JB0

True. The Valk cold also just be a very lossy system. There's a LOT of inefficency added by the variable configuration. Observation: it's impossible to get power from the stats provided for the VF-0, which was an important stepping stone. Unless one assumes a direct relationship between jets and thermonuclear turbines(that is to say, a given amount of force from a TnT generates the same amount of power as the same amonunt of force from a jet). This seems grossly illogical to me, as the VF-1 has a fusion generator that should be tapped directly for electricity, IMO. I'm just assuming that the VF-0 has severely limited electrical power available. Which could explain why the SWAG can only be enabled in battroid mode. Supposition that SWAG works in other modes in the VF-1 supported by Hikaru crashing a GERWALK early on(if I recall, he rammed the first building before he'd made it even close to battroid). Indeed. My thoughts, too. The Cheyenne seems to have sacrificed durability for maneuverability. Also possible: Assuming the "original" destroids can use SWAG, Cheyenne could be even lighter on power than regular destroids, dropping it below the threshold level. Well, yes. I was looking at it from a bullet standpoint. Personally, I'd bet against either of them being able to kill a tank from the front. Top, sides, back, sure(provided said tank isn't overtech-enhanced). ... Is anyone else getting the impression that the VF-1's specs are a lot of numbers thrown together at random? Heck, we've even got references to an "overboost" mode, which is borderline nonsensical(if I HAD to guess, I'd say it refers to running the turbines beyond their rated speeds/temperatures). Also possible: SWAG sucks out most of the energy available from the system when active. Like I said earlier, Hikaru's first crash seems to have been in GERWALK, and is certainly before the transformation to battroid is complete, so I'm hesitant to accept this theory. I offer it mainly in the interests of completeness. Observation: Looking at Compendium entries, it seems most of the destroids are based on the very earliest overtech designs. It'd be nice to see a destroid incorporating everything learned since the original was blueprinted. But if we just want to know who would win in a fight... Entry for the Monster: "The armor was designed to be rigid and extremely thick to withstand a reaction weapon explosion at close range..." Nuke incoming fighters. Stand still as the blast washes over you. Game, set, match. ... Designed to stand up to a nuke, and that beam weapon they used in the MacPlus OVA ripped through it like paper... ... ... ... Why do they still have reaction weapons, again?

It's not known that zentradi used any form of defensive overtechnology. And Valks VS destroids? Only instance I can think of is MacPlus, which was an exotic weapon to start with. But I intend to leap to the defense of the oft-slandered destroid here anyways. When equipped with an exotic beam weapon, sure. And I got the impression it was a limited fire device, based on the usage pattern of the similar device present in Macross 7. No valk has, to the best of my knowledge, ever been shown taking down a destroid using a normal gunpod. But that's an unrealistic expectation. A. A 105mm gun has room for a bigger, and thus more massive, slug. B. A 105mm gun has room for a bigger charge, allowing for more massive slugs to be fired at higher velocities. This will be explored in depth shortly. Aside from the impracticality of strafing ground targest at supersonic speeds, the inherent high velocity of projectiles is also something to consider. Let's crunch some real-world examples now... All numbers here come from quick Google searches, and in a few cases required basic arithmetic to extract. There is some variation among sources(mainly in projectile mass), but they're as close as I can make them. The A-10's GAU-8 fires slugs at roughly mach 3(speed of sound = 1130 feet/sec, muzzle velocity of GAU-8=3400feet/sec). The muzzle velocity for the Abrams cannon while firing depleted uranium penetrators is close to MACH 5(1676 meters per second VS 344 meters/sec). And the Abrams has a heavier projectile, too. Even though the DU penetrator is a sabot round, and the penetrator is roughly 27 mm wide, it's also a lot longer, and thus heavier, than the GAU-8's DU round(A-10=2/3s lb, Abrams=11.8 lb). But thanks to the sabot that fits it into a 120mm shell, it can get a MUCH larger charge behind it, enabling it to not only equal, but MASSIVELY EXCEED, the smaller projectile's velocity. So the tank has far more firepower than the airplane. IF you accelerate a jet to mach 2 in a straight line toward the target, projectile velocity becomes similar. But the tank still has far more punch, especially as in the above-described showdown the relative velocity of the tank penetrator has been increased to MACH SEVEN due to the mach 2 dive of the fighter. Now keep in mind that the Abrams is designed to shrug off a tank cannon impact on the front surface. The A-10 can ONLY kill tanks because it hits the lighter armor on the top. Otherwise it'd be like a mosquito among elephants. The Air Force WISHES it could claim blurbs like this... But the longest confirmed kill of the war{Desert Storm} was by a British Challenger tank, which destroyed an Iraqi tank with a DU round over a distance of 5,100 meters (over 3 miles). Even over these extended ranges, the DU rounds proved highly effective in penetrating Iraqi tank armor. In one case, a DU round "hit the turret of a Russian-made Iraqi T-72 tank, passed completely through the turret, and hit (and destroyed) a second T-72." For the record, the Challenger 2 cannon is the same NATO-standard 120mm caliber as the M1A1 Abrams(but the Challenger is rifled VS the Abrams' smooth-bore, though I don't believe it matters with sabot rounds). Now back to the show... I propose flying the Valkyrie down the throat of a Defender destroid. With 78mm autocannons firing 2000 rounds/minute at our Valk, at velocities of 3300 meters/second. Whatever the Valk's muzzle velocity is(sadly unspec'ed), the smaller caliber implies it's a slower velocity with a less massive projectile. We know the fire rate is a relatively paltry 1200 rounds/minute. If we assume destroids have heavier armor than Valkyries, since their lack of flight capability makes light weight less of a priority, and that they have the same defensive tech as a Valk(which is logical), the Valk would be eaten alive. ... Perhaps this isn't really fair, as the Defender is an anti-aircraft mech, DESIGNED to eat Valkyries alive(well, eat SV-51s alive, at least). But the Tomahawk's primary weapon is a particle cannon. That's exotic weaponry that I'm not learned enough to guess at, especially as no power output is given. I assume, however, that it's intended for use on land targets, and consequently that it is more powerful than the Defender's autocannons, as land units are usually more heavily-armored than aerial units, for the above-mentioned weight concerns.

