KingNor

just not mentaly stable.

LOL! Yeah, an rc car, or even a $10 sling shot with a good sized rock would take it out. lIke I said before, check out battle bots. The legged bots never win. In fact, they usually loose in a matter of seconds. But that dino bot is super cool though. agreed, the dinobot is very cool. 1/1 you have any vids of it romping around? can it actually move under it's own power? do you know what it's called i'd like to look it up. sundown that's exactly what i've been trying to say, you did it much clearer than i could thanks!

1/1 the turrets man.. c'mon think about it.... tank turret 2 rotation points. 2 axis of rotation mechanical human arms holding a robotic mech gun: ball joint in the shoulder (3axis) x2 elbow joint in the elbow, duh (1 axis) x2 ball joint in wrist (3axis)x2 fingers (lots a joints)x5 not countng the fingers thats 14 axis of rotation all working togeather to aim the gun. NOW think about this logically. if they have the technology to make robot joints. they're going to use that technology in a tank turret too. so joint speed isn't a factor, they'll be similar in speed. (point being they won't use super technology in the robot yet continue to make tanks using methods from the 1980's) what in this situation makes you think that the dozen joints in the mechanical arms are going to work better than the two joints in the mechanical turret? forget for a second that one looks human and one looks like a tank, its the SAME technology in both. can you really tell me that using all those joints to aim a gun (which btw, is being held by robotic hands rather than being attached to the vehicle) that could be pointed using TWO joints instead, is really a better solution? as for that robotic dinosaur.. it's neat and all but i'm pretty sure my RC car from radioshack ($30bucks) could knock it right over.

Ask and you shall receive Just a comment. (Not directed at anyone in particular.) But ain't it funny how people can post gruesome violent bloody death pics directly to the forums, and my threads which had a clearly noted advisory and only contained offsite links to naked Misa artwork get deleted and I get sh;t on.... Hmmm.... real family friendly. Oh well. i've always thought it was kind of weird when violence is ok and sex is taboo. but such is life, and thats the society we live in, ya gotta just deal with it. and you getting sh!t on is definately a topic for a diffrent web site all togeather mikeszekely: you make some good points. it's intresting to think that the APHOS thing could be piloted by anyone, and the answers to it's questions could be false, and its mission can be halted by the pilot for apparently personal reasons. makes the ending a tad more ominous than "congratulatory" what i mean is that. the thing clearly wanted to blow up the earth and kill humanity. luckly the girl was able to stop it. what's that mean for the future, is it going to come back, maybe unpiloted this time? or with a professional pilot? also you make a good point about mankind having not actually developed interstellar space travel. I'm not sure what implications that error could have in the way the APHOS judges mankind. is it enough that we HAVE interstellar space travel, or is it important that we created our own methods? by not developing to the point where we could create our own space fairing ships, maybe we've missed a crucial point in society evolution. Perhaps the task of creating star ships is something better suited to a global effort. and effort on that scale with out peace could show that there is something wrong with the society. i think it's been shown that the Zentradi didn't create their ships, the Protoculture did, and i think the protoculture are fairly peiceful people that CREATED a warring people. the fact that we were GIVEN a interstellar ship and didn't create one on our own could possibly throw the APHOS's test way off. intresting stuff, good points!

i hadn't considered space flight/atmosphere flight. good point.

f-15s have real fast packs? like.. booster packs to make them go faster? extra fuel tanks i understand. because they're jetisoned and just help fuel the regular engines. just seems odd that at the end of mac-0 they knew the valks needed more horsepower but built them without fast packs anyway, then later added them. then built the vf-19, knowing it needed fast packs, then added them later thats odd to me. it must just have been done for asthetics.

i have kinda a noob question... i always thought that the valks in SDF/DYRL got fast packs because the initial design was proving to be too slow. now in mac-zero it seems that UN SPACEY was planning all along to always have valks, and then super valks. why not after the initial mac-zero design didn't they just incorporate the fast packs into the design of the vf-1? why do this: vf-0 SUPER vf-0 vf-1 SUPER vf-1 i'm just a little confused by the chronology of the fast packs. even the vf-19 and on had standard and fast pack versions. what is the reason?

