yay, my first robot!

[steve kim]

well, technically my 2nd. first one is at the bottom.

these are for my viscom2 class w/ scott. the big robot took like 40 hours to draw cause i'm so damn slow and this whole perspective business is a bit much. oh well!

they could be better but overall i am happy enough since i've never tried this kind of stuff before the class.

cheers!

http://www.stevekim.net/tech/bigrobot.jpg

http://www.stevekim.net/tech/plane.jpg

http://www.stevekim.net/tech/robot.jpg

[antihero]

I like those robots!
Maybe you could work a bit on their... functionality... its pretty hard to get an idea of how (especially the one at the top) those things are working... well except for the plane of course... ;)

Anyways, i love 'em!

antihero

[YVerloc]

Hey Chumps,

The robot is really interesting. I have a question and a couple of comments.

Q: did you do many/any design sketches of the robot before building the illo in proper perspective?

The reason I ask, is that it appears to me that the bulk of the design work was done within the accurate perspective construction. I think that both the stregths and weaknesses of that process are on display in the robot pic. If I'm off target with my hunch, feel free to kick my balls.

It's wicked for a first robot tho'. What do you plan to do with it?

It's late, so my head is a bit fuzzy. I just re-read your post, and you mention you did the robot in Scott Robertson's class. This is funny, because as I wrote this, I edited out a comment I made comparing it to Scott's work. So I might as well interject it here - the robot faithfully captures the strengths I see in Scott's work - however, it also captures what I feel are occasional weaknesses in his method (no offense Scott) - I feel that of doing so much of the design work in perspective sometimes results in a tight but underdesigned comp.

I feel it is often faster and better to work out design issues without the draughtsman's hat on. The design can be iterated faster, for one. And for another, once the design is solid in your mind, the accurate comp is a lot faster to do, since your not trying to design and construct at the same time.

Jeez, sorry for the ramble. Like I said, let me know if I'm off base. But my gut reaction is that the design could have been stronger if more graphite had gone into exploring the forms and less into building the scaffolding.

YV

[ClocktowerArtworks]

i wholeheartedly agree on every point with yverloc...keep em comin'

[alti]

very clean, good job man. - my fave is the final one because of the legs (quadropeds rock.)

[DanSTC]

Yeah, definately looks like you're still learning the basics 'cause the designs don't have too much in the way of aesthetic style to them. (They look a bit on the unintentionally blocky "erector set" side, and don't really seem to flow together that well.)

But for your first time out, this is quite impressive. You have solid draftsmanship, so I really think you could take off if you used that draftsmanship ability to say, practice by deconstructing machine designs of stuff that you like, paying careful attention to subtle and intricate details that give the design that extra bit of pizzazz. Develop your creativity alongside your draftsmanship if you can help it. :)

[deliciouspeter]

Cool. Nice to see some unique robots.

[steve kim]

yverloc> i had a pretty good idea of what i wanted the design to look like, but only in a profile view (and a vague front view). i admit i didn't really sketch it out in a 3/4 view first, i just hunkered down and laid out the perspective and boxes and cross sections like a good boy :).

i also made a few compromises with the design cause what i had planned on was too complicated for my small brain, too many complex curves and stuff. despite all that i'm not unhappy w/ the final, it's just a little kludgy..

i can see what you mean re: scott's work and method, but i can't say i agree. i think you are commenting on more of a style, and that's not what he teaches. feng took his class and did his own thing, as have many others i'm sure. he just teaches a way to draw correctly in perspective, something i could never have imagined doing before this class (i come from an illustration/fine art background).

"I feel it is often faster and better to work out design issues without the draughtsman's hat on. The design can be iterated faster, for one. And for another, once the design is solid in your mind, the accurate comp is a lot faster to do, since your not trying to design and construct at the same time."

this is something scott goes over as well, as does feng with his INSANE 30 second thumbnails. it's actually harder for me to do quick sketches in 3d because my brain still works in this weird haphazard 2d way unless i force myself to bust out the sections and whatnot. as i get better and faster w/ the labor-intensive method i will be able to visualize sketches better, at least that is the theory :). at this point i am more about trying to draw something correctly (w/out 'fudging') than designing something stellar... (though of course i try to make it look nice)

phew i talk too much.. thanks for your reply though it's given me a bit to chew on.

danstc> well in my defense, i don't think it looks THAT bad, hehe. but i definitely know what you mean. i'm not sure what you mean by deconstructing machine designs though. like using it as reference or actually going in and drawing it in perspective?

[shyst]

freak'n awesome-

i love the winglets on the shark
great originality to them all..