Technological comparison between Macross and other Sci-fi

[RedWolf]

This thread is about technological comparison between Macross and other Sci-fi.

First off Macross x NBSG

Vipers vs Valkyries

Vipers are smaller than Valkyries. Now the big difference that I've observed vipers can do a 180 turn in .38 seconds. Valkyries don't do that in fighter mode as they are modeled after real fighter craft performance. But the advantage of a Valkyrie is in its three modes. Fighter, Gerwalk and Battroid.

In terms of missile load out a Valkyrie is greater. (Itano Circus effect)

Plus Valkyrie's have special additional equipment such as fast packs, super packs, armor or armor packs and fold boosters.

Vipers don't have FTL or special FTL equipment. Only raptors can jump.

In terms of speed that I'm not sure about the two which is faster. Vipers like most colonial ship tech require, refined tylium, which has a higher energy output than uranium but does not emit radiation though it is combustible. Valkyries uses thermonuclear engines.

[sucker4meltrans]

NBSG military technology is like comparing a musket to shiny new M-4. Valks can and have been shown to use real world space flight manuvering but for artistic reasons they usually stick to atmospheric flight style combat in fighter mode. A VF-1A in basic combat load still holds a huge advantage over a viper. the viper is unarmored carries only a few missles and a pair of 30mm cannons. the VF-1 has armor harder then a tank, head lasers, nose lasers, the gunpod, and at least 12 long range missles. The overtechnology thermonuclear reaction engines of the valk give it almost unlimited endurance in space and atmospheric flight (the only valk we ever seen getting refuled as far as i know is a vf-0 which ran on over tuned conventional turbofan jets). valks can shoot down multipule missles that are incoming towards it. Vipers just dont' stand a chance for them to take out a valk they would have to out number it even worse then a typical engagement vs zentradi.

[Mr March]

As much as I love Battlestar Galactica Re-imagined, they've made it clear that the technology is very grounded and not far-future science. "Naturalistic science fiction" as Moore himself has called it. Most of the technology in the series is basically modern day technology or near-future technology. Radar, machine guns, flak, nuclear warheads, kinetic weapons and so forth are basically everything we have now. The only areas of technology stretched in BSGR are those necessary for the plot, like power sources, FTL drives and obviously artificial intelligence/robotics. Their fuel and propulsion is probably very advanced as well, since the Vipers and Raptors are shown capable of escaping orbit.

Now this is not to say Macross is all that advanced either, since Macross uses plenty of "current" technology as well (radar, stealth, kinetic weapons). But it does seem clear that every science - especially by 2059 - has been drastically advanced by OverTechnology. Macross also naturally benefits from a lot of transcended technology from way back in the original series; super-dimension-energy cannons, reaction warheads (officially described as far more powerful than nukes), transformation technology, holography/volumetric imaging, rail cannons, beam weapons/laser weapons, pin-point-barriers/full barriers/repulsion fields, energy converting armor, cloning, and so forth. While Macross is not all that far advanced, it's clearly farther-future technology that BSGR.

Also, there's size to consider. In BSGR, 30 Battlestars was considered almost a quarter of the fleet. In Macross, there's easily a hundred ships in just one colony fleet. Also, the large-scale manufacturing capabities in Macross are far beyond what we've seen in BSGR, especially the rate at which the UNG pumps out colonization fleets. I think application counts for a lot as well. Those Viper cockpits (not to mention those view-obstructing canopies) are archaic by Macross standards. The cockpits aren't even using HOTAS systems and look like conventional technology built some 30 years ago in the 1970s.

Having said all that, I think that as far as science fiction franchises, Macross and BSGR would be a fairly close comparison. Kinda like Macross and Gundam. I think a good argument could be made to say valkyries from Macross and Vipers from BSGR basically handle and accelerate at roughly comparable speeds and feature similar "flight" technology, if nothing else.

Edited August 15, 2008 by Mr March

[Master Dex]

I have to say I pretty much agree with everything Mr March just said.

On a note about Vipers being able to do a 180 in .38 seconds. Valkyries can easily do that. With no atmosphere in space there is no need and in fact it is harder to fly like planes do in an atmosphere. Like someone said the only reason they appear to fly in space like they do in atmospheres (much like how Star Wars shows fighters flying as well) is most likely for artistic effect as I would think Kawamori understands the flight physics of space. He probably just wants it too look cool.

