>>2309901>They have models that fully transform*facepalm.jpg*
There is so many layers of WRONG in that statement.
The models used for CGI rendering are never physically possible, the animators are illusionists hiding the painfully damning violations of physics they commit under the guise of entertainment. There will never be toys that use the movie transformations, not because of all the tiny tiny tiny pieces needed, but because it is not possible unless the toy is built from shapeshifting arrays of nanomachines.
On one aspect I remember the long loud discussion over a decade ago while the professor tried to explain why a student didn't get authorization to have the metal shop make his cad modeled parts. The guy never did figure it out, the shop instructor rejected his request, and he dropped out...
You see, in cad you can have moving parts that magically occupy the same space. Which is all fine and dandy until you want to complete the production cycle and produce the product.
Those few of us who completed the class, other requirements, earned our Masters degrees, and successfully work for years in REALITY... well, next time your plane lands safely you can thank the people like me at BFGoodrich for the landing gear.
