ewilen

Macross Zero *almost* licensed Repeating the key quote from that thread: If this is an accurate account, it raises more questions than it answers. Wrylac would probably assert that BW recognizes HG's rights to the Macross franchise, but all we really have here is BW acknowledging that licensing M0 without clearing up the HG situation is pointless. I.e., it's possible to interpret the above along these lines: ADV: BW, we'd like to license M0 for US distribution. BW: Sure, but we'll only give it to you if you can promise that you'll be able to use it. HG might get in the way--you need to clarify that situation. ADV: Okay, thanks. [To HG] Will you do anything if we distribute M0? HG: Not if you pay us. ADV: Great. [To BW] We can do it if we pay royalties to HG. BW: We've been through this before on the M+ Valks and M7 Trash. We will not license to someone who is going to give HG a precedent for claiming all of Macross. Sorry.

F-15K vs. SU-37 is kind of moot really since we don't know what capabilities a production version of the latter would have. Might as well ask F-15 ACTIVE vs. SU-37 and specify guns only...that might look like a Macross ace duel. If it's F-15K versus an SU-30XXX, and you don't restrict the fight to WVR, I suspect the F-15K might have an advantage in radar and other electronics, but I haven't looked up any details. (Elsewhere I've argued that numbers, pilot training, and AWACS would yield a huge US advantage in any conceivable real world encounter, but I assume that for the sake of this thread, we're looking at a hypothetical 1-1 between equal pilots.)

So far, the most useful links I've found are at http://faqs.ign.com/articles/496/496660p1.html (Walkthrough with introduction describing the controls, etc.) http://ntsc-uk.domino.org/archive/index.php/t-19581.html (Discussion following a review; one posting has a quick rundown of most of the controls) The info on controls from the above may have some omissions/inaccuracies--I've only tried the game a little bit so far. One thing I've noticed that I haven't seen mentioned is that if you're used to true flight sims, you might be more comfortable with the "Normal" controls instead of the "Easy" controls that a lot of people recommend. At least, I've found that with Normal I can roll the plane a full 360 degrees using just the stick; in Easy, the stick seems to steer as opposed to bank, like in Battlecry.

I don't know, I've never communicated with him, but I guess he's just taking a break from buying stuff and/or updating his website. (If you go to the main page, you'll also see more stuff that isn't strictly Macross, as well as links to a lot of cool photos submitted by others.) True, no 1/76's--his collection is almost but not quite complete as far as the old school stuff is concerned, well except for some of the crappier Takatoku offerings...for which see the Takatoku II files at toyboxdx. Low viz...nope, it hasn't appeared in Macross Zero. There is speculation that it might, based on the pilot's uniform, the aircraft carrier names on the stickers, and a general hope that the VF-1 will appear in the last episode to kick some ass...or at least make a cameo at the very end...but so far no word has leaked out to that effect. Oh, I forgot to mention that strictly speaking there are a few more paint schemes from the TV show and movie that haven't appeared in Yamato toy form. Such as the "Virgin Road" VF-1D, the Max TV 1A (a scheme that really deserves some attention), the Kakizaki TV and DYRL versions, and a bunch of obscure TV schemes/layouts that maybe only appeared for a few frames.

Ditto. Very nice, but still reminds me of Kim Basinger or Loretta Swit.

Weird? Sounds like if you play your cards right, you might be able to meet her, or at least get some stuff autographed.

I think it looks great. If your gf gets jealous, maybe she'd be willing to cosplay as Minmay (or Misa) for a new display (?).

Nope, mahq.net is a sort of "bunch of mecha and anime that we like" kind of site, although they've partnered with a couple of retailers to provide buying links.

This one's nice, kind of the Zentradi equivalent of the Spider Bug: http://www.mahq.net/mecha/macross/sdfmacross/recoverypod.htm I'm partial to the FL-200, too: http://www.mahq.net/mecha/macross/sdfmacross/fl-200.htm (note, officially neither "Mastiff" nor "Mistral").

Welcome to Macross World! You might want to check the newbie thread and pose further questions there. You can see most of the Yamato Valkyrie offerings at http://www.menet.umn.edu/~ngo/macross.html Basically, in 1/60 they made two slightly different versions of the brown VF-1A "cannon fodder", the Max and Hikaru VF-1A's from DYRL, the Fokker 1S from DYRL (which differs from the TV version in minute details), and the VF-1D from the first episode of the TV show--all without fastpacks. They also did a DYRL VF-1S Fokker Strike, Max and Miria VF-1J Supers (TV), a Hikaru TV-style 1J with Super packs, and the Elintseeker and VT-1 Super Ostrich from DYRL. Finally, for 1/60 Valks, Yamato released a 1/60 VF-1J with GBP-1S armor (as seen in the TV episode "Miss Macross" and for a brief moment in the opening battle of DYRL); the armor is also available separately. In 1/48 they did Max & Hikaru 1A's (DYRL), Fokker 1S (DYRL), and Hkaru 1S (DYRL), all of which come without fastpacks, but you can buy the Super/Strike DYRL-style fastpacks (slight difference from TV-style even for Super packs) separately. They also did a Low Viz 1A, which has never appeared in any Macross anime, purely as a cool limited edition. Finally, they did three 1/48 TV-style 1J's--Hikaru, Max, and Millia. The Hikaru was packaged with or without TV-style Super fastpacks. The Max and Millia are only available with fastpacks. Yamato has not made any Valks in the "Angel Birds" paint scheme that are seen performing in episode one. Those are VF-1As and (possibly, I'm not sure) one VF-1D.

