Anybody Thinks That Sk Needs To Redesign The Vf-1?

[Nightbat]

How is the VF-0 a redesign of the VF-1? Doesn't the Macross Zero era take place prior to the "original" series? I know that SK doesn't want the different series of Macross to be extremely related to each other, but if M0 is the starting point, how can you  update a design that does not yet exist?

375290[/snapback]

I say: just look at them AND look at the real world timeline in which they

were created by SK

[Phalanx]

Alright, fine but I was thinking that it would be better for him to slightly redesign VF-1 and VF-0 making it not too futuristic or too outdated. Just a suggestion for a perfect blend. Or at the very least, create an unofficial redesign of both variants.

[EXO]

Alright, fine but I was thinking that it would be better for him to slightly redesign VF-1 and VF-0 making it not too futuristic or too outdated. Just a suggestion for a perfect blend. Or at the very least, create an unofficial redesign of both variants.

375307[/snapback]

It can't be outdated because SK had already designed replacements valks when these were decommissioned.

[Metal_Massacre_79]

I say: just look at them AND look at the real world timeline in which they

were created by SK

375296[/snapback]

Does that work the same way for the Star Wars series? Did episodes 1-3 build upon the events in 4-5 since they were made after 4-5?

Edited March 1, 2006 by Metal_Massacre_79

[Knight26]

The VF-1 is a timeless design as it stands, true it has elements of the aircraft at the time it was developed which is what makes it so timeless to us. Going back and constantly redesigning something that is so ingrained in a persons memory is just foolish, that is why you spend so much time refining the design in the first place. I mean it is bad enough that Lucas reworks star wars everytime he rereleases it, but imagine the horror if he had the art department "update" the original trilogy craft designs to make them more inline with what we see in the PT. People would go nuts about it, and had SK redesigned the VF-1 again, for Mac-0 or for some other project and said that it was the VF-1 that always meant to be, and should replace all others in all other visual works people would be up in arms again, and you would be asking instead, why did SK update the VF-1 it was perfect?

Edited March 1, 2006 by Knight26

[Sumdumgai]

Well he could have made the VF-0 an "older" mecha design style and have the arms shoot off like rockets...

VF-1 is good as is.

VF-0 has many characteristics of the VF-1 but is less complicated. I mean there is no hideable heat-shield, and the hands stay out in fighter mode. It's got some nifty modern design elements added in, and why not?

The VF-1 fulfilled its role in SDF Macross and DYRL perfectly. The VF-0 fulfilled its role just fine in M0.

And anyone who has a prob with seeing little Sara's boobies, don't forget "warera rori konda" LOL

[JB0]

Why should SK redisign the ONE perfect design of his? 

375201[/snapback]

Nobody's talking about redesigning the YF-21.

I say: just look at them AND look at the real world timeline in which they

were created by SK

375296[/snapback]

Does that work the same way for the Star Wars series? Did episodes 1-3 build upon the events in 4-5 since they were made after 4-5?

375332[/snapback]

Well, actually, it expanded upon how Anakin Skywalker became Darth Vader, Palpatine seized power, and Luke and Leia were hidden away. So it DID build upon the original trilogy. It did it in a rather poor fashion, however.

And the designs are a definite yes as well.

Many of the vehicles in the new trilogy ARE redesigns of the original triology ships, with tweaks to make them look a little diffrent(arguably, like predecessors of the OT vehicles, though they look like contemporaries or even descendants in several cases).

Again, in-continuity timeline and real-world timeline are diffrent. There is not a team of cartoon scientists designing the VFs. They're being designed by a real person that exists outside of the Macross continuity.

The VF-0 was rather clearly based on the VF-1 in the real world.

In the Macross continuity it was a parallel design.

[Greyryder]

Leave the VF-1 alone! It's my favorite VF. The VF-2SS is a close second. The VF-0 is okay, but's just a variation on the VF-1.

[Sdf-1]

Yeah, Vf-1 is the only one I REALLY like. I'm still trying to get used to M+ ones, I've been progressing on it a little already. They just feel so non-Macross. Vf-0 is easier to like, though as said, it's a bit hard to accept in the Macross time-line at first.

[Metal_Massacre_79]

The point I was trying to make is that if you design a machine in one series, and then attempt to make another series showcasing the predecessor of that particular machine in a prequel story, if the predecessor has more advanced features/abilities it would seem illogical that these features/abilities were abandoned in the successor machine.