KITT: "I TOLD you Micheal! NOW will you hit the dang transformation button, so I can start climbing this cliff you just launched us down?"

yeah, cause we americans are the only people obsessed with sports. how about canadians with hockey. japanese and cubans with baseball. and almost everyone else in the world with soccer. As far as I know, we take it to a more extreme level than most other nations.

Yeah I got also the old consoles (Atari 2600, NES, Genesis, SNES, etc, just no room to put them) But I do have the Roms for Dreamcast (NES, Genesis and NES), so I just keep the consoles in the closet. I've never been satisfied with the emulation of the Atari-era systems. And NESter has some major sound bugs, in my experience. Hence why I've not made much use of it on the PC. Makes it an inadequate replacement to me, though it's a great convenience. ... Besides, my Transistorized Altar* is a sight to behold. *A stereo, TV, CD player, and 8 game systems in a large stack that sort of resembles an altar, with the youngest system being an SNES. Not a particularly good TV or stereo(speakers are awesome though. And big enough to make the setup possible). Worse, I don't have room to put all my stuff in the one pile, so the newer stuff is in another room attached to a diffrent(and better) TV and surround sound system. But it lacks the aesthetic statement that the Altar makes.

It just means your eyes are better than other people's. Some can't tell that a VHS tape fed through an antenna lead to a bargain bin TV is any worse than a DVD through component cables to a high-end set. Some can't see how anyone can not tell. ... Obviously, there's a LOT of space between the extremes.

*sigh* I should get an exclusive agreement with every sporting agency for broadcast and video game rights. Then sit on it and do nothing in a desperate attempt to break the world of its insane obsession with sports. Edited by popular request.

Oh, HELL, yes. *grabs red paint and gets ready to add the light bar on the hood*

Oooohhh... I like the console colletion. Even if it lacks a bit of the old-school. NESter DC, I'm guessing? Oh yeah... if the cable box has HDMI or DVI out, you can get HD off that, too. And in a form that's digital, and thus essentially immune to interference, at every possible point.

Like the depths of your idiocy? You have a point here? We still don't know how to make larger LCDs. We're up against a wall, and all teh sales in the world won't change the fact that we can't reliably MAKE a larger LCD. Sharper image? Maybe when being fed analog signals, but that's due to ADCs, not LCD technology. And viewing angle is still an issue. Less of one, yes. But that just means you don't have to sit front and center. LCD projectors are only slightly smaller than DLP projectors. The size of the LCD is offest by the DLP color wheel. In a TV, this is an irrelevant diffrence. AndLCDs have the "screen door" effect. While LCoS doesn't have the screen door, and similar size to DLP as far as I know, a direct-view LCoS panel isn't POSSIBLE. Wow. Namecalling is SO impressive. Especially when you can't even spell your names right. LCDs have a screen door. DLPs have rainbowing. LCDs are brighter. DLPs have better contrast. HOLY CRAP THIS IS AMAZING NEWS! I AM ENLIGHTENED BEYOND MY WILDEST DREAMS! I KNEW ALL THIS AGES AGO! Also notable... you link an article about projectors, yet continue to talk about direct-view LCDs. An article that says NOTHING about what you said. Remember people... when you provide a reference, you need to make sure it's relevant. Because the reader DOES check them. Bellevue called. They want their straitjacket back. I like how you keep making assumptions about my level of education. And my level of intelligence. You are what is known in layman's terms as a self-absorbed fartwit. You think you're better than everyone, but when you speak it becomes evident that you know jack poo.

The closest I know of is Cassini. And there is no good PS emulator, except by comparison to Saturn emulation.

