JB0

Its just obvious that there are a ton of spineless members who use em. I mean I get detailed PMs and emails from handles that just signed up earlier that day. You'd be surprised how many people will fire off nasty-grams immediatly after registering. I've been on the receiving end before, though admittedly not here. On one board I'm at, the viewing of all off-topic sections was disabled for non-members because people kept signing up just to verbally abuse people in the news and politics section(which is where most of the ... shall we say, abrasive... posts wind up).

I would disagree, but I hope I've provided enough evidence in my previous post to give you some food for thought. I've always felt the advantage of the Destroid over the Valkyrie lies in weapons diversity, far greater ammunition payload, and economy of design. Even in the original SDFM, the Destroids were far more numerous than the Valkyries. Although it seems that the UN Spacy abandoned destroids years later (probably because construction of Valkyries were perfected and engineering methods were refined), they do have a place as a more dedicated ground/surface unit. I've mentioned the SV-51 against destroids above and I agree. There may be some "unknowns" that would describe why the Cheyenne was easily toppled by the SV-51, but that's too much speculation. I prefer to work from as many knowns and examples in the actual animes as possible...and they don't prove favourable for the destroids. Working solely from animation is an uncomfortable standpoint, as the animation has ALWAYS focused on VFs. And hero VFs, no less. We barely ever see cannon fodders, unless they're exploding. We don't really KNOW that UN Spacy has abandoned destroids. We've not seen a situation where they're really appropriate since SDF Macross. Mac7 is mostly space battle, with properly-equipped ships(the big diffrence between SDF and 7 is that clause there). Mac+ is a test flight program. It's like expecting to see the Abrams figure prominently in a movie about the F-22 development. MacZero's only really practical destroid moments were used by the Cheyenne(new mech, poor performance) and Monster(which performed as devastatingly well as the fans expected it to). The manufacturing techniques that ALLEGEDLY make Valks better could all be applied with equal effectiveness to next-gen destroids.

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. On the contrary, not only must Zentradi mecha use some form of defensive technology (what sane military would build top-tier hardware with no more protection than your average Jeep), but a Zentradi mecha was shown partially resisting fire from a GU-11 gunpod (Max vs Milia). Mmm, forgot that sequence. I always figured Max just missed the important bits. As for it being insane to not use defensive tech... it assumes they have it. Remember, our barrier system completely mystified them. They were SURE the omnidirectional barrier was some sort of weapon. While we're on the subject... The zentradi reguld platoons seem to operate on the principle of overwhelming numbers. I'm not entirely sure it's top-tier equipment. The Cheyenne is an oddity. It has a massively diffrent design style than the SDF destroids do. We've discussed this one already. To recap: SDF destroids are built slower and bulkier. The Cheyenne is believed to have sacrified much of the armor of the HWR series for greater speed(heck, it has WHEELS). And Valks. Which is what I was saying to start with. The Valk isn't massively superior to the destroid. Armor and weapons tech evolve alongside each other. Basically, the zentradi mecha were built to resist beams. Not metal slugs flying at them. I would bet the zentradi armor would've worked a lot better against beam weaponry, because that's what they and (presumably) the supervision army use nearly exclusively. Zentradi missiles are far less common, and slug weapons are non-existent as near as I can tell. Front face of an Abrams is essentially, if I recall. Exotic = non-standard and uncommon in this case. I would file a GBP as exotic, too. The animation presents the appearance of a beam weapon to me. It's clearly not standard equipment, as Isamu isn't lugging it around the whole show, and it makes no future appearances. The closest relative I am aware of is Gamlin's Mac7 gunpod beam adapter, which is used as a single-shot device. I thought I just said that. Heck, I put the numbers up earlier. Usually in space. The rules of modern combat fly out the window for space combat. No wind resistance, no gravity(or at least vastly diffrent gravity). I cited that. SWAG is very likely the REASON valks can be crashed through bridges, rammed into the ground, etc. So it DOES need to be brought into the equation. And I assumed destroids have similar defensive tech to Valkyries. Again, you missed that I assumed destroids have similar defensive tech to Valkyries. And the Monster is designed to take close-range nuke blasts. There's no evidence a Valk can take anything near that sort of damage. And barring reaction missiles or what appear to be single-shot beam weapons, both exotic loadouts(and the beam adapter is only available on much later-gen VFs), a Valk can't DISH OUT that kind of damage, either. Stormtroopers ... I assume have poorly-calibrated weapons. Empire apparently doesn't want to spend the cash for accuracy when they can use superior numbers.