1/1 low viz you make no sence, you're arguments and examples are speculation based on speculation. you offer oppinion as fact. and you're basicly talking out of your ass, please stop, and for gods sake cut the post size, wtf! wtf.. you'll die, did being able to fight hand to hand help the marines any? no. and if you run out of ammo how likely is it the enemy did too? very VERY implausable senario. my god man, tanks have no trouble at all lining up targets when on uneven terrain, where the HELL are you getting this reasoning from? turrets have sophisticated technology that makes aiming them a SNAP. and they already do it today. what the hell are you talking about? Have you ever driven a car? ever talked to a tank operator? operating machinery isn't this insanely complicated task that breaks your concentraition and leaves you vunerable. airplane operators and tank crews often talk about their machines becomeing an extension of themselves. this arguement makes no sence. a mech would require just as much training as a tank or plane. wtf. infact, trying to do simple tasks but with a even slightly diffrent body would probably prove to be very disorienting. driving a tank is simple, aiming a turret is simple. operating a walking robot is NOT SIMPLE. aside from jumping, a tank could do all these moves you mentioned, (it woudln't need to roll since its already lower and more stable than a tumbling robot) and in case you forgot, tanks can hide behind cover too. but you're also forgetting that a tank is infinately more strong than the average building, a missle could just go through the ply wood and drywall and still hit the targget. tanks are VERY good already at keeping their guns on target, they don't need to stop to aim or fire. i don't know what you're trying to prove here. what the bloody crap are you talking about, people drive cars all the time, its a very intuitive machine to operate. you turn the wheel and the car turns, it's EASY. i don't know about you but i can floor the gas pedal in my car much faster than i can get to a full sprint. no, actually, ignoring real world physics is the realm of fantasy, not sci fi. good sci fi does its best to UPHOLD the laws of physics and reality as much as possible. hence the SCIENCE part of the name. 1/1 seriously stop telling me stuff that doesn't make sence. dont' TELL me that turrets on uneven terrain are hard to operate when they arn't and that wheels will confuse pilots. that is total crap! don't tell me remote control cars will outrun humans when i've owned gass powered RC cars that could reach 80mph. dont' tell me cars are slower than the zentradi in macross, when NOW ADAYS cars will do 140 150 pretty easily and fast cars cacn reach 200, i dont' think any zentradi could run that fast. don't tell me complicated ass legs will ever be faster than wheels made with the same technology, wheels are simpler, they are easyer to use. if there is technology to make legs work, it can be use to make wheels even faster! don't tell me driving tanks are difficult when i have friends in the army that say its easyer than driving a car. giant robots are cool to look at, neat to imagie, fun to watch animated, you sh ouldn't need more reason than that. stop telling me a bunch of false and innacureate CRAP to try and rationalize them.

SDF all the way. too many great moments.

I really like the Monster, i wish it was more prominent in the serise. In fact i think most of the secondary mecha in macross are very unique and should have gotten more screen time. I think it would be cool if the next macross serise focused on a Destroid battle group, like a Monster, and some of the smaller ones that support it. it could be cool.

its true legs have advantages over wheels/treads in some situations, but for the most part. whee's/ treads are a better option. also, with so few moving parts. wheels will also be faster than legged vehicles. there is no way a mechanical leg could ever be faster than a wheel. it has to go forward, reverse direction, make ground contact, push, then stop and reverse direction again. wheels simply sit and spin. then there is mass involved, a wheel is a disc with a tube on the end. its balanced and symetrical, and doens't have to deal with general stresses of having the wight of the vehicle come down on it every revolution. a leg is not symetrical, has lots of moving parts, lots of connections like joints. is put under lots of un even pressure.. seriously, its just not a viable option. probably the only vehicle in macross deserving of legs is the monster. in some quarys VERY large shovels use platforms something like legs to "walk" from location to location. this thing is anything but agile. i... really can't make it any more clear than that, i've made my point.

hah you got that right, and that's partially my point: movies and works of fiction are a powrful medium that can influence people's decisions in real life. Wag the dog, Farenheit 911, POTC. It's almost a secret conditioning agent when emotions are concerned and people ignore the fact that the characters are not real (or not portrayed realistically) and the stereotypes of groups presented, untrue. In some instances it may not matter if the characters or events were real or ever happen the way they did onscreen. I love the God father trilogy. A movie like Braveheart is a great piece of entertainment but is it factually true? Nope. Do people know any better to care? probably not. That's what creators are hoping for. Fictional example of stereotype: final fantasy the spirits within. Characters right out of a cookie cutter videogame. The big tough guy, the ballsy feminist, the the skinny tech geek, the two leads who will eventually fall in love. And the left wing preachiness of environmental destruction because of ignorant men who don't believe in fairy tales. (play lots of japanese rpgs to know what I mean) Right away you could sense who the bad guys were going to be from the start and who the good guys were and who you knew was going to die based on how one-sided and mean they were in the movie. If a story is too obvious and preachy but doesn't offer a good resolution it can be a turn-off to some people. Like "what's the point of watching this?" If we are the bad guys for wanting to protect ourselves from alien ghosts/alien giants who are stronger than us, why should we be all loving and peacful and give up our resistance? They're monsters! Who cares about thier feelings. you take games and movies too seriously. good luck... with... uhh... nevermind. just... umm... yeah... good luck. no Kidding, chill out. and learn to get to your point faster. most people are going to just skip right over your mile long posts if you keep it up and if you ARE going to write something that long, use some literary planning and make it make sence. you're all over the place in most of your posts.

i dont understand toys like these, did the sculptor not even LOOK at the source material? who ever drew what went on the box did a decent job, so why couldn't the toy be made to look more "right"?

seriously man, you gotta stop reading/watching so much fiction. you back up you're world views with examples from movies and sci fi. thats not good.

