Seto Kaiba

Didn't expect it to get a Tenjin painting... it's just too minor. Any actual data this time, or is it just another "did not do research" sheet?

It doesn't take much to set him off... the Robotech reference/community site I'd talked about building for the disenfranchised of the Robotech fanbase has already been the subject of two of his two-hour attack shows, and we haven't even gotten around to building the damn thing yet. Yeah, pretty much... every now and again on Robotech.com there'd be a thread done in the form of "Hey! <D-LIST CELEB> <MENTIONED/MIGHT BE A FAN OF> Robotech!", and there'd be a bit of a brouhaha over it, as though it proved that Robotech still mattered. The only one I vividly recall apart from Tobey was Wil Wheaton (TNG's Wesley Crusher).

True... but there has to have been some reason for Egan to take the 78,950kg x 2 thrust figure and 48x high-maneuverability micro-missiles figures over the 68,500kg x 2 thrust figure and 12x missiles total. By the look of the model/toy packaging scans that Graham posted, it looks like at some point they made a deliberate decision to go with the more high-performance of the two options, and for them to suddenly represent it as being far less capable for no established reason is cause to suspect the alleged changes are just part of a slew of minor errors printed in Chronicle. That the VF-19 Master File appears to have reprinted them is just unfortunate, but it doesn't diminish the book's "cool factor" by any means. I'm kind of surprised that the toys show the line art for the VF-19F/S variant of the GU-15, but Master File doesn't. You'd think that sort of thing would be right up their alley, and that they might concoct a reason for why the five cooling vents on each side of the barrel vanished on the production model... (Mr March and I had a real head-scratcher moment when we first noticed that during color-checking on his VF-19F/S art) Were I actually doing any of that, I would happily oblige you... but I'm not. Not here, not elsewhere, and not in the quote you made from my post. There's a world of difference between what I said and what you're accusing me of saying. It's high time you set aside this prima donna routine of yours and stop throwing a hissy fit or ignoring others when they disagree with your theories. Now can we please stop this sniping match and get back to talking about the book? Thank you. I'm game. Mooching off Talos's copy so I can give you a quick answer... you're right about the HMMP-15 designation, but the diagram appears to show two HMMP-15 launcher assemblies installed in each bay. It looks like (Talo's reckoning here) the "long" version is an extended and tapered version of the "short" version, which appears to be the model of missile installed in Basara's VF-19 Kai in Macross 7. So it's the "short" model that allows six missiles to fit into each leg launcher assembly.

Yeah, that's about the letter of it... and when you think about it like that, it makes the Robotech lunatic fringe sound more and more like a religious cult. For them, no amount of evidence is sufficient to disprove the "truth" they find in quoting Tommy Yune and Kevin McKeever out-of-context. For those who don't believe (aka "those who've got working brains"), no proof is necessary because we know Tommy and Kevin are idiots, and that what the believers are reading into their quotes isn't actually what's being said. Let's not forget the crusades by their most (blindly) devoted followers to purge the unbelievers and the heretics (Macross fans) from their "holy land" (Robotech.com).

*sigh* I really need to stop reading this thread when I have neither my copy of Master File nor my Chronicle binders on hand. It's sounding like they REALLY dropped the ball with the VF-19 sheet... we see them fire more than that pretty much every time Emerald Force is ordered to sortie. Sounds like another error introduced in Chronicle by using sections copied and pasted from other articles. I'll review those two model/toy sheets again to see what they have to say once I get home... it would explain a lot if one is saying 12 medium-range high-maneuver missiles, and the other's saying 48 micro-missiles. Maybe I should just give the VF-19 up as a bad job and stick to working on translations for mecha where they don't keep playing silly frackers with the stats. No, I didn't... of course my access to the VF-19 Master File book is limited since I'm mooching off Talos's while I wait for my copy to arrive. I'm guessing sketchley didn't either. We have one set of values that makes sense and has remained essentially unaltered for over 10 years (the version on the Compendium), one set of numbers that looks like it'd gotten itself retconned out right away, and one "new" set from a Chronicle sheet that becomes more and more nonsensical the deeper we dig into it. You do the math.