Basically, the post I was referring to stated that since M0 was created AFTER the original Macross series, the mecha (VF-0 in this case) should be more advanced than the mecha in the original series (i.e. the VF-1). Again this would seem illogical since M0 was supposed to happen before the original Macross series in the time line.

[Phalanx]

Well I remeber seeing pictures for SK's SWA-X1 stealth wing valkyrie and that was a perfect idea of what I was talking about with the VF-0. He should have stuck with that design instead of what we have with the VF-0 in macross zero. All Iwas just insisting that if he can't or simply prefers not to make the VF-0 or VF-1 look futuristic (not too futuristic), at the very least make it more streamlined. Like I said before, I can't stand the VF-1's boxy and pointy unstreamlined body and it needs to be smoothen out. The F-14 Tomcat has a streamlined body with out very boxy body parts. Even that fighter looks better than both the VF-0 AND VF-1 in my image.

[Sdf-1]

I can't stand the VF-1's boxy and pointy unstreamlined body and it needs to be smoothen out.

375445[/snapback]

No it doesn't.

[Phalanx]

OK SDF-1 If you and everyone else agrees that VF-1 should remain that way it's all good but I just don't see how any of you guys could like it that way. If you ask me, it sort of prevents a huge jet plane enthusiast like me from taking the design seriously. Sure, not every jet in the world has to look perfect but should still be able to get the job design with it's features. If I were to make real fighter jets, I would want them to lbe perfect in terms of a sleek viscous looking design as well as being extremely versatile just like the valks from M+ up to M2.

[JB0]

The point I was trying to make is that if you design a machine in one series, and then attempt to make another series showcasing the predecessor of that particular machine in a prequel story, if the predecessor has more advanced features/abilities it would seem illogical that these features/abilities were abandoned in the successor machine.

Basically, the post I was referring to stated that since M0 was created AFTER the original Macross series, the mecha (VF-0 in this case) should be more advanced than the mecha in the original series (i.e. the VF-1). Again this would seem illogical since M0 was supposed to happen before the original Macross series in the time line.

375431[/snapback]

Ah. I thought we were just talking aesthetically.

Tech-wise, it's more advanced(outside of the engines) because it was a testbed platform.

They forked it off of the VF-X project and put all the new toys that they weren't sure of on the 0 for testing before they integrated them into their mass-production variable fighter.

What worked could get rolled into the VF-1 line later, and what didn't work went back to the drawing board without having to refit all the VF-1s in service. The larger size would make it easier to mount and unmount gear and enable it to fit prototypes that hadn't been finalized and compacted.

!!!

Testbed explains the control continuity issue, too(flip-throttle transformation and unsegmented "dashboard").

The DYRL-style cockpit could have been one of the VF-0's tests, and the first runs of VF-1 used the TV-style cockpit. It's the excuse for DYRL(story-wise, DYRL was filmed with late-gen VF-1s instead of vintage Space War machines), but it only just now connected that you could justify the VF-0's cockpit the same way.

[JB0]

... a sleek viscous looking design ...

That word doesn't mean what you think it does.

[David Hingtgen]

Remove the fins and wings from an F-15. You have a box. Super Hornet's not much different. And the F-4 is just plain weird. XB-70 is a box with a tube on top. The F-16 was the first really 'blended' plane. (Well, you could argue SR-71 if you ignore the nacelles)

[Noyhauser]

OK SDF-1 If you and everyone else agrees that VF-1 should remain that way it's all good but I just don't see how any of you guys could like it that way. If you ask me, it sort of prevents a huge jet plane enthusiast like me from taking the design seriously. Sure, not every jet in the world has to look perfect but should still be able to get the job design with it's features. If I were to make real fighter jets, I would want them to lbe perfect in terms of a sleek viscous looking design as well as being extremely versatile just like the valks from M+ up to M2.

375459[/snapback]

First off please stop referring yourself as a "die hard fighter fan." There are plenty of people here who are just as interested, definately more knowledgeable than you.

I don't think it "needs" to be a sleek fighter either. The VF-1 is completely different from modern fighters. In its timeline its the first Thermonuclear powered fighter ever developed, and its a massive thrust increase from previous engine. Its engine can put out 50,000 lbs thrust, which is major increase than what we can put out today (35,000 for the F-22's F119-PW-100). Moreover it doesn't have to worry about fuel economy, something the VF-0 does. Drag doesn't matter for the VF-1.

The other need for sleekness is for stealth. However the VF-1 has an active stealth system, probably one that defeated most modern day detection systems. Therefore sleekness for stealth wasn't really needed either.

