Manned Robot Tested In South Korea

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
After watching this video, I can't help but wonder when we are going to have real mechs running around. I'm going to be pissed if this turns out to be fake. :D
 
Korea, after doing well in Overwatch placements using D.Va think "hey... wait a minute..."
 
When these things become nimble, wieldy, balanced, quiet, can walk over stuff, get back up on its own, make me coffee and run entirely on happy thoughts I will be sold.
 
Man I'd be disappointed as well if it were fake. for the first time I'm actually seeing something move a bit faster than a clunky piece of machinery :p
 
Isn't the hard part a power source? I mean you can only have so long of an extension cable. :)

A small nuclear reactor maybe? What could go wrong?
 
Can they power it with propane?

latest
 
I have been on an 80s / 90s movie binge recently, and I just watched Robot Jox ... it may have had more believable stop motion animation.

Robot-Jox-classic-science-fiction-films-35839046-480-270.jpg
 
Actually, I think this is real. Or at least a mixture of fake and real. It's kind of hard to tell with the poor resolution. The materials definitely look "too perfect," especially the arms, which is giving the fake vibe. But in terms of lighting, shadows, and reflections a lot of stuff seems good. Look at 0:55 and you can see the reflection of someone walking in the cockpit glass. The shadows underneath its feet from 1:00 onward look completely on point, and all the materials look more realistic when the camera is closer. From 120 on look at the reflection in right kneecap and tell me that's easy to do with CG.

If it's a fake, it's a really well done one. Or it's a mix of CG and practical effects.
 
Mechwarrior flashbacks. Notice the rotary cannons on its thighs. Cleverly designed to be anti-air and if it takes a step back with its leg, it can brace itself and fire horizontally. This is the first robot design from an artifically intelligent computer.

 
Oh it's real. In the first 15-20 seconds I wasn't sure, the hooman looked a little super-imposed inside, but after that, it's definitely real. Check out the way the arms move, pay close attention. The little jostles are things people miss in CG all the time.
 
I don't think we will ever have mechs not much need for them. Think how easy it would be to hit a tall ass slow mech. At least a tank is low and can hide a hell of a lot better then this gaint mech. Aslo think how much armor it would need form head to toe.
 
tunatime said:
I don't think we will ever have mechs not much need for them. Think how easy it would be to hit a tall ass slow mech. At least a tank is low and can hide a hell of a lot better then this gaint mech. Aslo think how much armor it would need form head to toe.
Click to expand...

I don't agree. I think there could be in need in manufacturing and construction
 
I'm sure it's fake. It's RT, Kremlin propaganda website, wouldn't trust anything they report...
 
hurleybird said:
Actually, I think this is real. Or at least a mixture of fake and real. It's kind of hard to tell with the poor resolution. The materials definitely look "too perfect," especially the arms, which is giving the fake vibe. But in terms of lighting, shadows, and reflections a lot of stuff seems good. Look at 0:55 and you can see the reflection of someone walking in the cockpit glass. The shadows underneath its feet from 1:00 onward look completely on point, and all the materials look more realistic when the camera is closer. From 120 on look at the reflection in right kneecap and tell me that's easy to do with CG.

If it's a fake, it's a really well done one. Or it's a mix of CG and practical effects.
Click to expand...

It's a good fake because they did so well with the imperfections in movement. Things like the .01 response time between the operator and robot arms. The reflection and sharp edges look like clear CGI to me. Also the inertia it gives off when walking and the foot steps dont seem to convey the weight properly. It almost seems kinda floaty in its movements.
 
can't wait for the real robot jox battles

imagine fighters killing each other dead kekeke
 
Pretty sure it is fake. I don't think engineers would set up a desk right under where giant robotic arms are swinging about.

It is a fun to watch and think about though.
 
Why the hell would this be fake? I don't see anything here that hasn't already been done.
 
I'm fairly certain this thing is real. The delays between the operator's movements and the robot's movements are not only perceptible, but they take varying times based on where the arm was. The vibrations of the arms while it walked - I haven't ever seen an animator come up with that and the motion looked real. If it is fake, this is the best CGI ever.
 
Seems like the dude sitting to the side on the computer is in prime squishing position if that thing tips over...
 
Last edited:
Well...there is no technical limitation that prevents this from being real. I have worked with (smaller) robots that take similar input and replicate humanoid arm movements. There's nothing saying you can't move that inside of a cockpit.
 
ruffbytes said:
Pretty sure it is fake. I don't think engineers would set up a desk right under where giant robotic arms are swinging about.

It is a fun to watch and think about though.
Click to expand...
You obviously don't know many engineers. I've seen much worse.

TwistedAegis said:
Seems like the dude sitting to the side on the computer is in prime squishing position if that thing tips over...
Click to expand...

It's tethered so it won't fall. Standard humanoid robot testing practice because they are fucking expensive and a fall will easily cost you hundreds of thousands of dollars (or in the case millions...if it's even real) in repairs.
 
Still never understood why people insist on taking up so much space and resources on being able to fit a person inside, why not remote station? Not only does it remove danger to the operator, it reduces complexity, weight, frees up more space as well as design options. I understand the cool factor and childhood dreams, but for practical research....Why?
 
BlueFireIce said:
Still never understood why people insist on taking up so much space and resources on being able to fit a person inside, why not remote station? Not only does it remove danger to the operator, it reduces complexity, weight, frees up more space as well as design options. I understand the cool factor and childhood dreams, but for practical research....Why?
Click to expand...
1. A complex communications system would need to be in place wherever such a system might possibly be deployed to. This isn't always a possibility or even desired.
2. Situational awarenes
3. Immediate feedback
4. Faster task response


Otherwise, I would probably just automate whatever it needed to do.
 
Grahamkracka said:
1. A complex communications system would need to be in place wherever such a system might possibly be deployed to. This isn't always a possibility or even desired.
2. Situational awarenes
3. Immediate feedback
4. Faster task response


Otherwise, I would probably just automate whatever it needed to do.
Click to expand...

1. Not as complex as one might think when compared to installing a cockpit for the person, which more or less will have all the same sensors and ability as a remote system
2. Not really, you have massive blind spots on a system like this and will still depend on lots of sensors and cameras for all but the most simple and forward line of sight tasks
3. No feedback from controls, unless force feedback, which can be done at remote as well, outside of that you are only feeling leaning or moving, not much else, sensors would be far more reliable as well
4. What?
 
BlueFireIce said:
1. Not as complex as one might think when compared to installing a cockpit for the person, which more or less will have all the same sensors and ability as a remote system
2. Not really, you have massive blind spots on a system like this and will still depend on lots of sensors and cameras for all but the most simple and forward line of sight tasks
3. No feedback from controls, unless force feedback, which can be done at remote as well, outside of that you are only feeling leaning or moving, not much else, sensors would be far more reliable as well
4. What?
Click to expand...
I suppose a VR headset tied into a remote controllable head might be a workable system. You could even mount the stereo cameras further apart to make it feel human scale.
 
And, as usual, power source gets in the way. Not actual design. You think they are going to walk around with that fat power cable that's snaking out to the left?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top