Understandable... we got a bit off-topic while discussing the accuracy of the info that it's presenting. The Variable Fighter Master File VF-19 Excalibur is a book. Long story short, sketchley pointed out that Kawamori is credited as the book's "supervisor" (whatever that means) and that it might mean that unlike the MAT book that preceded it, the Master File series might be meant to be official. This prompted us to debate the accuracy of the contents, incl. its reiteration of an apparent typographical error (and subsequent nonsensical justification) in the VF-19F/S sheets in Macross Chronicle, pointing to the data in the Macross Compendium and how one digit was changed from the original number. sketchley suggested the opposite, that it was an intentional change. So, naturally, both azrael and sketchley asked if we were sure it was a typo, and suggested Egan's numbers, rather than Chronicle, could've been the typo, launching us onto our present tack of attempting to confirm where the original engine thrust numbers for the VF-19F/S in the Macross Compendium were obtained from... which we appear to have found courtesy of Graham. In summation, it's looking like the Master File might've been delayed while they waited on Chronicle's writers to do the VF-19 sheets so they wouldn't contradict it, and in the process, copied the typos too. The aforementioned suspected typo stated the VF-19S's engine thrust as 68,950kg, whereas the original number was 78,950kg, the new number being suspect because it's at odds with the VF-19S's greater rate of climb and higher top speed compared to the VF-19F, and that it's running counter to the usual Macross practice of giving "ace" machines more thrust than the grunt model. Chronicle also gave the -F a higher thrust rating of 78,500kg (the original we've had since 1997 was 72,500kg), which makes the VF-19S's supposedly superior performance with heavier weight and much less thrust that much harder to swallow.

It's possible... but I suspect there were probably others as well. There had to be some kind of motivation for him to cite 78,950kg as the correct number and 68,500kg as being no longer valid. I don't have any evidence to back it up right now, by I have a nagging feeling that if we do find out, it'll have to do with the VF-19F's 72,500kg rating. Seems that way... and I have a pretty good idea how it happened. It wouldn't be all that hard for someone to mistake the more familiar 24 missiles total to mean 24 missiles per leg instead, thus doubling the number from 24 to 48. That Chronicle's writers cited the 12-per-side and appear to have typo'd the 78,950kg figure does point to the 1/65 toy as the more accurate of the two, stats-wise. Which figure did Master File cite, or did it even try? (Possibly coincidental, but 12-per-side figures gives the VF-19F/S the same missile count, sans-hardpoints, as the VF-1 Super Valkyrie, as per the official cutaways which were reprinted in Chronicle) I also find it somewhat interesting that the writers of Chronicle used the same ventless GU-15 line art on the 1/65 box rather than version the YF-19 used that had the vents over the barrel assembly. The GU-15A stuff that Talos showed me in Master File had the gunpod down as having the cooling vents.

Huh... well, you're certainly on top of things. I hadn't even gotten around to looking and you've already found it. I think I can answer your question though. According to the model number printed on that box scan you posted, the Bandai 1/65 scale VF-19 Special DX "Blazer Valkyrie" was released in May 1995, and the Bandai 1/100 scale Valkyrie VF-19S Emerald Force plastic model (which I think is the one to which you are referring) was released in August 1995. Based on that, it's looking like the 78,950kg x 2 figure was actually the original, and the 68,500kg x 2 was an error or something. Just in case anyone wants to doublecheck, I found the release date info here. You can search by the code over the UPC and that should take you right to the data you want.

It's nothing new... their whole counterargument against the Tokyo court system's rulings about the ownership of Macross and its contents was made of remarks made by Alan Letz and Tommy Yune taken out of context to a ridiculous degree.