Here's a longer version of the article on the F-2 being discontinued: http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/newse/20040808wo01.htm This can't mean they're going to just scrap or sell their F-2's...I assume that they'll keep them operating while disposing of the F-4's (I wish I had space for one). But if they truly are going to a two-fighter system, they'll need to make up for the missing F-2's. I wonder if they'll try to build a replacement or if they'll import? [Edit: sorry, hellohikaru, I didn't see your post until I made mine]

Although I've been defending the F-35's A2A ability, I can understand this concern. Basically, in a real world situation, I doubt you load up with the intention of getting into a knife fight. But in a CAP or escort, or Mig sweep mission it would be nice to be able to be a stealthy ambusher with AMRAAMs, while still carrying a pair of short-range IR missiles to deal with "leakers". About loading ASRAAM/AIM-9X (or possibly Python) in an internal bay and using lock-on-after-launch. While it's been discussed, it's not clear to me whether it would be possible to put both an AMRAAM and one (or more) heatseekers into a single internal bay. If they can't, then a stealthy F-35 loaded for A2A would only carry two missiles (in whatever combination of AMRAAM and heatseeker). It certainly looks like there's room for one or two sidewinders in place of the JDAM, with the AMRAAM on its hinged mount on the bay door--it's just a question of how much work it would take to mount them.

That sounds like the best guess so far, at least for the manufacturer. To confirm, you should compare the kana for "glamour" (since it's the manufacturer for several known craft in Macross) with this one. Ah, the entry is here, under "Military Vehicles and Support Equipment": http://www.anime.net/macross/mecha/

I'm sure you can consider those to be "non-newbie" questions--if you don't get an answer here, maybe you should try posting a separate thread.

I can't read the kanji but after puzzling over the kana for 10 minutes or so, I get something like "Kuranamo Spider Pod". Maybe Kuranamo is the manufacturer? Your model looks really nice. Good work. Edit: by searching on "searcher SFV", I found a color picture at http://www.kent.net/robotech/vehicles/rdf/searcher.shtml and http://veritechceo.xwlegacy.net/robotcopts.html Not clear if the colors are accurate. Also, I found the original japanese term on the web: http://www.yk.rim.or.jp/~akira_t/rbdble/pgm/macross.htm (below the QF-3000E reference, and no information other than the name) And here: http://www.geocities.co.jp/AnimeComic/4565...achine_m_o.html This is more useful, as it gives "spider bag" as the English name. And indeed, "Kuranamo" or "Guranamo" is the manufacturer. 宇宙作業艇 is translated by babelfish as "space job boat", i.e., space utility craft I assume.

That would be Manga International--the bootlegger outfit. Not Manga Video, the legitimate anime distribution company.

Yup, that's what I get for the F-35A, with a wing area of about 460 ft^2. Some variation in wing loading data for existing planes out there, e.g. http://www.afa.org/magazine/Feb1996/0296grayt.asp Or also http://p214.ezboard.com/ffighterplanesfigh...icID=8402.topic (Some data there might be metric) Anyway, if we can agree that the F-35A has lower wing loading than even the F-16C, I think that suggests it would have a better ability to make sustained turns in level flight. Other elements in dogfighting are roll rate and instantaneous pitch rate...I'm not sure we can calculate likely values for those, much less find the actual numbers for the F-35.

What gets me about the F-35 for A2A is that it can't carry Sidewinders in the internal bays. I've read that the shape of the airframe partially blocks the seeker heads. Also, of course no internal gun on some varients. Which means with a standard load of only 2 x AIM-120, it would be OK for medium range or BRV combat, but pretty much defensless in a knife fight. Of course, I'm sure that with external pylons fitted, Sidewinders could be carried, but then the F-35 losses it's stealth advantage. Graham Well, first, there's the potential of using ASRAAM/AIM-9X/Python with lock-on-after-launch (LOAL). But let's discount that--after all, it's not entirely fair to equip the F-35 with vaporware loadouts and not give the F-16 the benefit of potential upgrades as well. In the context of an F-16 comparison, we should be using the F-35A, since that's what the USAF and RCAF will be buying. In that case, we have an internal gun. And if we want to go knife fighting, we give up stealth to equip with two Sidewinders, and we wind up with the same loadout as the Falcon at same or slightly better performance. So--assuming development goes right (admittedly not a 100% certainty)--the F-35A is like having an upgraded Falcon, only with the added versatility afforded by the Stealth option for certain bombing and air-air missions.

