PlaymoFriends
General => Report & Review => Topic started by: cachalote on February 24, 2011, 02:29:25
-
i just found this picture (i can't really remember where) browsing in the internet.
i had a black & white version of it but this one seems to be a picture of the "original" plans. :)
-
hm! That's pretty neat! Thanks for showing us.
-
very very interesting :lens:
-
very interesting in fact!!
it must be an early prototype for the hair is very diferent to the classic clicky (with the hat shape) and the buttons in the chest were never really produced. love them!
Thanx Cachalote!
-
Yes, and this one has legs that move seperately. I think these were the drawings that were submitted tot the patent offices. I think I have it in my playmobil book (the story of a smile).
-
Yes, and this one has legs that move seperately. I think these were the drawings that were submitted tot the patent offices. I think I have it in my playmobil book (the story of a smile).
cool! I hadn't noticed that! ;D
-
These are the very first plans from Hans Beck back in 1971, the full story and plans are inside the anniversary book "The story of a smile". I bought that book on previous Saturday at the Hellenic Playmobil Funpark and I am reading it every night since then ;D
-
Great, thanks for posting the pic!
Yes, and this one has legs that move seperately.
I don't think the drawning suggests the legs move independently from one another, the side-view with "one leg horizontal" is IHMO showing that the 2 legs can be moved to that position together; the colour of the drawninglines are lighter and this normally means alternative positions on technical drawnings (in contradiction with the colour of the drawlines of the arms, the colour is the same for both arms because they do move seperately). And the line in the middle between the 2 legs is just the centerline for the klicky-design.
-
I agree Hadoque. It shows the one piece legs in the sitting & standing positions, but not a split design.
-
yeah.... on a second look I agree :)
-
yeah.... on a second look I agree :)
Hey, what about a poll & everyone vote on if it's a split design or not? ;D
-
One more person here to weigh in on it! :lol: I was thinking the same thing, that it didn't show a split design, but rather was just showing that it could sit. You're right, BB, we need to make a poll about it. :P
-
Great, thanks for posting the pic!
I don't think the drawning suggests the legs move independently from one another, the side-view with "one leg horizontal" is IHMO showing that the 2 legs can be moved to that position together; the colour of the drawninglines are lighter and this normally means alternative positions on technical drawnings (in contradiction with the colour of the drawlines of the arms, the colour is the same for both arms because they do move seperately). And the line in the middle between the 2 legs is just the centerline for the klicky-design.
I disagree. The first pic shows a vertical seam across the middle of the legs. The third pic shows the hip parts are hollow and the is some kind of insert that could function as an axle. That seam would not be drawn if the legs were one part.
-
Maybe this drawing was part of Geobras patent application.
-
http://www.playmotown.de/main/news/news.html (http://www.playmotown.de/main/news/news.html)
Scroll down a bit. There is a picture of one of these early prototypes.
-
Without the feet being movable, there's no use in making the legs able to move separately from each other. With those PM fixed feet you would never be able to put the klicky standing in a running position, for instance.
-
That didn't bother LEGO.
-
Proportions. Look at the size of minifigure's feet in relation to the legs. And don't forget that most minifigures can be "clamped down" on the floor of play sets.
-
There are many different dolls, pupets, figurines etc with movable legs and without movable feet. I'm not saying it was a good idea for this prototype. I'm just explaining what's in the drawing.
-
I did notice the vertical seam, too, but I'm still not entirely sure what it means. In that link that Henry gave, can anyone interpret what it says about the early prototype? If it had independently moving legs, it will probably say so. That may be our answer. otherwise, we'll need to vote on it, as BB suggested! :lol:
-
I did notice the vertical seam, too, but I'm still not entirely sure what it means. In that link that Henry gave, can anyone interpret what it says about the early prototype? If it had independently moving legs, it will probably say so. That may be our answer. otherwise, we'll need to vote on it, as BB suggested! :lol:
The text next to the picture mourns about the decease of Hans Beck. From what I know about this kind of drawings I would not take from the plan of the skeleton that there are a joint or separately movable legs.
-
I disagree. The first pic shows a vertical seam across the middle of the legs.
You're right about the seam on the left drawing, that is strange and made me doubt, but I've come to the conclusion... that it is just the zipper in his trousers! ;D There are buttons on his vest too, right :P
The third pic shows the hip parts are hollow and the is some kind of insert that could function as an axle. That seam would not be drawn if the legs were one part.
The hip parts being drawn hollow, is to show the backpiece of the inner frame that helps to keep the legs in place and to withhold the legs from being moved backwards. The seam doesn't go fully upwards there, it ends near the horizontal middle where the legs are sideways connected to the frame.
Could be that seperately moving legs where thought about, but still I think the drawning (especially the side-view) shows the intention of moving them together.