Wait, WHAT? Are you serious? (You sure we're talking about the same show here?) When was the last time we even saw a VF engaging targets at long range using long range ordinance? The ONLY example that I can think of is the opening fight scene in DYRL! Like 99.9999% of combat in Macross occurs at EXTREMELY short ranges, and usually with micro-missiles! Excluding Operation Stargazer and the opening bit of the battle between the YF-19 and YF-21 in Macross Plus, I don't think we've ever even seen the VF-19 or VF-22 equipped with long range ordinance, and in both cases it was either used not at all or used at extremely short ranges. That's not even close to what Graham said... what he actually DID say was that it would be interesting to see if Chronicle or other sources backed up his theory that the more streamlined VF-19F/S was meant to be a design with improved overall performance that would eventually replace the VF-19A. He also had this to say about the alleged retcon thrust figures that form the core of your theory: I'm retching a little just thinking about it... gonna have to have Talos show me that one later. Yeah, I'm getting that vibe too... I vaguely remember some fighter from Gundam doing something along those lines... I think it was from the UC, but I can't remember which show.

Um... there was never a time when that guy wasn't five beers short of a six pack dude... you must've just caught him during one of his brief interludes of not being a complete jackass. He hasn't changed one jot in the seven or so years since I first met him back during the days when Robotech.com wasn't a complete sack of crap. Case in point... Who're you kidding? RTX is run by, and moderated by, the members of the Robotech lunatic fringe. The only reason Bendo hasn't been reinstated there and given a mod post too (like Maverick_LSC and JuanRT got) is because MEMO's co-admin SIGHUP said that the only way he'd permit it is if MEMO reinstated me too... something MEMO would NEVER EVER do because I exposed him as an ignorant ass far too many times for him to be comfortable with it. I did find it funny that, after Bendo got banned from RTX he swore up and down he'd never go back... then just a few months later he tried creeping back under half a dozen different pseudonyms, only to get banned again each time, and topping it off by proclaiming that since they tossed him out the site must really be MacrossWorld 2.0.

No no no... they're gonna do the game first, and then make a shitty movie based on it and attach Uwe Boll to direct. It'll be like House of the Dead, just with giant robots. Y'know, I half-expect this to be headline news on RobotechX.com tomorrow. Dammit guys... stop writing his material for him! BIG NEWS! BIG NEWS! TOMMY YUNE BOUGHT A NEW PAIR OF SNEAKERS! WHAT COULD THIS MEAN FOR THE ROBOTECH LAM?

Helped along, of course, by some astonishingly gullible people.

You and me both... unfortunately unless my buddy Greg writes me back quickly, I'm not likely to be the one who discovers it, since like 80% of my Macross collection (excl. Chronicle) is for Macross II and its related titles. At the very least, we've narrowed it down a bit to something published before October 1997. Still waitin' on my copy of Master File to arrive, but from what I've seen it looks like the parts I was hoping they'd lavish detail on (the GU-15 and the munitions bays in the legs) didn't get nearly as much coverage as I would've liked.

Ooookay... I'm not sure why MEMO thinks this is a revelation or anything unexpected? It doesn't mean Warner's serious about the Robotech-in-name-only live action movie, it's standard practice for any film with merchandising potential. If they didn't retain merchandising rights to a movie they made and it became a hit, the stockholders would crucify them. It doesn't mean Warner's fast-tracking the movie because it's a sure-fire success. It doesn't even mean Warner thinks they'll make the movie. All they're doing is hedging their bets while they have the license. Business as usual... the illiterate idiots of the Robotech lunatic fringe see a perfectly mundane piece of film industry news and assume that it means great things are happening for Robotech, and that the live-action movie is destined for greatness. It'd be hilarious if they didn't do it every other week.

