Most of the images, that were uploaded to MySpace, have been made available at the Moebius website on the Model Kit News page (http://www.moebiusmodels.com/model_kit_news.php).

Enjoy!

very cool ! thanks KJ .
hb

Nicely done (both test shots and page)


("don't be a ninny?!")

The robot in the chariot is the only thing I'm disappointed in. It replicates the poor rendering of the legs as in the Aurora and PL kits. That portion needs to be re-engineered to more closely resemble the actual prop, IMHO. :(

("don't be a ninny?!")yeah, I know... I never said I was great at writing copy. :rolleyes: What do you want it to say? I'll make it happen. :)

Thanks KJ. That's an excellent site! Seeing all these wonderful kits makes me realise just how lucky we are to have enthusiastic people like Frank and Scott among us. It looks like we are heading towards a renaissance of Aurora style models and building for years to come. I'll definitely be buying and building eveything they put out, and I'm going to offload all my modern kits to make room for the stuff I really want to build.
From the bottom of my heart guys, THANK YOU !!!:thumbsup:
Chris.

AWESOME!!!

Thanks for posting!!!

I'll ask again. How did the Robot get into the Chariot? When in, where is his lower half stored?

I'll ask again. How did the Robot get into the Chariot?
Answer: He was hitch hiking !
Mcdee:)

The robot in the chariot is the only thing I'm disappointed in. It replicates the poor rendering of the legs as in the Aurora and PL kits. That portion needs to be re-engineered to more closely resemble the actual prop, IMHO. :(Actually, the legs aren't as far off as the "torso" section, which is roughly the correct height but too small in diameter/width (another problem in common with the Aurora/PL kits) which gives it the appearance of being too squared off:

http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w297/Zombie_61/Miscellaneous/B9.jpg

Actually, the legs aren't as far off as the "torso" section, which is roughly the correct height but too small in diameter/width (another problem in common with the Aurora/PL kits) which gives it the appearance of being too squared off:

http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w297/Zombie_61/Miscellaneous/B9.jpg
http://idesyns.com/b9superimposed.jpg

I used your image to check the differences. I superimposed the kit B9 over the photograph and found the width difference to be minimal. I didn't stretch the images at all. The difference I see more is in the height of the torso "barrel" of the kit robot. The additional height of the torso gives the illusion it is narrower than it really is..

Also, the torso's shoulder curve is wrong, in the same way as the Aurora version. Aurora made the shoulder curve symmetric with the waist curve, which is much more rounded.

I used your image to check the differences. I superimposed the kit B9 over the photograph and found the width difference to be minimal. I didn't stretch the images at all. The difference I see more is in the height of the torso "barrel" of the kit robot. The additional height of the torso gives the illusion it is narrower than it really is..After seeing the photo you posted, I believe you're correct. Also, if the legs were slightly less tapered from bottom to top (i.e., were a bit narrower at the top) it would be an improvement.

Also, the torso's shoulder curve is wrong, in the same way as the Aurora version. Aurora made the shoulder curve symmetric with the waist curve, which is much more rounded.I agree with this as well, but didn't quite know how to articulate it in a way that would make sense.

Hello guys

Not only the torso top and bottom curves are not the same but the cylindrical part should be taper. A bit like a human torso it is wider at the shoulder and narrower at the waist. I have pics to prove it, in the lost in space handbook. Also the neck is taper , bigger going down... And the head globe seems too tall or thick as the prop head seems flatter...


That is all in the pictures of the prop

Gaétan

How important is this, really?

Personally, I would have never given the B9 (or any other kit's) discrepancies a thought had it not been brought up. It doesn't matter to me, as long as it's close enough for me to know it's B9.

Given that one is 3 inches tall and the other is about 7 feet, I'm not complaining!

Steve

Important or not , like it or not, it is like that, simple fact.... I guess we will really see how it looks in a couple of months, when we get the kit in hands. Sometimes a camera lense doesn't render the truth dimension and it can distort an object that small. So we will see

Gaétan

Well, B9 is an historical figure, isn't he. It's not like he was a fictional character or anything. I mean, a fact is a fact.

Oupss! I am sorry if it looks that I offended you . I saw the differences from the original 1/1 B-9 and I just pointed them......

No offences meant,

Gaétan

No offense was taken. :) I'm just silly sometimes. Don't mind me.

I build for fun more than accuracy.

...the cylindrical part should be taper. A bit like a human torso it is wider at the shoulder and narrower at the waist. I have pics to prove it, in the lost in space handbook...
Please bring on your proof. I have always percieved Robot's torso as cylindrical.