Having said that though I think how they tuned the flight physics in BSG re-imagined to be realistic in how things would actually move in space is a great thing and I really love it. Babylon 5 also did realistic space flight I believe. If Valks were to be more consistently shown to fly like this then the additions of gerwalk and battroid mode actually make it even more controlled as the engines can be practically pointed anywhere the legs can go so momentum control would be even easier for Valks than Vipers much like RedWolf originally said, the Valk benefits most from its variable nature.

Also in BSG, something overlooked, this isn't a tech comparison really just a science footnote but BSG accurately portrays space with little to no sound. There is of course no sound in space because of the absence of atmosphere. A lot of Sci-fi shows just depict natural sound in space because it would be boring to look at otherwise, but BSG does a little better. They don't do it perfect but most of the sound you hear in space on the show is radio chatter and background music which is synced so well with the action. It isn't perfect of course, you hear the engines whirring and the gunfire and some explosions but I like how they seem to be trying to portray space more accurately.

Edited August 15, 2008 by Master Dex

[Bri]

Short version: 1 VF-25 with Fast pack and reflex ordonance can pretty much take out the whole Viper wing and the BSG in one go;)

[Master Dex]

Short version: 1 VF-25 with Fast pack and reflex Reaction ordinance can pretty much take out the whole Viper wing and the BSG in one go;)

Corrected, and agreed with btw.

[sucker4meltrans]

1 VF-1S with Strike/Fast pack and reaction weapons could take out a viper wing and he BSG.

[Bri]

Dammit mixed up reflex and reaction weps again. sigh

[akt_m]

IMHO: I really see no point comparing fictional vehicles from diferent shows, anyday Kawamori could create a VF-35 with AT field and say: "it can even hold a nuclear blast, haha i created a valk that pwnz any gundam etc". Fortunately that's not gonna happen.

Edited August 15, 2008 by akt_m

[Master Dex]

Technically the VF-22 could carry two reaction warheads in it's internal compartments so that has already been done.

[akt_m]

Technically the VF-22 could carry two reaction warheads in it's internal compartments so that has already been done.

Ops, sorry i actually mean to survive a nuclear blast. edited now.

[sucker4meltrans]

bah most gundams are slow ungracefull clunky machines. nothing but BFGs and super thick armor.

[Mr March]

I have to say I pretty much agree with everything Mr March just said.

On a note about Vipers being able to do a 180 in .38 seconds. Valkyries can easily do that. With no atmosphere in space there is no need and in fact it is harder to fly like planes do in an atmosphere. Like someone said the only reason they appear to fly in space like they do in atmospheres (much like how Star Wars shows fighters flying as well) is most likely for artistic effect as I would think Kawamori understands the flight physics of space. He probably just wants it too look cool.

Just my opinion, but I think that's selling Macross short. I'll agree the infamous 180 degree turn/flying backward maneuver really isn't part of Macross but Kawamori and Co have clearly made much more than a token effort to portray proper weightlessness physics. All the Valkyries from DYRL onward are shown with vernier propulsion (this is especially apparent watching CGI of Macross Frontier). The FAST/Super Packs are also very clearly space equipment with rockets and thrusters, often shown in use during space flight maneuvering. Macross certainly gets the requirements for 3D movement in space correct and all the mecha are clearly built with verniers (with the exception of more exotic tech like the Vajra).

The 180 degree turn is also a rather superfluous maneuver given Valkyries simply transform when they want to flip direction instantaneously.

I will agree that the motion looks more naturalistic and more obviously space-based in shows like BSGR and Babylon 5 than it does in Macross. But Macross is a show focused on just more than fighter-based action; its a mecha show and the stylized approach to mecha combat is part of the attraction in anime. Even with all it's faults, Macross has always done a better job at weightlessness flight than things like Star Wars or Star Trek.

[Master Dex]

Just my opinion, but I think that's selling Macross short. I'll agree the infamous 180 degree turn/flying backward maneuver really isn't part of Macross but Kawamori and Co have clearly made much more than a token effort to portray proper weightlessness physics. All the Valkyries from DYRL onward are shown with vernier propulsion (this is especially apparent watching CGI of Macross Frontier). The FAST/Super Packs are also very clearly space equipment with rockets and thrusters, often shown in use during space flight maneuvering. Macross certainly gets the requirements for 3D movement in space correct and all the mecha are clearly built with verniers (with the exception of more exotic tech like the Vajra).

