Talk:GN-002REIII Gundam Dynames Repair III

Power Source and GN Beam Weapon in Right Hand

Does anyone know what power source the Dynames Repair III uses, would it use a large GN condenser like the Dynames Repair and the Exia Repair IV?

And is the GN beam weapon in its right hand a GN beam rifle like that of the Raphael Gundam or a GN bazooka like that of the Raphael Gundam Dominions? Freighttrain, The (talk) 06:08, August 3, 2019 (UTC)

The short answer is that we don't know. There is very little official info on this Gundam. According to Gundam Try Age though, it's GN Condenser. Also the weapon is a GN bazooka. YoshiSuperDragon (talk) 05:40, August 3, 2019 (UTC)

Ok thank you YoshiSuperDragon and yes I thought the GN beam weapon looked a bit more like a narrower elongated version of the Dominions' GN bazooka. Freighttrain, The (talk) 06:08, August 3, 2019 (UTC)

Do we have any source that it's successor to R2?

While it's reasonable that since it's R3 there should be R2 before it, but is R2 really the previous version? It isn't uncommon for MS development (especially in MSV) to never get pass design stage and the next one is completely discard its idea in favor of previous design.

In other words, it's possible that Dynames R2 never exist beyond blueprint in Veda's database, and then they jest take a step back to R1 and combine it with element from Virtue to become R3.--My girlfriend was a loli. 06:33, August 31, 2020 (UTC)

About Recent Edits

Since there are issues with speculative mentions, I've done my best to remove all it while taking to every component and pre-established information to make the best description I could give it. If there are issues with the edit, I prefer you guys talk to me about it than suddenly overwriting or erasing it. If I don't get a proper explanation and another sudden rollover or erasure happens again, I might consider either locking down the page or suspending the editor.

Taikage (talk) 08:00, September 30, 2020 (UTC)

• Sadly, it is still full of speculations and unnecessary info. Firstly, here the links to the other sources I use.1, 2 (the image of the 2nd link is hosted on a NSFW site). There maybe parts in the sources that I failed to translate properly. Now that done, let's see:

• 1) Other than GN Bazooka, we don't really have official names for the other weapons (games aside, I will talk about that later). So the claim that the cannons/gun in the shields, or that the entire shield, is called GN Cannons are speculations. Both the sources listed above still call the shoulder-mounted equipment as shields, so it is possible the cannons/guns are mounted in shields called GN Shield.

Since R3 is modeled after Virtue, the double-barrel guns should be GN Cannons and the shoulder-mounted shields should be GN Shields; I dare not call them GN Shield Cannons.

When did I say anything about calling them GN Shield Cannons? Again my issues are 1) the lack of official sources for your naming of the weapon and 2) your description of the entire shoulder-mounted equipment as GN Cannons. Having cannons in shields and having cannon taking on the form of shields, as per your description, are different things.

• 2) This entire part is pretty pointless: "CB engineers have found ways to enhance its assault units with various gun configurations and particle manipulation for special attacks. It's unclear if there are any special gun configurations between its guns and shields for a powerful blast like Burst Mode. The fate of Dynames' sniper system is unclear; it is presumed to be removed or refitted to its new orientation." It doesn't really tell us anything new... Oh yes, since an earlier part of the paragraph talk about GN Bazooka, my previous edit did state why the GN Bazooka is different.

I'll recheck the edit and I'll make sure it's included.

Nothing about the entire pointless part that I noted? Oh yes, while you are rechecking the edit, add back the part about the reason for the front skirt verniers. It is more than just enhancing mobility.

• 3)The part about the front skirt GN Missile is dumb. Why bother stating how many missiles there are and then say they are omitted? Just outright say the missiles are omitted. (hell, the part about front skirt on the torso and the red plate is stupidly pointless... I mean the front skirt is already a location.)

I wrote it as if I'm new to the topic and I wrote it the way I would've like to be informed. Details are important to me and if you removed the skirt, does that mean there are still missiles or zero missiles? The red plate has been enlarged and placed with a vent, what does it do? It's okay to not know what it does, but it matters when you don't mention the changes.

You wrote the page the way you like to be informed? Isn't that a bit backwards? You should take the reader's view isn't it? Since when did I say anything about removing mention of the skirt? I mean the words "front skirt" is already a description of the location, so why bother on the "on the torso" BS? Anyway thank goodness that part has been edited out, and is now more to what I have in mind. As for the change to the red plate. Sigh..., people have eyes you know. If there is a mention in the page that there is limited info on machine, I think most people should know not to expect every changes to be explained. Hell, sometimes the mecha designer change some parts just for the look or some other reasons and they don't really explain it. TLDR, not every change have to be mentioned and explained.

• 4) On the point of weaponry, a simple line to the effect of "currently its only known weapons are A, B, C" should be enough. No need to say we don't know if the knee missiles are still intact. Heck, something similar can be applied to my point 2 above. Just say info on the Gundam is limited, and then write all the confirmed stuff.

I'll look into it.

• 5) The part about Laetitia is mostly unnecessary. "Advanced multi-tasking" - what do you mean by advanced? He can multi-task more than a regular human? Well, in S2, Ali managed to controlled 10 GN Fangs, while in 00P, Graves (an Innovade) fail to control 10 GN Proto Bits. The "multi-tasking" bit may be more relevant on Laetitia's page. Next this line "His quantum processing capabilities allows the meister to manage Dynames' systems while communicating with its tactical network in tandem". You mean a regular human meisters cannot multi-task? Also "Laetitia battles enemy forces as an experienced veteran against enemy forces", I think that can be better worded.