Any inaccuracies will take me no time at all to correct given the size of this little guy. I love all the future releases and will be picking them all up. All in all you guys are doing a wonderful job bringing these great kits to market. I mean c'mon... the space pod? THE SPACE POD?? How frigging awesome is that? And what other company would have the stones to even put this out?
I'm hoping one day they will put out accurate models of Anderson's UFO and Space 1999 kits! And all the hardware from 2001! If that ever happens I'm flying down to Florida and treating frank to the biggest steak dinner he's ever seen! No joke!
So bring on the SHADO Interceptor and I'll start looking up the best steak houses in your area Frank!:thumbsup:
James Webb

Looks pretty close to me! No complaints at all here LOL. I'm amazed that they can get as close as they do to perfection...

And hey, if the worst thing we can say about this awesome kit is that the robot is a little bit off, then we're awfully fortunate modelers--aren't we? I mean sure, there will probably be an after market robot upgrade. But it's a subtle difference, and you'll hardly see it through the windows.

Frank is making me wish I was 13 again. I'm buying these now, but I would have been in heaven to have them in my paws back then!

Lee

I wouldn't have been able to afford these when I was 13! :lol:

Hello guys

Ooookay!!! Now everybody gets the guns and knifes down :rolleyes: . I need to clear the misconception right now I am absolutely not here to bash the work of Frank .... You can ask my wife, in a lot of conversations over the last six month it's :woohoo: Frank from Moebius will do that and that ...... I even uploaded his photo from his presence at a fall show to keep it with the people I admire :o...

Like many of you, I have been wanting a Chariot and a Pod models for 40 years. I have collected some documentation since I wanted to make dioramas from the Lunar Model releases from the late eighties , early nineties. So i ordered the whole 1/35 combo... Inside a year, my chariot clear part started to yellow . At some times since, I had considered making a plaster mold of the clear part to re-vacform one but I never went very far and I took back the boxes to the cupboard.


Since Frank announced the Lis kits I am floating on a cloud ( no dope ,no boose, I assure you:o ) I had seen the differences , but I chose to shut up... It shoud have remained that way. But when the guys pointed to some of the things I had seen , I told myself ; why not say it now , if the tooling is not already done there could be time for improvements. It is only my opinion and the way I see it...

Do I still want it? yes yes yes...... Will I want to try to make changes on my models when I receive it .... Surely, but it engages only me......

So I hope the case is close on that matter :):thumbsup:

PS two more things;

First English is not my maternal language as I am a French Canadian, I learned it in reading, music,TV, etc... So I hope that If I word my writings too strongly at times or employ the wrong term you will excuse me....

Second I said I had pictures to prove my saying . Some are in the Lost in Space handbook by Paul Monroe on the following pages: 102, 103, 133and144. There is another one in John Peel LIS files vol one page 24 . There are even 3 view scale drawings of the robot and other LIS material in The alpha Control Reference Manual from Bill Anchors jr


Since I don't really know how to post pictures here, If you PM me your email address , I can scan the ''offending'' pictures and send it to you, and someone can post it if wanted , needed or whatever.....

Gaétan

For 1/24th scale,it's accurate enough and who would notice the small difference if it's 3 inches tall.If you want to complain,complain about the missing Robinsons figures.Just kidding.

I really enjoyed those shots, thanks for posting them!!!

Test shots are for finding problems and correcting them. Now's the time to point out the good and the bad. I think the rest of the kit is awesome.

My only problem is with the similarity to the Aurora/PL robot. That model has always driven me crazy to just look at due to its misproportions.

...the cylindrical part should be taper. A bit like a human torso it is wider at the shoulder and narrower at the waist...
Thanks Gaetan, for sending the plans and photos. I also checked out the original Fox studio B-9 prop construction drawings here:

http://www.berkeleyrobotproject.com/

and read an online account of building a full-scale B-9 torso. You're right, Gaetan, it's tapered! :thumbsup:

...the Aurora/PL robot...has always driven me crazy to just look at due to its misproportions.
I first bought the Aurora Robot as a kid in the '60s. I was so exasperated with it, it became the subject of my first kitbash. I was so young, I remember using scissors to cut the plastic to flatten out the shoulder curve, and cut the arms, so the claws would be in the retracted position. :freak:

My only problem is with the similarity to the Aurora/PL robot. That model has always driven me crazy to just look at due to its misproportions.I first bought the Aurora Robot as a kid in the '60s. I was so exasperated with it, it became the subject of my first kitbash. I was so young, I remember using scissors to cut the plastic to flatten out the shoulder curve, and cut the arms, so the claws would be in the retracted position. :freak:Maybe someday Moebius will produce a proportionally accurate B9 Robot kit...