The 180 degree turn is also a rather superfluous maneuver given Valkyries simply transform when they want to flip direction instantaneously.

I will agree that the motion looks more naturalistic and more obviously space-based in shows like BSGR and Babylon 5 than it does in Macross. But Macross is a show focused on just more than fighter-based action; its a mecha show and the stylized approach to mecha combat is part of the attraction in anime. Even with all it's faults, Macross has always done a better job at weightlessness flight than things like Star Wars or Star Trek.

Oh yeah completely. I was giving a rather simplistic explanation there without going into details. I think Macross actually does a pretty good job in what it does. The very fact that there is RCS thrusters and verniers shows they aren't ignoring space physics, I never meant to insinuate they were. My point simply meant that one might come up with a misconception from Macross of true space flight because it isn't shown like others. The vehicles in Macross, especially the Valkyries, are so designed that they can move in space in such a unique way that because of the variable nature ends up looking very similar to how it flies in an atmosphere. Although the way they move in each environment is different it is just that the way it is done makes them seem the same and that actually makes the entire system quite efficient.

My post actually did give some credence to the fact that the Valks transformation capability does allow it to do things differently than the way other ships move I just didn't elaborate it that well. Of course instead of a 180 a valk can transform to gerwalk and shove the legs forward to reverse its momentum and then use verniers or even switch to battroid and use the inertia of the arms and legs to spin around and start off in another direction, something that is done often actually in the shows.

Agreed that is does do this all better than both Star Wars and Star Trek. I mentioned before Star Wars suffers from the effect that all the ships fly like they would in an atmosphere. Star Trek often over emphasizes the vague similarity of space to an ocean which has never been a good comparison (this is something I hope to see improved in the 2009 Star Trek movie since it is under completely different management from the kind of the past).

[sucker4meltrans]

time for the obligatory

[Master Dex]

Good thing I have little reverence to anthropomorphic hybrids of felines and sapient females.

[Valkyrie addict]

HAHA!... funny

in essence, Macross sorta portrays a bit of realism out of out of the ordinary technology and it's very enjoyable to watch for sure...

[RedWolf]

Mine is bigger than yours argument.

Well an NMC both battle section and city beats them all but lets see their sizes.

The Galactica beats the Macross in terms of length and width but the Macross is taller. Galactica's flight pods are longer than either the Prometheus or an ARMD.

An NMC battle section is longer than the Galactica.

But the Pegasus is even longer than a NMC Battle section.

But one thing for sure they can't build a town in either Galactica or Pegasus.

SDF-1 Macross

SDF-1 Macross: 1210 x 496 x 312 (length x width x height), 1200 x 600 (approximate, after 2012 overhaul)

Prometheus Dimensions, metres: 512

Daedalus Dimensions, metres: 488

ARMD Dimensions, Metres: 430 x 220 (approximate, length x width)

New Macross Class

Dimensions, metres:

* approx 7770 (Macross 7)

o 1510 (Battle 7, carrier mode)

o 1177 (Battle 7, attack formation mode)

o approx 800 (power plant)

o approx 5000 (City 7)

Battlestar Pegasus (Mercury Class)

Length 6070 feet (1850m)

Width 2444 feet (744.9m)

Height 1099 feet (334.9m)

Battlestar Galactica

Length 4640 feet (1414m)

Width 1821 feet (555m)[6]

Height 581 feet (177m)

Weight {{{weight}}}

Wingspan {{{wingspan}}}

Other Flight Pod

Length: 2018 feet (615m)[7]

Width: 361 feet (110m)

Height: 210 feet (64m)

[rapierdragon]

As cool as it is to see a Viper flip around and fly backwards on its inertia while the pilot shoots at the craft following him/her ... its just really very stupid flying. One good rock or anything (like an enemy mine or missile or a tiny nut having fallen off another ship) would zip right up your momentarily-offline exhaust/thrust vent and breach something, and the moment you turned your main thrust back on you'd blow up.