After a cursory review of the original Compendium articles, they're definitely intended to denote old data that's been revised/retconned. Atmospheric thrust ratings are, on the few times they're provided, noted explicitly and separately, as on the YF-19 article. It seems safe to say the FAQ statement about the use of brackets applies across the entire site. In any case, it appears that the VF-19S's original thrust figure of 68,500kgf x 2 was revised to 78,950kgf x 2 almost right away. If your old print-out of the Compendium doesn't have the VF-19F thrust figure of 72,500kgf x 2, then that might explain what the motivation for the change was... keeping it in line with the general practice of having officer units with slightly greater engine power than the standard variant. What I think happened here is the Master File's writers decided to delay publication of the VF-19 book until they could make sure their numbers were in line with Chronicle, and as a result inadvertently duplicated the typos printed in Chronicle. It's not gonna stop me from buying the VF-19 Master File. Even if it isn't canon and it has a few mistakes, it's still wicked cool stuff. You're not alone in that... that's how I initially read it too.

Okay... I see two problems with this, but you've already foreseen one of them. The key that Egan provided (and Sketchley pointed out, and then resolutely ignored as soon as he'd noticed it contradicted his own argument) indicates that the data in brackets is material that's been revised/retconned. For reasons we can only guess at, the original number you found (68,500 x 2) was revised/retconned to 78,950 x 2. This brought the -S variant's performance into line with what we'd expect from a "leader" model. The change was apparently made fairly soon after the original number came out... even the earliest iterations of the Compendium article I could recover (1997 October 04) list the revised thrust rating of 78,950kgf x 2. Why wouldn't they optimize it for space? If we take Chronicle at face value, that's not the first time that's happened either (in-universe). If memory serves, the VF-4 was the main space bird of its day, while the VF-5000 was for planetside shenanigans. It feels weird for me to read about that too... an odd case of Macross II-isms intruding onto the main continuity. (Now if the linear actuator turns out to be Zentradi tech, you'll see what happens when my brain does the equivalent of a 4-to-1 downshift without the aid of a clutch) Still, as you've pointed out the idea that they would sacrifice the VF-19S's performance in space in exchange for enhanced atmospheric performance makes no sense either. I guess we could take the approach Mr March did in our analysis of it on M3...

Issues of giant robot feasibility aside, Kawamori and co. have at least a half-decent working grasp of the physics involved in powered flight and aerodynamics. It seems rather unfeasible that they intentionally generated an error that basic and obvious when they had a perfectly viable number that under which the other assertions about its flight performance (comparatively with the VF-19F) fit just fine.

Thanks for that... that's a big help. Now we know where the VF-19S's original (pre-1st revision) thrust figure comes from. Still gotta figure out where the revised figure of 78,950 that preceded Chronicle's odd assertion of 68,950 came from. Putting aside the questions of the source's accuracy, that would be a highly plausible explanation for the VF-19P being sold with the same engines as the military model, but lower thrust ratings. Detuning the engines would lower the fighter's performance, but extend their operating lifespan... thus reducing the maintenance costs. Something that, given that in the official continuity sources reduced cost has been a major factor in colonial gov't decisions to adopt various models of VF. The thrust ratings on Egan's site make sense and support the related assertions we're being asked to accept... IE that the VF-19S has a superior rate of climb and a higher top speed. The new numbers don't. That's a pretty clear indication that something's amiss. I do wonder when the 78,950 figure came along... somehow I have a feeling it came along when they introduced the 72,500 figure for the VF-19F, to keep with the established convention that "leader" variants have more powerful engines than the grunt version. EDIT: Gone back to the earliest editions of the Compendium (1997 version of the VF-19 article) and the amended numbers of 72,500 for the VF-19F and 78,950 for the VF-19S are still there. No indication of source, but that change was clearly made fairly soon after that model kit came out, no later than 4 October 1997. That it hasn't been altered in better than a decade of updates and maintenance seems like a fair indication that it's accurate, whatever the source was.