*koff*hint*koff*

You know...I sometimes have to wonder why some manufacturers even bother producing these kits for us. We're never happy. If it's this kit...it's "why didn't you make this kit?" If it's this scale...some say "Hey! why didn't you make it this scale instead?" Or "Wow I never thought I'd see this kit. What a great kit,but this is wrong and that is just not quite the right diameter". I could understand these things being said if these kits came out looking more like the toy kits the Japanese produced in the 60's and 70's. Don't get me wrong I would prefer the kits to be as accurate as possible, but come on. Would rather not have these kits at all? I'm probably gonna get blasted for saying this.

I'm just happy to have these kits coming my way. Granted if a kit is suppose to be ...oh lets say the Seaview and it ends up looking more like skylab I just won't buy it. I sure that won't be the case, but I hope you get my jist.

I'm just thinking it must be a little frustrating putting hard work in developing a kit the best you can only to see it picked apart even before it's produced.

Just my 2 cents.
Rogue

and let the flames begin.

No flames from me, Rogue. You're absolutely right, and I bet you have a lot of supporters here.:thumbsup:
Chris.

In all honesty Rogue... I couldn't agree with you any more... I'm so jazzed about the fact that all these cool Styrene kits are being made that I couldn't care less about 5 rivets missing (from the underside of who gives a sh*t) Moebius and Monarch are carrying on supplying us with our fix of kits... if something isn't quite right in my opinion, as a modeler, I can probably put those finishing touches on myself.... Getting a new kit, tearing off the cello and getting a whiff of that styrene and cardboard combo...and then getting busy...is where it's at for me!:thumbsup:
Mcdee

If products are supposed to be replicas of actual objects, then they are, at the very least, making themselves the subject of critiques regarding their accuracy.

Beggars can't be choosers--and we're all begging--but we've seen what Moebius and Monarch and Polar Lights and other companies and individuals are capable of in terms of high degrees of accuracy. It is therefore more than fair to mention, especially in the "test shot" phase, what is not quite right in the hopes that corrections may be made.

Sure, we can take what we're given, spend money and time correcting what's wrong but how many of us want to spend an inordinate amount of time doing that?

The degree of accuracy that is acceptable in the finished product is subjective, of course. However, the closer to 100% accurate a model kit achieves, the fewer folks there will be who are likely to be disappointed in it.

I first bought the Aurora Robot as a kid in the '60s. I was so exasperated with it, it became the subject of my first kitbash. I was so young, I remember using scissors to cut the plastic to flatten out the shoulder curve, and cut the arms, so the claws would be in the retracted position. :freak:

You had that good of an eye as to be able to spot that difference as a kid? Impressive! :thumbsup:

I've been working on the JL B9 to correct its proportions and it's not that easy a thing to do. The worst problem with it, as with the larger model kit, is the "feet" being angled wrong. (In fact, I'm not even going to try fixing that on the tiny robot.)

It all makes you wonder why they went to all the trouble to make the kit inaccurately when the could have just as easily made it accurately, IMHO.

You know...I sometimes have to wonder why some manufacturers even bother producing these kits for us. We're never happy. <snip> I'm just thinking it must be a little frustrating putting hard work in developing a kit the best you can only to see it picked apart even before it's produced.

I think it's a bit unfair to say we're never satified when the mainstream hobby manufacturers are still struggling to re-invent themselves while figuring out that their actual customers are not little kids anymore. I think Mobius has obviously gotten that mostly right from the get-go.

No kid is going to buy a hundred dollar Seaview and Mobius has to be aware that their adult customers are going to be discriminating. Based on what I see with the Seaview test shots (as well as others), the homework is being done. It remains to be seen if they're in the same ballpark as, say, Finemolds, but based on what I see so far, I trust that they're making kits with me (the adult sci-fi genre modeler) in mind. It's all good, even if a couple details might miss the mark.

John O.

^^Good points!

And I'm not saying that I won't buy the Chariot because the robot figure is inaccurate. I'm just saying it'd be nice to have a more accurate robot included.

You know...I sometimes have to wonder why some manufacturers even bother producing these kits for us. We're never happy...I'm just thinking it must be a little frustrating putting hard work in developing a kit the best you can only to see it picked apart even before it's produced...
I agree. I'm very appreciative of Moebius, and all the other hobby producers out there. :thumbsup:

I'm just thinking it must be a little frustrating putting hard work in developing a kit the best you can only to see it picked apart even before it's produced.