Finally, its the first attempt to build a transformable craft. Given this is a new technology, its not a bad start, especially when you consider how small it is. They certainly crammed alot in there, compared to the VF-0 which is quite large in comparison.

Finally I think the fighter looks fairly sleek, and to me, is a realistic start to the Variable fighter series.

Edited March 2, 2006 by Noyhauser

[1/1 LowViz Lurker]

I think it looks good as is. The boxy aproach adds a retro chic appeal to it. Like the racer in cowboy bebop.

And the comment about how if you change the vf1 you got to change everything after rings true as well. I like that the vf4 retains some of the look of the old vf1 still while at the same time improving.

There may even be design reasons to having a boxy look to it too. The zentradi had round ships and mecha (qrau, regult, the ships themselves) while the humans had squarish stuff (destroids, the sdf1, GBP Armor etc) so maybe it is just a style thing. Later when all the technology crosses over in later generations (ie vf22s looking like the qrau, the glaug being variable and used as a fighter etc) it makes sense to evolve the aproach based on the events and tech of the time.

The VF0 to me looks advanced but you can see at the time the f14 was being used by unspacy as a fighter in ep1. (before they started to use transformation) So it is cool homage to that time when that was the fighter pilots relied upon to illustrate the transition to the audience from that to the VF0. (but with more high tech look to it fitting of a sci fi audience)

Edited March 2, 2006 by 1/1 LowViz Lurker

[myk]

Nobody's talking about redesigning the YF-21.

Amen, brother...

Oh, my answer again to this thread is NO...

Edited March 2, 2006 by myk

[Hiriyu]

The VF0 to me looks advanced but you can see at the time the f14 was being used by unspacy as a fighter in ep1.

375539[/snapback]

I still think that it would have been cool for M0 to feature Dragon IIs instead of F14s, and maybe some Karyobin, but I guess that would have been uncool and retro too

I also am of the opinion that, no, the VF-1 does not need a redesign. Nor does the VF-0.

[JB0]

The VF0 to me looks advanced but you can see at the time the f14 was being used by unspacy as a fighter in ep1.

375539[/snapback]

I still think that it would have been cool for M0 to feature Dragon IIs instead of F14s, and maybe some Karyobin, but I guess that would have been uncool and retro too

Ywah. I was kinda disappointed to see real-world fighter planes showing up exclusively.

[honneamise]

OK SDF-1 If you and everyone else agrees that VF-1 should remain that way it's all good but I just don't see how any of you guys could like it that way. If you ask me, it sort of prevents a huge jet plane enthusiast like me from taking the design seriously. Sure, not every jet in the world has to look perfect but should still be able to get the job design with it's features. If I were to make real fighter jets, I would want them to lbe perfect in terms of a sleek viscous looking design as well as being extremely versatile just like the valks from M+ up to M2.

375459[/snapback]

I liked the VF-1 design when it came out in the ´80s and I still like it. I cannot see a boxy shape (the angular chest plate maybe), a MIG25 is boxy but not the VF-1. It is as elegant as other 80s fighters and looks "menacing" enough for a combat plane.

If you are the huge jetplane enthusiast you claim to be, you should see every design in its own context. Is the F-4 Phantom a beauty with sleek lines? well, no I guess!!!Does it look vicious (I guess that´s what you wanted it to be)? -does anybody doubt it? Does it need to be re-designed to be "serious" for your liking? No, get a F-22 Raptor and be happy with it! Sorry, but you seem to have grown up with F-22s, SU-37s and other real world stuff and you don´t seem to realize that older times had their own aesthetics and should be left the way they are. And, btw where is the beauty in a F-32 or -35 compared to a F-86 or F-104???

And what if a movie about ace pilots of WW2 is made, do you demand to change their Spitfires, Mustangs or Messerschmitts to F-15/16/18s to make it look more "serious"?

VF-1s are timeless beauties in my eyes and I will display them on my shelf alongside other planes or spaceships I like (anyone wanting a smoothed down X-wing? ), and I won´t demand a re-design of Focker´s Fokker D-VII just because it is a biplane!!!!

[bigkid24]

Well I remeber seeing pictures for SK's SWA-X1 stealth wing valkyrie and that was a perfect idea of what I was talking about with the VF-0. He should have stuck with that design instead of what we have with the VF-0 in macross zero. All Iwas just insisting that if he can't or simply prefers not to make the VF-0 or VF-1 look futuristic (not too futuristic), at the very least make it more streamlined. Like I said before, I can't stand the VF-1's boxy and pointy unstreamlined body and it needs to be smoothen out. The F-14 Tomcat has a streamlined body with out very boxy body parts. Even that fighter looks better than both the VF-0 AND VF-1 in my image.