The temptation to respond to this post of yours with "Too arrogant, didn't read" is very strong. Do us all a favor and stop trying to handwave aside the opinions and thoughts of your fellow contributors here whenever they're inconvenient to your personal theories. Or we could take the opposite route: VF-19F 72,500 -> 78,500 = 1 digit difference VF-19S 78,950 -> 68,950 = 1 digit difference VF-19S 68,500 -> 68,950 = 2 digit difference We can also illustrate that there's a major shift in thrust from the most recent set of figures: VF-19F 72,500 -> 78,500 = +6,000kgf VF-19S 78,950 -> 68,950 = -10,000kgf WTF! We have a clearly established case for this being a simple typographical error on the part of whoever was doing data entry. One and only one digit was changed in each case, and there's a clear indication of how it went awry. I would very much like to hear your explanation for how with two aerodynamically identical aircraft, the heavier one with less thrust has a higher top speed at altitude and a greater rate of climb. I'd also be very interested to hear your reasons for why, if this "new" number is really official, the U.N. Spacy has suddenly reversed its previously established convention and started giving squadron leaders aircraft that are less capable than the grunt machine. It doesn't hold water Sketchley, no matter how much you want it to. And there is absolutely no evidence of any kind to indicate that this was intended as a revision, given that it runs counter to material on its own sheet in Macross Chronicle, and makes no sense when examined with even the most basic grasp of physics.

Let me point out another serious flaw in your reasoning... the data in brackets doesn't match what's in Chronicle and the Master File book either. So, what we have here is one thrust rating which lines up with the performance data and general Macross conventions regarding the flight performance of "leader" variant fighters (78,950kgf), one thrust rating that was revised a good while ago and is simply no longer valid (68,500kgf), and one thrust rating that not only reeks of "typo" but fails to pass even the most basic common sense evaluation when taken in the context of the other data provided. It hasn't "come full circle", it's a bloody typo. That it's two digits off from the old, revised thrust rating is just a coincidence. The difference from the "revised" number is far smaller. One and only one digit changed in each case. The leading 7 in the VF-19S's 78,950kgf was swapped with a 6, making it 68,950kgf, and either the original number was bumped up from a leading 6 to a leading 7 (68,500 to 78,500) or the VF-19F's original number's second digit (2) was changed to an 8 by mistake (72,500 to 78,500), or likely some combination of the two. Either way, the allegedly "new" numbers don't line up with the other data available. (In both cases, you have a "nearest neighbor" key goof) By the same token, I'd offer two pieces of advice... the first being that if a point of data doesn't make sense in context and runs counter to common sense, it's probably a mistake. The second is that if you're going to try and rationalize the disparity, it would be helpful to find a likely cause for the disparity first, to explain why they've suddenly started going against previously established convention. (On the former note, the VF-19P doesn't have official thrust numbers in Chronicle, so I would be extremely reluctant to take something of the Master File writer's invention as accurate. On the latter note, they don't appear to have ever actually mentioned that the VF-19 had an atmospheric limitation on its engines the way the VF-22 does) This raises an awkward question... if you consider that book unreliable because there's no evidence that Shoji Kawamori was involved in it, why do you consider the VF-19 Master File reliable? There's no evidence that Kawamori had any actual involvement in creating that material either.

Of course, there's also a world of difference between the efforts of someone who has at least some clue of how to create original material based on an existing series, and the feeble efforts of a man who only knows how to rewrite someone else's work. Any way you shake it, Macek didn't have a goddamn clue how to make original material... let alone original material that would appeal to the existing fanbase. It really is perplexing how Robotech fans hold the man up as though he was the messiah of the anime industry but treat every attempt the man made to do something new and original with Robotech as a horrid abortion. You'd think by now they would have cottoned on to the fact that just about everything they profess to love about the Robotech TV series comes from the originals. Given the impression I formed of the man during the few conversations I've had with him about Robotech, I'd say that the only way he'd ever depart the franchise to make way for someone halfway capable would be if he was being escorted out by security. Even then, I suspect he'd still hover around on the periphery and complain about the way the franchise is being run... rather like Tom Bateman continues to do. (Though admittedly Bateman has proven he can actually do something of value for the fans, Tommy hasn't) Pretty much, yeah... and I can't see a company like Harmony Gold that constantly plays it safe and refuses to do anything that doesn't have an immediate return on investment doing something as risky as sacrificing their small, blindly loyal, and extremely belligerent fanbase on a gamble like that. Completely purging the franchise of the old fanbase also means firing Steve Yun, Tommy Yune, and Kevin McKeever, who profess to have been fans before being hired by Harmony Gold. Ditching those essentially means destroying the only parts of Robotech that the existing fanbase cares about, and the only major thing that sets Robotech apart from Macross, Southern Cross, and Mospeada. Macross is, was, and always will be the only part of Robotech that 99% of the fans give a toss about, so Harmony Gold will NEVER EVER get rid of it until they're absolutely forced to do so.