Scientifically speaking (as in real life), it's proven humans can't multi-task. You can Google it and Harvard research along with other studies have proven humans can't fully balance two complicated tasks at the same time This is why Lockon Stratos had a Haro help him with fire controls. However, Innovade brains were designed to co-process information with Veda with its quantum processing abilities. Since I don't know what were the conditions with Graves in 00P, I can only guess either his quantum processing abilities are limited, a lack of a bit control system, the Gundam had a flaw that affected his piloting abilities or it was a plot of convenience.

Question, are you keeping up to date with the research and will you change it if some other research show otherwise? If you aren't, maybe not have it there as that will be misleading. As for Graves condition, he is fine and have no problem communicating with Veda before and after the event I stated. Also, the Gundam is fine (you know you can check these things here, if Im not mistaken, the 00P page is updated with all the chapter summary.) Heck, the related 00P chapter even wrote that practise can help improve the remote weaponry control. Also, what does Laetitia having QBW really have to do with Dynames RIII, it doesn't really have a unique effect on the machine. These info might be more suitable for Laetitia's own page really.

• 6) "Dynames' original GN Drive has been moved over to Gundam Zabanya since its R1 refit." Gee, isn't there a Gundam with the model number of GN-006 before Zabanya? As for it being powered by GN Condenser, AFAIK that is from a game, which bring me to my last point.

True, it moved over to Cherudim first, but I wrote it as from "A to C" vs "A,B,C". And since Zanbanya is really Cherudim-remade, I didn't see the grand difference.

Zabanya is Not Cherudim-remade. Cherudim is still running around during AD 2314 as Cherudim SAGA operated by Fereshte. Zabanya merely reuse the Cherudim's base frame design, that is CB make another identical base frame, I don't consider that as Cherudim-remade. Anyway the part I have issue with have been edited out, so this is resolved.

• 7) I'm a bit wary of using game info, unless it is a game original MS. Games sometimes add things for balance or some other reasons. For example, SD Gundam G Generation Cross Rays include ELS 00 Qan[T] and give it several attacks despite its MS profile stating that its capabilities are unclear. And here's some footage showing Dynames RIII capabilities in Gundam Try Age, yes, it does show the GN Field in action, but the yellowish-pink beam is a bit iffy. However, if I was given the choice of adding game info or take the current Dynames RIII profile here, I will bite the bullet and choose the game.Zeph08 (talk) 14:48, September 30, 2020 (UTC)

It's model box depicts the shield plating able to open to vent GN Particles, that's why I added GN Field.

What model box? AFAIK there is no official model yet. Please enlighten me if I'm mistaken.

I'm mostly agree with Zeph. We should focus on what we know instead of noting what we don't know, and anything unchanged from Dynames R1 or no longer apply to current version can left out. Even in current state, I think the article is too wordy for something we barely have info. --My girlfriend was a loli. 04:54, October 1, 2020 (UTC)

Guys, you have your valid points, but I always wrote the article from the novice's point of view and cover all basis. I would've liked to know what are all the changes since the R1 refit, from missiles to system alterations. If the information is unclear, I would still mention about it as "we're not sure" than leave it as a blank. I reached out to Bandai on FB Taiwan and Japan to their customer support division over this matter, but I haven't heard from them yet. I'll trim it down base on your recommendations. Give me a few days and I'll bring it down and you can give me your opinions about it later. Thanks! Taikage (talk) 08:54, October 1, 2020 (UTC)

Sadly, I don't think what you wrote really achieved that goal. Your speculations don't help matter. As for not mentioning things that we don't know, really it is a rarity to have a book or source that ever explain everything about a design.Zeph08 (talk) 11:59, October 1, 2020 (UTC)

The majority of the page now reflects closer to your original edit, anything else you have concerns with?Taikage (talk) 10:24, October 2, 2020 (UTC)

Dude you are asking Bandai customer support about Gundam mechanical info? Info that might not even exist? Quit bothering those poor interns and just leave things alone. YoshiSuperDragon (talk) 12:36, October 1, 2020 (UTC)

YoshiSuperDragon, I prefer to talk to someone of authority over the matter to settle things. I don't like extended debates when I can resolve it. While I have my doubts the Bandai rep could properly settle the matter, it never hurts to ask. Taikage (talk) 10:24, October 2, 2020 (UTC)

Please understand that Taikage is one of our early member (if not the founder of this wiki, IIRC) and he's likely pick up the writing style from Wikipedia's days. Although I prefer short and to the point statement, I'm aware that old habit die hard. --My girlfriend was a loli. 13:56, October 1, 2020 (UTC)

Kuruni, Gundam-Wiki was founded by someone else, but I was the most active (12 years ago) and was became admin for it. I believe I promoted you and a few others that I saw were the most passionate about the page so the work would continue and grow. My involvement is minimum these days, but the occasional empty-looking page draws my attention. I noticed this page was so empty so I thought I fill it in like I used to, but new editors have appeared and have their points about the matter as well. I have adjusted the article closer to how it used to be presented. What do you think?

Taikage (talk) 10:24, October 2, 2020 (UTC)