Star Wars VII Soccer Ball Droid

[Lamia]

I am pretty sure that everybody who's been working on that movie, iespecially JJ, knew about the problems with the R2 units on all sw episodes. A producer like KK would fire you if you'd suggest to make Rolypolybot a practical effect.

http://www.polygon.com/2014/12/12/7385691/star-wars-droid-force-awakens 100% practical

As a person that has actually worked in film. Prop Masters and Lead Special Effects artist always look to make an effect practical before falling back on to cgi especially when it comes to the Star Wars films, and also that statement just pisses me off in general.

 

[Lear60man]

Have you guys thought that it might be a practical effect with CGI? Maybe they CGI'd out the puppeteer or the strings or the tracks it ran on or the spring holding up the head or......?

This would be like discussing the Lukes Landspeader if the RPF was alive in 1977. 'We could use a big fan to keep it floating like a hovercraft'. Its an effect, one of a thousand that will be floating on the screen a year form now.

Not to rain on any ones parade here as there is more talent here than in the best effect shops. But to recreate a working BB-8 that is semi autonomous?

My best guess is that it is a sphere mounted on a pole that is RC driven. The pole and channel for the head is painted out.

 

[Darth Lars]

In the prequel trilogy, R2-D2 was practical in some shots and CGI in others.
Even in the original trilogy, there were different practical props for R2-D2 for different shots: running, walking, standing on two legs, with Kenny Baker inside etc.

BB-8 being a practical [strike]effect in scenes with[/strike]robot when used by Mark Hamill does not contradict that it could have been completely CGI in the teaser trailer, or some combination of CGI and practical.

 

[Inquisitor Peregrinus]

He's not saying he's in scenes with it. Just that he was allowed to take it for a spin back in the creature shop with the controller. It's R/C, like the various other droids over the years. No puppeter, no strings or rods. Refer back to my post on the prior page. The technology to make this utterly practical has been around for at least a decade.

--Jonah

 

[Johnny Darko]

I really want to like the new droid, but it just doesn't have the character of the originals, i understand that the design has to move on, but the head just doesn't sit right on a round body, in my eyes it just looks ridiculous! does the ball body really offer any better mobility? just seems the designs were an after thought, thrown together in a hurry almost!?

 

[spacebob]

I still don't think the trailer images are in camera,
I agree with Lear60man and Darth Lars there's more than one way to skin a cat, we all know in movies there are multiple versions of props, cgi and animatronic and all practical.
The trailer clip just works too well unless Honda made it for them

 

[skint]

does the ball body really offer any better mobility?

I guess if they are on a sandy planet he wouldn't get stuck as much as R2, although somehow R2 could always find a nice flat piece of sand to roll on...

That said I hope they bring back Gonk!

 

[NOMAD202]

http://www.superherohype.com/news/3...-star-wars-the-force-awakens-trailer#/slide/1

So now that it's been confirmed its practical...anymore brainstorms? LOL

 

[Inquisitor Peregrinus]

FFS... :facepalm Does no one look at my posts? *huff* This isn't new tech. I don't think it's exactly that. But that's a darn good start on the tech, just with a control unit on-board rather than a programmed laptop.

--Jonah

 

[AndyJ]

FFS... :facepalm Does no one look at my posts? *huff* This isn't new tech. I don't think it's exactly that. But that's a darn good start on the tech, just with a control unit on-board rather than a programmed laptop.

--Jonah

That image was posted earlier in the thread a few times. The thing is that, in the trailer at least, BB-8 has a verrry small point of contact from the head onto the body--it looks like a dome resting on top of the ball, rather than "sunk" into it a bit (which you'd have to do to provide enough room and stability for the bearings and the magnets.)

The other problem is that the head won't always stay perfectly on top because the RC car inside is rarely level. Someone actually made the ball part of it, and you can see inside how the angles are all over the place. http://hackaday.com/2009/12/14/new-pet-project-413/

Obviously there could be multiple different kinds of props for different shots, so it doesn't rule it out.

There must be something they aren't telling us, either it's a wider wheelbase then we think and they simply frame it out, or they really went full bonkers and did a actively-stabilized reaction wheel setup, or something else.

 

[DaddyfromNaboo]

http://www.polygon.com/2014/12/12/7385691/star-wars-droid-force-awakens

As a person that has actually worked in film. Prop Masters and Lead Special Effects artist always look to make an effect practical before falling back on to cgi especially when it comes to the Star Wars films, and also that statement just pisses me off in general ...

Maybe its just done over here in Germany that way, but it usually is a decisionmaking process involving producer, director, production designer/art director, dop, props department. I have seen people choose the wrong options and I have seen practical fx go wrong on set with huge aftermaths. Peter Lamont once told me that he as the production designer only shook his head about a decision that involved huge cgi workloads instead of practical effects and model work. That was on a Bond movie, btw.