1/1 lowviz lurker: you can't seriously expect people here to think that a robot shaped like a human would be a REAL LIFE better solution to combat than say a tank can you? i'm having trouble figuring out if you're argueing that the mechs in anime are justified or if you're saying that in real life mechs would be better. there is no way you can convince me that a simple tank with treads that run the entire length of its body and a good big turret is going to be less stable in uneven terrain as a tall robot that puts all its weight onto two tiny feet. even in anime its a streach. Macross goes a good way to try and rationalize it's machines but even so, i don't see the valks or destroids doing much that standard non-transformable machines coudln't do. you dont' need a robot to kill giants, a tanks gun would easily kill a huge person in fact i'm fairly certain there are human small arms that would probably be effective, like shot gun slugs and elephant guns, big sniper riffles. soft bodies are really pretty easy to kill with guns. you're argument for why mechs are better than conventional weapons is really completely flawed. robotic arms woudln't make things easyer to aim, instead 2 axis of rotation (like a tank) you'd have 3 axis in the shoulder, 1 in the elbow and another 3 in the wrist. not only that but if this was human shaped, like on legs... then instead of the stable hard surface of a tank sitting on the ground, you have your multi jointed arms balanced on top of two robotic legs with all the same problems of axis control. i'd bet most of the mech would be covered in censors and computers to calculated all this standing, movieing, motion and such, any damage to the mech would probably make it imposible for it to walk, move, or fight. mechs are silly outside of sci fi, and even in sci fi if not handled right, they tend to be silly. i am certain there will never be walking robot war machines simply because the technology needed to make them feesable would be incorperated into more conventional weapons platforms to make them EVEN more reliable.

i hope darth vader snowboards down some stairs on a sheild or random debris of somekind, when they did that in LOTR i was like "thats hella sick, legolas is tight" if they want to do a good space battle, i guess that would work too.

looks like r2d2 riding in a valk the froating head is a starwars fan isn't he?

hehe a high ranking officer and fighter pilot sit down to play house togeather. thats what's tieing this whole mess togeather? actually i think mzero fits relativly nicely with DYRL. maybe thats part of roys drinking problem, knowing all this f'ked up weird stuff happend and he can't tell anyone. so he drinks alot. claudia is alot hotter than that other girl so i'm thinking thats not a factor in his alchoholism.

nanashi, think you could add paragraph breaks in there? the text is pretty hard to read in one big block like that. a bigger font might help too..

yup

Well as soon as a torrent link dies, its unavailable. So I think you are SOL. oh well, i want sdf more.

So, if the monster was in a jungle, it could use the claws to grab tree roots? Because, just grabbing 500 lbs of dirt wouldn't help much I don't think. It's ok, the monster claws are silly, no big deal. yeah monsters are so friggin hard core, just the claws are a bit much. its nice that the monster seemed to have kinda a big role in the serise, it sends off the big nasty birdman. yay monster (now it can clap for it's accomplishment!) ***edit*** i REALLY hope that little girl wasn't on deck when that thing fired! "ow, my freakin' ears!"

newbie question, i seem to have forgotten where i can get all the episodes, i've seen 1,2,3 and all the pics of 5, where can i get them all again?

for starters, as an animation student, i can tell you the excuse that the animation is done today as opossed to 20 years ago is total BS. a professional animator can make something look like its moving properly without the technology of his craft to forceing him to make things look like they're moving faster and more impressivly. the mac zero valks look like they are outperforming the sdf valks BECAUSE THE ANIMATORS WANTED THEM TO LOOK FLASHY not because cg just makes things move better. seriously don't contest me on this. the bosters on the supervalk? not to boost the performance of the valk? ok. i might be wrong about that. i thought they were to balance for the extra weight. in any case thats gotta be why they are on the GBP armor.. but what ever i could be wrong on that point. and the monsters claws? well if the monster has a tripod already wtf are the hands for?? why didn't it use its tripod? the hands make no sence. HAD the hands been a prototype for hand to hand combat, and been shown to be inneffective, that would have made more sence, that was my point. i know the hands on the mk1 arn't for hand to hand. and i think i'm right about the launchers in the hands: Armament: (main) 4 x Viggers 40 cm liquid-cooled cannon (rocket) 2 x Raitheon LSSN-20G 3-barrel ground-to-ground missile launcher if i'm wrong please let me know how here's the source: http://www.anime.net/macross/mecha/united_...wr00/index.html ***edit*** ok i didn't realize the info i was looking at was for a mk2, so yeah the hands are only hands and not launchers. my bad.

i saw that quote too, but i don't like it. the claw on either side of the monster folds up into a missle launcher. Nanashi? is this quote from the source? i done understand what this quote is getting at. the monster mk1 has missle launchers on each side of the body, but they unfold into claws. (unless i'm mistaken and those arn't missle launchers built into the arms......?