If you want to use it on a US PS2, you need to mod your console. This could be as simple as the so-called "slide card" (although there have been warnings about that one's effect on the console's longevity) or as complex as soldering something into the system. Some of the solutions involve using a boot disk as well. (I'm using a flip-top cover with boot disk and it works fine.) I don't know what games have those Valks, but this one definitely doesn't have any VF's beyond the VF-4, which is apparently unlockable at some point. I think Macross VF-X2 may include some of the Valks you mentioned, and of course the M+ game should have some of them, but I don't really know anything about those games. Take a look at the main page (not the forums) in the games section. The big thread on this game is here: http://www.macrossworld.com/mwf/index.php?act=ST&f=6&t=281

I don't know, but these links suggest the answer is "no". http://ntsc-uk.domino.org/archive/index.php/t-25270.html http://www.ps2nfo.com/ps2hdd.html http://gametz.com/forum/USER%253A78696/topic/164726.html

Not to pile on, but, again, I don't think either Nied or I would claim the F-35 offers a quantum leap in WVR/dogfighting ability compared to the F-16. The point is that it will be about as good as an F-16 in that area (with reasonable prospect of slight to moderate improvement), and much better than an F-16 in BVR combat and strike roles, due to stealth. This is why I'd argue that Canada is smart to go with the F-35--at least if the RCAF hopes to operate in a bombing role. (One incentive might be lingering discomfort over Canadian troops being bombed by an American jet in Afghanistan.) If anyone remembers Gulf War I, when we were up against a reasonably well-equipped air defense system, there were a good number of strike aircrews that were killed or captured. Stealth should cut down on that occurrence.

Good job! I like the 2nd to last best, because the perspective helps hide the scale difference and you see a lot of detail on both figures. Two suggestions: (1) Light--you need lots of it. (2) In combination with the above, try reducing the aperture so that you get a deeper depth of field. That way both figures will be in focus, which not only looks nice but is also more "realistic".

People are asking different questions all over the place. Okay, after some more looking, I see you're right. But you're not providing any performance numbers. I've shown that the T:W ratio of an F-35A should be at least equal to a similarly-loaded Falcon. And furthermore, performance tells only part of the story when it comes to effectiveness; sensors, fire control, and weapons loom at least as large. The original specification for the JSF is that it will perform as well as an F-16 or better. How that will shake out over development is another question, but the data we've got so far suggests that's a reasonable expectation. Acceleration and top speed aren't well correlated; as far as dogfighting is concerned, top speed is relatively unimportant. I've yet to see data supporting the point. This is true. The emphasis with the F-35 is stealth, which for a bomb truck is a major improvement. Getting stealth while maintaining performance and not breaking the bank is the key to F-35's success or failure.

Why do you think so? Edit: By the way, according to F-16.net, the F-16E has a standard air-air mission weight of 29,000 lbs., and its engine produces 32,500 lbs. of thrust with afterburner, giving a T:W ratio of 1.12. I.e., no better than an F-35A. Add to this the fact that (if I'm not mistaken) the F-35A will have thrust vectoring. The F-16E has CFT's which should help with the drag issue somewhat, but so far it looks like an F-35 would be more maneuverable than an F-16. (Yes, I know there's more to it than just thrust:weight and drag.) What is interesting is that some accounts indicate that preliminary design concepts for the F-16E would have incorporated thrust vectoring and other enhancements which would have made it superior to the F-35 in most respects except stealth, at a cheaper cost, but Lockheed realized this would hurt the market for the F-35 and chose a less radical upgrade for the F-16E. Once you add in electronics, I think you can see that the choice of airplanes for a given country isn't a matter of the plane's potential, but how much of that potential the manufacturer and its government is willing to sell you. The manufacturer wants to market to a certain niche so as not to cannibalize sales of other products (which probably offer a higher margin); the government doesn't want to give away strategic capabilities which could be copied or used in unapproved ways. (E.g., we might not want to sell something which would give the buyer an advantage over another friendly country.)

At 8.75 m tall in "real life", a 1/55 Alpha/Legioss battloid/armo-soldier would be 15.9 cm or 6-1/4" tall. The fighter mode is 10.25 m long, so at 1/55 scale it would be 18.6 cm or 7-3/8" long. The Beta/Tread is 13.7 m tall in battloid mode, so at 1/55 it would be 24.9 cm or 9.8" tall. Fighter mode is 9.7 m long, so a 1/55 scale version would be 17.6 cm or nearly 7" long. I guess a combined Legioss/Tread would be around 15" long in fighter mode (there's a bit of overlap in length when the two mecha are combined, but I'm not sure how much). The battloid combo wouldn't gain any height over the separate Tread/Legioss, due to how they combine, but it would be more massive.