375445[/snapback]

Correct me if I'm wrong but the military doesn't streamline their aircraft. If they're working on something better then it gets a different designation.

What's the difference between liking a new fighter that Kawarmori creates (like you said with the SWA-X1) and a redesign of the VF-1? Fighters aren't like cars that get updated every year.

[Mowe]

Ah...Confucius said: "Never temper with classic, especially the VF-1"

[Phalanx]

Man, it looks like this topic of mine is starting to sound very controversial. So I take it that there's nobody out here on this forum, not even a single person that agrees with me about this? It seems like everybody hates me for probably even bringing up this topic in the first place. All I was just doing was voicing my opinion on something most macross plans wouldn't give much time into thinking about. But I must admit I do agree with some of you guy's points about the VF-1 staying the same.

However, I got some few direct points I have to make out to others.

First NoyHauser I didn't say that I was the master know it all on fighter aircraft on this forum despite the fact that I know a lot about jets interms of history and technical data. I believe that you as well as others on this board probably know more about fighter aircraft than I do and thats great and I respect you guys for it. We've got something in common.Maybe we could be friends and discuss this more but I was just hoping that some of you guys would think more critical about this. No disrespect.

Second, for honneamise, I admit you do make a good point about those WW2 planes as well the F-18 and the F-16 and you also tell me to look at the fighters in terms of their design. Like the F-4 for instance, was a fighter designed for use during the Viet War, but it was designed for use in that present time which was the mid 60's. Mcdonnel Douglass didn't want the fighter to look futuristic because the idea to do so didn't cross their mind. The point is this: for something taking place in the past, it has to look like it was made in the past: future, it has to look futuristic, and present it has to look as if was made in the present. (Then agian, not necessarily for something to take place in the present because things made in the present tend to look futuristic)It's sort of confusing but when you think about you'll understand it some more. The F-16 and F-18 are perfect because it has a sleek body. I won't say streamlined because I know some of you are getting sick and tired of me using this word. These fighters don't have boxy and pointy body part's like the VF-1.

Finally for Big Kid, Fighter's actually do get upgraded, but not annually, but in terms avionics like a new targeting system, radar and navigation system. But then again I realized that the SWA-X1 was actually an official redesign of the VF-1(how dumb of me ) But like I said before, that would be a perfect example of what I was taliking about with the VF-1

[1/1 LowViz Lurker]

Well if SK decided out of the blue to remake macross, I would say yeah ok it might be a good idea, (redesign everything) but I would agree that the time would be better spent on new stuff.

To me I like the box shape because when you look at robots in thier robot mode, they look sturdy and in a way that blockiness adds to the personality. This is one of the reasons I think I like the vf1 battroid mode over the vf11 battroid mode, even though the vf11 looks more sleek in fighter. (the vf11s shoulders look exposed in robot mode - very awkward)

When you add Fast pack to the vf1 it looks even uglier. Like this massive chunk of crap is just bolted on its body as a crude performance boost to a machine ill-equiped to outperform the enemies who are probably veterens in space combat. (where the humans are better than them in atmoshpere) But maybe that ugliness is also part of the charm. Like the rugged beauty of the millenium falcon from star wars. Take away the original look and you take away some of the character of that and the nostalgia fans have for it.

So I guess it depends on how far do you want to go? If they change the VF1 that means the VF4 has got to change to reflect the first change made to the vf1 and so on.. I doubt macross will be remade though as many fans just want to move on to new stuff than revisit old. I was already freaked out enough how roy changed in macross zero. Looks so different from the tv series.

[Mowe]

Don't worry, nobody hates you. This is a forum, so people tend to argue hard for their views. Some of us are just a bunch of old hags trying to reminisce the VF-1 that we grew up with. I don't think anyone meant any harm.

You should be glad that your thread had stirred up so much responds. Unfortunately for you, your alliance is a little thin, perhaps your reinforcement will arrive soon.

....It seems like everybody hates me for probably even bringing up this topic in the first place.

375602[/snapback]

[Phalanx]

Good point 1/1 LowViz Lurker, But when you say that the VF-4 would have to be redesigned to show the derivative relation between the VF-1, I think it should be JUST SLIGHTLY.Not too overdone or too underdone. I also noticed that point you made with the M.Falcon from star wars. There's no need to redesign it to look more futuristic since it already looks that way. Same with the VF-19 AND VF-22; I don't feel that SK needs to redesign them anyway since the already look futuristic to begin with.