Heh, you're gonna want those 20 some odd hours of your life back if you find out that Macross 7 sucks goat testicles. Or he might be one of the people that likes it.

Oooh, I hadn't even thought of overtech thermocouples... Overtech might even provide a device that uses just heat, instead of diffrence between heat and cold. That answers the question. Pretty much how I'd guessed they worked too. Except I figured electricity was on a diffrent loop. Batteries/supercapacitors is a good idea. And the dual-source electrical system ... wish I'd thought of it earlier. They use .... thermonuclear diesel engines! Yes, I'm aware of the absurdity of that statement.

And it's only 100-something people out of a 2000+ member population. you know i always wonder how many are accualy active and not a multi-account. with 2600 members+ registered we should have atleast 300 members on at any time. You need to keep in mind all of the double accounts that the pussies have. They like to hide behind another name and send me nasty PMs, then block me from responding. What's with your obsession with multiple accounts?

If the model is just theory, I'm of the opinion that seperate electrical and propulsion systems makes more sense. Spinning turbines IS, however, the traditional way to get electrical power from nuclear reactors. If by model you mean the cutaway diagram I've seen posted a few times, you COULD have a more-or-less transparent electrical generator. Thermocouples in the reactor vessel skin would do it. Though not as efficient as other mechanisms, it's one of the simpler, and more reliable, arrangements. In the real world, NASA uses thermocouples around a lump of radioactive material to power their probes if solar power isn't an option, and they last for decades untill neutron bombardment damages them too far to be useful. If the valk burns a clean fusion formula(like the He-3 reaction used in Gundam), there's no neutron radiation to worry about, and the reactor and electrical system should last essentially forever. Another, bigger, problem... constant use of reaction mass in space(remember, VF-1 is a space fighter too, even if it's not a particularly great one). You have to have something to stick in your engine. Otherwise, nothing expands with heat, the turbine doesn't spin, and nothing happens. In an atmosphere, that something is air. In a vacuum, that something is your onboard reaction mass. Constantly spraying reaction mass out the engines is going to drastically cut your practical flight time, as well as making your valk hard to control(constant thrust = constant acceleration in space). And when you run out of reaction mass, the whole valk will shut down because you can't spin the turbine anymore. Comm systems, weapons, running lights, life support, everything. And yes, I DO realize this is how the show animates things. Virtually every space show ever made uses the constant thrust = constant speed fallacy, at least for visuals. It's what people expect to see. If the engines aren't firing, it looks like they're off, and we can't have our fighter powered down in mid-dogfight. Some take it a step farther, and show vessels coasting to a stop when the engines die. These shows exist to be mocked. I don't consider the animation of constant engine thrust to be representative of the actual engine operation any more than I consider the sounds of gunfire and explosions to imply that space isn't a vacuum in the Macross universe. It's an artistic liberty taken to make the show more appealing to the average viewer(who doesn't think too hard about the physics involved).

I'll take the V, take the o, and add a -ltron. ... Oh, come on. You KNOW you want a mech girl combiner.

I was thinking more a Tomahawk or Spartan. Point taken, though.

I'd just like to second what everyone else has said. An invaluable resource for idiotic fanboys arguing which mech would win in a fight(me, sadly), as well as the more rational people that just want some of the details that aren't animated.

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.