Can't say it comes as any surprise... it's been mired in development hell for ages. I'm surprised they didn't just broom the whole idea and have done with it.

Because that would entail doing three things that Tommy is either incapable of, or just plain unwilling to do: 1.) Admitting to everyone that, while his credentials and achievements as the franchise's creative director far outstrip those of Carl Macek, everything he's accomplished for the Robotech franchise thus far has been for naught. (Understandable. Who wants to be forced to invalidate all of their achievements?) 2.) Owning up to the fact that the "original" Robotech story is a fatally flawed mess of plot holes, dodgy editing, and genuinely lackluster writing that is beyond any mere moral's power to salvage, instead of the universally-revered flawless masterpiece that Harmony Gold is perpetually trying and failing to paint it as... and that as such, rebooting the universe and starting over from scratch is necessary to polish that turd into something halfway marketable. 3.) Setting aside his own COLOSSAL ego and allowing someone who actually has a goddamn clue how to write do the screenplay. No, it's in a slightly different pose this time...

Indeed it does... though you seem to be engaging in a bit of creative misreading to make the data there support your claim. In point of fact, the original VF-19 Compendium entry places the thrust rating of the VF-19F's two FF-2500F engines at 72,500kgf and the thrust rating of the VF-19S's two FF-2550J engines at 78,950kgf. By contrast, the astonishingly unreliable writers at Macross Chronicle claim the VF-19F uses two VF-2550J engines (the engines originally identified as belonging to the VF-19S) at a new, lower thrust rating of 78,500kgf, and that the VF-19S uses two FF-2550X engines (an ass-pull if ever we saw one) rated for 68,950kgf. And your basis for this claim is? The Compendium gives the VF-19S a thrust rating of 78,950kgf to the VF-19F's 72,500kgf, which is consistent with the usual practice of giving "leader" models more powerful engines, the -S variant's higher top speed at altitude, and the -S variant's allegedly superior climb rate from sea level. Not quite... the text in Macross Chronicle indicates that the VF-19F has greater engine thrust than the VF-19S, but for reasons unexplained has an inferior rate of climb and top speed compared to the VF-19S. This makes no logical sense whatsoever. I'm not an expert on aerodynamics, but I can spot bullshit just as easily as the next guy. When you have two aircraft that are virtually identical aerodynamically, the lighter one with the more powerful engines ought to be faster at altitude and have a greater climb rate than the heavier one with the significantly lower thrust-to-weight ratio. For the VF-19F to have engines significantly more powerful than those of the VF-19S in space, and have those same engines be inferior to the VF-19S's in atmosphere (as you're positing) makes no sense... and crosses the line into absurdity when you consider that the VF-19F/S variants we see were supposedly optimized for space combat. Why would the U.N. Spacy give squad/force/team leaders a fighter inferior to the "grunt" model in its primary combat regime? Moreover, why would they do that when their usual practice is to do the exact opposite? Why is that? Let's go with the obvious answer... Macross Chronicle's writers screwed up and made no effort to correct it (not a new development by any means), and the guys who were writing the Master File blindly reiterated their harebrained mistake. On previous models, additional equipment on the leader variant didn't require any such decrease in performance. Thus far, there's no indication that the -S variant has any extra gear we could point the finger at. Um... what's your source for that? Chronicle or the Master File? Yep, it's Master File. If it's the latter, I think simply pointing out that it's a successor to the MAT book says all that needs to be said about its supposed accuracy.