[Phalanx]

Thank you Mowe for showing sympathy towards my topic and opinions. I was expecting that at least may be 10 people would agree with me. I'm glad that my topic received so many replies to it because of it's controversy. That's why I like to ask good questions about things that nobody ever considered.

[honneamise]

Same with the VF-19 AND VF-22; I don't feel that SK needs to redesign them anyway since the already look futuristic to begin with.

375610[/snapback]

Ha, AGAIN you´re proving that your aesthetics and expectations are stuck in the present! You don´t feel a need to redesign the VF-19 and -22 because they look futuristic enough in your book BUT in fact they only resemble modern Fighters of today, mainly the SU-37 and the YF-23! Those are NOT futuristic, they are just state-of-the-art, nothing more.

If we have the same argument in 20 years, those modern planes will be museum pieces (the -23 already is) and contemporary fighters will again look different. In your logic the VF-19 and -22 will then inevitably look obsolete AGAIN, so only TODAY can you call them futuristic.

It´s not that I don´t get your point, I just find it rather short-lived because even "futuristic" design is always based on what designers have in their heads right now!

BTW don´t feel offended it´s just that long time fans don´t want their hero machine be changed!! Actually this thread is fun!

[Nightbat]

I just don't see how any of you guys could like it that way. If you ask me, it sort of prevents a huge jet plane enthusiast like me from taking the design seriously.

375459[/snapback]

?

A 'car'enthusiast can take a Ferrari 375 serious while it's just a

barrel on 4 wheels

A 'car'designer can't take a Lamborghini Countach seriously since it's

aerodynamics are worth sh*t, but it's still a beautiful car

-

I still think the better question would have been:

"Why does the VF-0 look so futuristic compared to the VF-1"

[Phalanx]

OK then honneamise, I do understand that that alot of these older macross fans don't want the beautiful VF-1 changed under any circumstance but like I said several post earlier, I would like it if SK would create a redesign of the VF-1 leaving the original one OFFICIAL and the late redesign either SEMI-OFFICIAL, or UNOFFICIAL at the very least. BTW Nightbat, that's a good question. I'll credit you for that idea!

P.S thanks honneamise for not making feel bad.

[Roy Focker]

This reminds me of my first online conversion about Macross. I was in a chat room. The question of what VF would you fly came up. I being a classic retro fan said the VF-1. Everyone else the YF-19. Of course Macross Plus was more current in their minds. The VF-1 seemed outdated. They failed to see it's mythlogical power. New and old fan stuff.

I'm like DYRL? anyone?

[Sdf-1]

My thoughts exactly Roy. Vf-1 is THE legend. And in general, I love good retro stuff. Dyrl is the perfect thing in every aspect.

[Mr March]

Man, it looks like this topic of mine is starting to sound very controversial. So I take it that there's nobody out here on this forum, not even a single person that agrees with me about this? It seems like everybody hates me for probably even bringing up this topic in the first place. All I was just doing was voicing my opinion on something most macross plans wouldn't give much time into thinking about. But I must admit I do agree with some of you guy's points about the VF-1 staying the same.

375602[/snapback]

It sounds like maybe you might be new to message boards in general (or perhaps those forums you've been on are very tame). As a general rule of the internet (not just MacrossWorld), people are a lot more forward, blunt, argumentative, and harsh online than they would ever be in real life. Basically, the anonymity and distance offered by the internet means many people feel ten feet tall and bulletproof, able to say whatever the hell they want without fear of reprisal (ie. a good smack in the mouth). Call it the ultimate freedom of speech or the destruction of tact, but best to be aware of it.

For my part I want to assure you I was merely stating my opinion. My opinion was the VF-0 is for all intents and purposes a modern VF-1, had it been designed in 2006 (with some deviations made to fit the Macross Zero story of course).

As for redesigning the VF-1, it could be done like Hajime Katoki-style from Gundam. But remember that unlike Gundam, Macross mecha designs must be variable and this places some constraints upon the parameters of the mecha. Change the VF-1 too much and you might as well just call it a different Valkyrie, especially if you alter the transformation type (from solid nose VF-1 style to say variable nose YF-19 style). Consider also that to many Macross fans, the VF-1 Valkyrie is a timeless design, like the X-Wing from Star Wars, the Dropship from Aliens, or Kaneda's bike from Akira. These are "THE" classic vehicle designs in science fiction, designs that enjoy longevity and praise and set the standard for future generations of creative artists/designers. They belong untouched and untampered from an anthropologic view.