And SWAG stands for...? AWAG/RA 105 SWAG energy converting armor which uses Overtechnology [...] to triple the Fighter mode's armor strength in Battroid mode. It doesn't mention anything like energy shields. Energy is converted in armor, not in shield, more like shape memory alloy. On the other hand the PPB is portrayed as an energy shield even in the first Macross. *inane rambling deleted* It uses energy from the reactor to shield the equipped vehicle from damage. Hence energy shield. *sigh* I know I really shouldn't do this, but... How do germans and australians "correct" the news? By combining the information from one news outlet with another? Most Americans use more than one source of news. And don't EVEN try the "all news outlets are the same" argument. You can flip between news programs on the TV, get one article talking about how great the war is going, and another talking about how horrible it's going. On the same night, discussing the same event. Of course, TV news exists primarily to entertain, not to inform, but that's another story. Or do they just make up information to fix what they think is wrong with news in general? That's not correcting the news, it's, well, making crap up. It's still believing what you think should be true, it's just a belief that requires you to manufacture evidence. Which I've learned from many political debates is something americans are VERY good at. Checkmate.

One of the Plus episodes had it, sort of. One with the bridge bunnies talking about Max. One of them asks why Millia would leave such a great guy. Cut to Millia's office, she's shouting "HARDER!" and her clothes are laying on the couch. ... But it turns out she's just getting a massage, and her masseur is incompetent..

I believe the Monster uses much more armor than the others. I know it was tough enough to be considered a good test subject for the YF-19's beam cannon in Macross Plus. But not tough enough to be spared instant immolation. *cries* Dunno how original series destroids compare to Zero's Cheyenne. I assume favorably, at least for the Tomahawk and Spartan. Cheyenne has a Defender-style role. Priamry task is as an anti-aircraft emplacement. As those are more useful if they shoot things down BEFORE they fire than if they hit 'em after the attack run, I wouldn't be surprised if armor was sacrificed for deployment speed, size, or even just cost.

! Must. Have. Devastator.

And you are a dipshit who is ignorant of consumer electronic trends and the concept of supply and demand. Why not stop bashing me and go get your G.E.D. instead. A brain........it does a body good. Unlike some people, I actually made it through high school. Anyways... What makes an LCD expensive is the manufacturing process. Baring radical new fabrication techniques, we've just about hit the limits of practical direct-view LCDs. Supply and demand is irrelevant. We just can't GET larger LCDs reliably enough for a consumer price point to be viable. It's not a matter of people wanting them, it's a matter of being able to make them in volume. We can't, and there's no visible way to do it near-future. If you knew anything about electronics manufacture, you'd understand this. Or in words more appropriate for someone of your intellectual caliber... Bigger = harder, and we're already working as hard as we can. Depends on the tech used, as well as the kind of projector. Front-projection works great. I dare you to find a movie theater with a limited viewing angle. Try to find one with a DLP projector. Fun, I tell ya. No film scratches, no dirt, no nothing. And it's relevant. Weren't you just advocating direct-view LCD, anyways? LCD DEFINES limited view angle. Sharp as a marshmellow, I tell ya.

Just thoughts about mech VS tank... The Monster, Defender, and Phalanx aren't front-line units. And the Monster is basically one giant shock absorber. The Phalanx was jury-rigged for the sole purpose of adding missiles to the Prometheus and Daedalus in space. So I guess the ability to walk across the ship's skin is good enough reason to not be wheeled. That or they just didn't have many tank parts to work with aboard the Macross. Anyways, these three get greater terrain-handling capabilities with no real penalty, aside from increased repair costs due to the more complex mechanics of legs VS wheels(which is trivial next to the maintainence costs of variable fighters). ... Well, I'm not sure about how much the Monster can step over, but the other 2 almost certainly can. The Monster and Defender actually BENEFIT from their higher profile, given their intended rolls. Gives them a mildly greater range. The Tomahawk seems to be a jack-of-all-trades device. Big guns, anti-infantry weapons, missiles, everything all in one unit. Not the best at anything, but a good general-purpose unit. Primary advantage over tanks: ability to fire cannons in 2 directions while unleashing everything else in a third. Suspiciously similar to Gundam's guntank, only with legs. Legs make everything better. Rule of animation #1. Spartan... Aside from corp of engineers, I don't see much pre-zentradi use. It's primarily designed for melee combat(and is shown doing it a few times), though it has a few missiles and weapons(Tomahawk - cannons + anti-aircraft lasers + hands). Demolitions may be a reasonable alternative use. Would make a really cool bunker buster.

DLP projector! Darker blacks, brighter whites, and pray you don't see the rainbow effect.

That would be the most awesome fight ever.

Actually, IIRC, they've had SWAG since before Zero...It's just that Kawamori never put a name to that face.... SWAG would only be effective against kinetic weaponry (of course, both sides are using armor-piercing ammo so...). SWAG doesn't work for energy weapons. Sounds like a good excuse to me.

Because if they were energy shields you would have seen something that looks like them. FV It's called SWAG armor, moron.

That makes a lot of sense. I keep forgetting that little piece of tech because it wasn't introduced untill Zero. ... Though it raises a question. If they already had energy shields on fighters, why bother with the pin-point barriers in Plus?

MONSTER GIRL! YES! ... Wish I could draw.

Yes. A tragic test-flight accident left him crippled, so they gave him new cybernetic legs. And he demanded they add a foot to his height. </total_bs>

You gotta have Shockwave and Brawn, too. And.... MORE SHOCKWAVE! ... Wouldn't mind seeing Omega Supreme either, but I've always had a thing for overkill...