I think there is a basic misunderstanding here. The purpose of a test shot is to find faults so that they may be corrected.

For example, I noticed that the nose was wrong on the Invisible Man. Now, I'll admit that they may have already noticed that but then maybe they hadn't. Isn't it a good idea to mention it? Or should I just grovel at their feet and turn a blind eye in a misdirected effort to be nice to them. :confused:

Being critical and observant in an agreeable way is the greatest kindness to them, IMHO. If they don't want things pointed out, I'm sure they'd keep their test shots to themselves.:thumbsup:

You had that good of an eye as to be able to spot that difference as a kid?....
I "bonded" to the Robot I saw on TV. And, I think, most of us were discriminating, even as kids. What we each liked most about things, as well as what bothered us most, varied with our individual tastes, of course.
It all makes you wonder why they went to all the trouble to make the kit inaccurately when the could have just as easily made it accurately, IMHO.
I think we all know at least some of the reasons why this sort of thing happens: the studio may have provided incomplete or confusing prototype information; errors may have been made in cutting the dies, etc. I don't think Aurora intended to make a crappy Robot, but once the production costs were paid, they needed to see a return, in order to pay for the next new kit.

Unfortunately, it never made sense to them to re-invest in their product after its initial sales, to improve its quality. I think it is our job, as potential customers, to sell producers on the desirability of making things right in the first place, and continuing to improve the quality of their existing product.

I think we all know at least some of the reasons why this sort of thing happens: the studio may have provided incomplete or confusing prototype information; errors may have been made in cutting the dies, etc.

You are correct, sir! :thumbsup:

I only wonder what happened in this case because I've never come across any sketches or blueprints that show deviations similar to the Aurora version of the robot. It seems to me that any info they would have rec'd would have been more correct than what they came up with.

Take another case as a counter-example: the few inaccuracies in the PL 1/350th 1701A. We got to see and discuss the development of this kit as it happened. It got so close in the end that, for most folks (and, except for the impulse engine and the hangar doors, that includes me) wouldn't change the model structurally.

I'd call that model a definite winner. It's not 100% but it's so darned close that no one can really raise a big stink and I think 99% of folks realize that. Most of those that do bring up inaccuracies are usually mentioning it in their pursuit of correcting those minor deficiencies and not whining at all.

...I only wonder what happened in (the Robots) case because I've never come across any sketches or blueprints that show deviations similar to the Aurora version of the robot. It seems to me that any info they would have rec'd would have been more correct than what they came up with...
Did Aurora make their tooling from original sculpts? If so, I think it would be very enlightening to see the one for the Robot kit.

WOW.All those models are looking great. Im not really into figures(I did get the glow Jeklly)but that invisible man looks very cool and now it seems like I will have to purchase it. It would look so great on an end table for halloween. Excellent job Moebius.:thumbsup:

I suspect Aurora in the 60s didn't care that much about total accuracy, and didn't think WE cared that much. For many sci fi subjects, I'm willing to bet they just eyeballed pictures of the subject when they made the masters, and as long as the finished item "kinda looked like the thing on TV" it was okay.

I suspect Aurora in the 60s didn't care that much about total accuracy, and didn't think WE cared that much. For many sci fi subjects, I'm willing to bet they just eyeballed pictures of the subject when they made the masters, and as long as the finished item "kinda looked like the thing on TV" it was okay.

...AND they were making them for ...drum roll please ...KIDS! Period! Most of the Aurora kits were intended as activity purchases for teenagers at the oldest. We're lucky they were as good as they were, 'cuz a lot of kits were merely toys.

John O.

Strange that they managed to do such an outstanding job on so many subjects yet crapped totally out on the LIS robot. :confused:

Other models perhaps weren't totally accurate, yet the LIS robot was just about totally INaccurate.

Oh, I dunno. The Seaview was too short and the fins were wrong; the 2001 Moon Bus wasn't proportioned right; the Flying Sub is all wrong, the 2001 Orion is juuuust a little off...

Oh, I dunno. The Seaview was too short and the fins were wrong

BUT it IS based on an actual model used in the show.

. . . the 2001 Moon Bus wasn't proportioned right

I've heard that it was close to dead on by some folks very familiar with the design.


the Flying Sub is all wrong

I wouldn't know on that one but from my inexpert examination of it, it looks to be proportioned fairly close. Nothing about it "jars" my senses as the robot does.

the 2001 Orion is juuuust a little off...

The Airfix sucks but the Aurora version is said to be very close to the correct shape. There may be some detailing that is different. I'm not a huge expert on that one by any means.