Do you prefer "modular" or "skeletal" fembots?

[dieur]

I feel like the way these are described might be influencing the vote slightly. I was going to vote skeletal, because the way you describe the faceplate unable to move realistically makes me thing of the quenessential anime moving doll, with the weird parallel lines up from the chin to the jaw that make you think the middle of the lower jaw is henging open and closed like it was an Xmas nutcracker. “Don’t want that”, I thought and went for skeletal.

But really, panels are half the fun!

I’m going to have to go hybrid. At least a realistic-ish face. Modular with panels carefully placed so as not to ruin flexibility a skeletal frame needs.

[D.Olivaw]

I'm with Dieur on this, when I think of the "standard" ASFR fantasy fembot, what comes to mind is something in between your two poles. Limbs, as long as we're trying to generally meet the look and feel of the human form, are going to necessarily be endoskeletal with the load-bearing structure in the middle, actuators (of whatever type) working on that structure via flexible attachment points (just like us), and some sort of flesh-consistency covering over top. That meets your "skeletal" description.

For the interior of the pelvic girdle and the ribcage, though, even in humans you have a protected volume with a hard structural exterior. These are natural places to put the important don't-like-to-be-squished parts of a foreseeable-technology "plausible midfuture" fembot, stuff like the computational hardware, energy storage, and the like. They more fit your "modular" description. Access panels can make good engineering sense in these areas, especially the larger thorax, because you're going to want a relatively easy way to access the components most likely to require servicing or replacement.

Faceplates, I admit, are going to put some serious constraints on the head, but I could sorta-kinda see them making sense for fembots like the hostesses in the "Victoria" story I posted a few weeks ago. I think I explicitly mentioned the "limited range of motion" of Victoria's jaw, and that's likely to be the big limitation. In the story, I was imagining it made sense as a design compromise to greatly ease access to the hardware in her head, and was made possible by the lack of any attempt to model a human mouth behind the teeth. It makes more sense if you think of the jaw as being part of the head while the faceplate's lower portion is flexible or articulated at the bottom to allow it to follow that motion.

The head, though, is another case where following your "modular" model is quite natural. Assuming the hairpiece in't integral, it's easy to see panels being located there, or even having the entire rear-upper quarter of the head being removable.

[D.Olivaw]

The images your posted illustrate in interesting pitfall I think comes up when we discuss this sort of topic, and that's the fact that current experimental androids and gynoids are not really attempts to solve the engineering problem that our imagined fembots do.

The reason the gynoid you post can afford to be so sparse internally is that her design goals are extremely narrow and circumscribed. Her limbs need not move under any significant load, she has very minimal onboard intelligence and perceptive capacities, doesn't need to carry much (if any) onboard energy storage, and doesn't need to interact with her environment in any complex ways.

That plausible-midfuture fembot I mentioned in my last post, though, built with foreseeable if not currently achievable technologies? She's going to need limbs able to move quickly and responsively under substantial loads, and will be dealing with a moment-to-moment computational load beyond the capabilities of even powerful supercomputers in 2018. The way to bet is that the engineering teams responsible for her power, processing, sensory, and other systems are going to be fighting bloody battles in the design phase for every available cubic centimeter of her internal volume, so she's not going to look like a stick figure with a couple of lumps hanging inside her chest cavity. Significant compromises will have to be made.

A cartoon that get shown around in my own industry is relevant here:

[Stephaniebot]

I must admit, you lot have got me trying to work out an effective way an actress could do the faceplate look, without CGI cheats. Few ideas, nothing perfect yet, mind. Access panels are a bit more complex to achieve, lol

[Uncom]

h

[33cl33]

Basically what everyone else said.

I like fembots that are perfectly human but also have removable panels.
It might not be the most realistic, but hey, the best of two worlds.

Voted skeletal, but I'm with you fellas.

[Saya]

I voted modular, but yeah, I'm pretty much in agreement with everyone else. When it comes to these sorts of things, I don't really focus all that much on what's realistic and what isn't. It's all about thematics and fantasy for me. So I'm perfectly fine with the idea of having both in a fembot.

[N6688]

............I didn't vote.
I love each of them equaly.
You might think i would favor skeletal fembots because of my manips on the wiki but frankly it's .........because i can't make ........seams or panels.........

With skeletal bots it's just so cool when you see them get damaged in the face you get this cool ........i don't how to decribe it........ a "robot zombie" effect?
Yeah, seems like a best way to describe it.
Synth flesh ripped, seeing the metal frame beneath, you look at it, but you shouldn't be able to look at it.
So it has this taboo efect, it's wrong.
it's very wrong, but it's sooooo right



But then you have modular fembots with seams and panels and you can immediately see "that's a robot."
It's a robot that doesn't try to hide it.
You can just walk up, open up a panel and just ......... go to work

#ifshewantsto
#alwaysaskpermissionfromsentientrobotsbefore(ab)usingtheirsystemcontrolls
#onlyondrones

[Blox_242]

Towlie says it best for me

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJNK1uCY-7Y