it's not just a "realistic presentation" it's also a model and it's also in a small scale as mentioned. The panel lines are there to give the idea of there being panels for maintenance to open as well as color separation which gives the appearance of different materials used to make the mobile suit. This is something RG's share with ver ka kits, lots of panel lines and lots of service labels/stickers to show personnel where to do what on the machine. If you look at the new PG grandpa, it has tons of opening service panels. Same with the old PG Mk II which has sections coming out of the legs. Is the shorter face more realistic? No, it's as you said, just a visual style. It's more in line with all the other Gundams, but visually distinct from the movie and MG kits. On realism: If you have the G40 (HG anniversary model) there's a booklet where the designer explains that his aim is to make a more humanly articulated model. He doesn't mean that it bends the same way a human does, but that it can mimic the poses like one. He compromises on the armor skirt, which he handles in a couple of interesting ways. Jes Goodwin (designer from Games Workshop) stated on Knights that the goal was to make/sculpt a massive mech to look like it could walk, not that it necessarily made sense in how the mechanics would work. Both of these people add the illusion of realism to models, to make them represent something you could believe was true in real life, but there's also a difference between something that moves and looks as if it could exist and then adding touches to them that tells you other things about them, like the maintenance panels, how a core section works, how they can be designed to be modular and so on. My point being that you'd have to ask the designer of the various kits on what their intention with the designs are. You sort of have to ask yourself some of the questions and keep an open mind as to why, but your first comment was to directly compare kits. Going back to your earlier question, what makes the ab crunch on the RG more realistic? The *pose* does. As you correctly pointed out, if you look at the exposed part, it doesn't look realistic at all, but you're supposed to pose it so it's not visible (with the shield or by adjusting the angle). Do you see where I'm going with this on the point of realism? It depends on what you think makes something look realistic. Maybe you want details that would literally make sense in reality or maybe you'd rather that detail wasn't there if it means that it looks different. I'm not coming to you and saying "you can't critisize these differences because they're realistic", I'm saying that if you consider their approach and think about the differences, maybe you'll have a better understanding and in turn gain an appreciation *why* they're different. On the reverse, as I've looked up pictures, comparisons, articulations and so on to give honest answers, I have a direct comparison image and I can see why you like the ver ka proportions better - It looks more appropriate to a human. I love the stockier design though, which is why the Mk II is *my* personal favourite :D

Not really, is bit smaller than the nu.