Designs/patents in f.e. construction or engineering are drawn similarly: alternative positions or movable parts in other positions are drawn in a lighter or different colour, that's rather standard procedure.
I also agree with seperately moving legs requiring moving feet. This was done with "PlayBig" (different German company, same era, very similar figures), to make them a bit stable when "walking".
A Playmobil-klicky with just one leg on the ground, or with only the tip or heel of each foot reaching the floor, would immediately fall over.
Nothing absolutely certain about this drawing though, you too could still be right about the legs.
-
I agree that it would have been useless to have a figure in a walking stance due to a balance issue, Hadoque. It would have been a manufacturing fiasco utilizing no benefits. The drawing shows the two positions that are traditionally made by Klicky's, standing & sitting. But we can still vote! ;D
-
Proportions. Look at the size of minifigure's feet in relation to the legs. And don't forget that most minifigures can be "clamped down" on the floor of play sets.
Very true! L*** has those floor plates with all of those pegs to stand their figures on,.....cheaters :hmm:!
Proof!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmb8dAfln10
-
I vote for voting! ;D
-
These are the very first plans from Hans Beck back in 1971, the full story and plans are inside the anniversary book "The story of a smile". I bought that book on previous Saturday at the Hellenic Playmobil Funpark and I am reading it every night since then ;D
told you so , Sire, I am actually looking at it as i type this !!!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Again, I'm not saying it was a very good idea, seperate legs. But there are many dolls and pupets that do have that feature. So it is not very strange for playmobil to at least consider that feature.
And sure, LEGO has baseplates that stabilise their minifigures. But the first playmobil came out with baseplates for klickies, didn't they?
Furthermore Barbie/barbie like dolls also have separetely moving legs. And they have a lot of trouble standing.
This is a drawing of a prototype. That doesn't mean it is already prefect. After all, the buttons on the shirt were dropped as well.
About the drawing, let walk through that systematically.
The first drawing on the left has a vertical seam across the middle. Why draw that? It is a construction drawing. Why put lines in it that have no meaning of function? You just don't do that.
Picture number 2 from the left shows one leg up and one leg down. If this was a design with one legpiece the two legs in this picture would be unnessecery. The leg down position is already shown in the other pictures.
Picture nr 3, a lot to see here. Firstly again a vertical seam across the legpart. Furthermore there is a cavity axactly where the legs pivot. There is a piece inserted in it that acts like an axle/pivot.
(http://www.playmofriends.com/forum/album/albums/userpics/11034/hip.JPG)
As you can see the cavity pictured has right angles at the corners. The insert has rounded corners. Someone suggested that this was a cut-away drawing and the bit you see in it is the springy bit at the back of the inner frame of the clicky. There are 2 problems with that.
If it would have been a cut-away at least the top corners of the insert should be squared and not rounded.
Secondly the bit drawn above the leg-pieces is the springy bit at the back of inner frame. In this case, when you look at that bit it is drawn with a split. That is exactly how it should be, it the legs are not one piece and can move seperately.
See here a pick of aonother prototype on garden wargaming:
(http://www.gardenwargaming.com/howto/articulated/images/legsapart.jpg)
This one has movable feet, by the way. And same as with the prototype drawing douple springy flaps at the back are needed. Again, if the cavity would be a see through cut out the split should be visible in the drawing.
See this link for more info about that one: http://www.gardenwargaming.com/howto/articulated/articulated.html (http://www.gardenwargaming.com/howto/articulated/articulated.html)
And there is a line through picture no 3 with a dogleg about midway and arrows at each end, pointing to pic no 4. This indicates in the world of construction drawing that pic no 4 is a cross section along that line with the dogleg.
Which brings to pic 4. That is indeed a cross section along that line. And in the hip part a rond axcle is showing. That wouldn't be shown if the hip was solid. There would be no bit showing but a solid hip.
Please note the indentations in the upperbody outline, they correspond exactly with the dogleg in the line in pic 3.
Lastly a couple of people refferred to the pic in the book A story of a smile. Last night I looked up my copy of it. Mine is in German, the original language in which it was written. There is no indication which issue it is.
On page 40 there is the same drawing. Next to it in German is written the following:
Rechts: In der Konstructionszeichnung fuer die Patentanmeldung sinds die Beine noch gegenbeweglig, umgezetst wird dies aber nicht.
Translated (roughly) In the constructiondrawing for the patent application the legs are still movable against each other, but this was later not corrected.
-
Roma locuta causa finita.
:)
-
Roma locuta causa finita.
:)
Indeed...res demonstrandum est... so I arrest my case.
-
...was a "prototype" created by Louis Marx, Ltd. when they were the licensee for Playmobil (Playpeople) in Great Britain
I don't read Geobra in that quote.