If BB-8 is definitely proven to be a practical effect, and what we saw is a practical in- camera effect, which I still doubt, then hats off and I stand corrected.
But until then I expect respect for another members opinion. And I claim to have the a knowledge to come up with a professional opinion. As a person who actually worked in film. (Boy do I hope that you didn't have that phrase copyrighted!)

EDIT: A combination of cgi and practical, maybe, but IMO never ever a fully practical in camera effect, after looking at the teaser again for a few times. The prop department utilized the experience from years of engineering that the R2 builders collected, to have a functional 'last gen droid', and with the tight production schedule of ep7 I cannot believe that they developed such a complex practical effect into a reliable tool for on set use. Now I am almost more curious to see a new documentary ...

 

[WolframCreative]

I want to see how practical it is. The R2 units are practical now, even third leg and soft cross country travel.

 

[Predatormv]

Remember when this thread was about trying to figure out how to build one of these in real life vs. arguing about if it was CG or not? Who cares? If they say it was practical then it was.

 

[MrDynamite]

whilst mine is not 2-3-2...
2 or 2-3 leg is easy now via cobble.
This "BB-8" is not a set prop but 100% CGI.
"WE" are working on it though!.

 

[MrDynamite]

Inquisitor Peregrinus that idea you had... where did that come from?

 

[Darth Lars]

OK, so it has been established that the droid is a practical effect ... or at least the body is.
The question is still up whether the head can be a practical effect while the droid is rolling. Static shouldn't be a problem.

We still don't know for 100% if the droid really is a ball with a head on top like it looks in the trailer, or two hemispherical wheels with a head sticking up that it is according to leaks/ rumours.The trailer shows the droid only from the side, so we can't see.
I was thinking... what if there are two hemispheres that can extend sideways and there is a extendible head stalk, so that the head could hide inside a closed shell, like a tortoise or a hegdehog? There is still so little we know about the droid, really.

 

[Inquisitor Peregrinus]

That image was posted earlier in the thread a few times.

Yeah, by me. This is the first anyone's even acknowledged it. I was trying to raise discussion on that model as a possibility solving all the problems people were bringing up. Now we have that.

The thing is that, in the trailer at least, BB-8 has a verrry small point of contact from the head onto the body--it looks like a dome resting on top of the ball, rather than "sunk" into it a bit (which you'd have to do to provide enough room and stability for the bearings and the magnets.)

The other problem is that the head won't always stay perfectly on top because the RC car inside is rarely level. Someone actually made the ball part of it, and you can see inside how the angles are all over the place. http://hackaday.com/2009/12/14/new-pet-project-413/

Obviously there could be multiple different kinds of props for different shots, so it doesn't rule it out.

There must be something they aren't telling us, either it's a wider wheelbase then we think and they simply frame it out, or they really went full bonkers and did a actively-stabilized reaction wheel setup, or something else.

Well, with what I posted... It isn't an R/C car inside. Each of the four wheels is oriented pointing "outward" and is independently controlled by the controller or, in the case of what I linked to, a programmed laptop. This allows it to roll in any direction on an instant's notice. And the center of mass is low enough that acts as the stabilizer. The ball in the blueprint I posted is just a hamster ball. BB-8's main body is, I imagine, far larger, and that would give whoever was building a lot more room to work with. I'd say, in place of the laptop a control box, and on top of that a tool cylinder that would be set to align up to one of the round portals we can see when the ball stops rolling.

The head is bigger than the simple camera mount in the blueprint. It needs only have a slight indent, probably about the size of the mount base on the blueprint, and, to fit with the curvature of the main ball, it would only be a very shallow indent in the bottom-center of the head base, raised somewhat by the bearings, but not much.

Inquisitor Peregrinus that idea you had... where did that come from?

It was on XKCD in April of 2008.

--Jonah

 

[Xenuprime]

I have been thinking (and reading) about this and have to agree this is either a split design of some sort or a combo practical/CGI.

If it uses magnets for the floating head, I don't think it could stay on with the forward momentum of the body. Floating by magnetism uses an equal push/pull force, so there is not to keep it in the same location as the body, which is being propelled forward.

That brings us back to an attached head simulating the floating effect, with a split body.

Also, shouldn't there be some sand being kicked up by the droid at the speed it's going? It doesn't appear to be a completely smooth rolling surface (the droid), which could keep the dust up to a minimum.

Edit: if all other problems were solved and it had a floating head, turning the head could be done with a small fan on each side or compressed air. These could be used like thrusters.

 

[Lear60man]

Meanwhile, back in early 2008...

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/new_pet.png

Regarding the Omni Wheels....? The front and back propel the unit fore and aft. But wouldnt the left and right 'Omni Wheels' create drag on the hamster ball? I will admit, this concept does address the floating head mystery.

And I gotta give props to a guy who has been on here longer than I have and only posted 252 posts. There is something to say about he who speaks the least, speaks the loudest.

 

[DaddyfromNaboo]

A smooth ball on sand can't propel itself forward because of lack of traction. Think tire without profile.
The droid IMO needs to have some decent weight to be stable and reach the speed that is shown. Otherwise it would bump around and jump up into the air on uneven ground.