Only exception would be if there was some kind of camera on the rear of the Viper so that the pilot could still safely stear by watching where the ship was going while targeting the enemy at the same time. Even then it would still be extremely risky of getting smaller particles wedged into critical engine parts.

Think about it. Its why they keep runways and stuff so clean... you might not think a half-packet of peanuts is dangerous to the inner workings of a F-17 or whatever, but they easily get sucked in and accelerated to a velocity where they can puncture thinner structures (or jam them). And if that's just a few peanuts, imagine what harder items like some space-pebbles or spent anti-missile flak would do.

[Mr March]

You show me yours, I'll show you mine

Battle 7, Battlestar Galactica Re-Imagined and SDF-1 Macross

[Rookie_One]

time for the obligatory

catgirls are not good

find another argument

[RedWolf]

Nice one March.

It is interesting to note that most UN Spacy ships are smaller than a battlestar but a first generation Macross or a New Macross Class battle section to it are somewhat comparable.

But they are definitely by Zentradi designed warships.

Also colonial and cylon FTL is somewhat comparable to Fold engines.

But it is my opinion that Fold engines have longer ranges. They also require greater energy resource thus overtechnology reactors.

FTL drive requires a fuel source refined tylium to power it.

[Kronnang Dunn]

I find very fascinating and interesting the comparisons between elements of Battlestar Galactica and Macross... Since is pretty obvious that the original SDF Macross (1982) took lots of technological elements from Battlestar Galactica (1978). The new re-imagined BSG (2004) was in turn inspired by both the orginal BSG and SDF Macross... And now in 2008, Macross Frontier seems to have lots of elements from the new re-imagined BSG and the original SDF Macross...

Edited August 16, 2008 by Kronnang Dunn

[Master Dex]

I've noted the similarity between BSGs FTL technology and Macross fold technology before. I believe since in BSG they seem to have to do multiple jumps just to get anywhere that they don't have the power requirements or even possibly the knowledge of folding farther away with one 'jump.' Both types of FTL are some fashion of folding space, which is what is done by wormholes but in an artificial manner in this case. This is all despite the compendium's explanation of Macross fold technology which I don't tend to go by as much especially when Frontier's redesigned fold aesthetic makes my idea make more sense (I once gave my theory on it back then so I won't describe it here unless someone asks). On that note though by the compendium's definition it sounds a lot more like BSGs FTL drives anyway, but I digress. My point is it seems in Macross the fold system is far more efficient that in BSG but they are different universes so it really is just an interesting similarity.

[RedWolf]

I've noted the similarity between BSGs FTL technology and Macross fold technology before. I believe since in BSG they seem to have to do multiple jumps just to get anywhere that they don't have the power requirements or even possibly the knowledge of folding farther away with one 'jump.' Both types of FTL are some fashion of folding space, which is what is done by wormholes but in an artificial manner in this case. This is all despite the compendium's explanation of Macross fold technology which I don't tend to go by as much especially when Frontier's redesigned fold aesthetic makes my idea make more sense (I once gave my theory on it back then so I won't describe it here unless someone asks). On that note though by the compendium's definition it sounds a lot more like BSGs FTL drives anyway, but I digress. My point is it seems in Macross the fold system is far more efficient that in BSG but they are different universes so it really is just an interesting similarity.

I do agree that Macross fold tech more powerful than Galactica FTL.

A great comparison are the daring planetary surface jumps of the Macross and Galactica.

Bruno Global tried to feint the Zentradi by returning to South Ataria and folding at lunar orbit.

But as with the gravity generators the personnel has little understanding of the fold system.

Instead of appearing on lunar orbit the Macross folded to Pluto's orbit ,taking the whole South Ataria island with them.

During the battle of New Caprica the Galactica jumped within New Caprica's atmosphere and as it freefall lauched its vipers. Then it jumped before it could crash. Appearing on New Caprica's orbit.

Adama's flawless rescue operatiuon compared to Global's tech trouble.

Global's fold engine disappeared on him. Even Vrlithwai and Exsedol thought it was a boneheaded manuever.

[Master Dex]

I do really like that scene from "Exodus." The idea of jumping right into the planet to send reinforcements, brilliant. Cylons never saw it coming.

Yeah it seems in BSG the FTL technology can be utilized in a gravitational field but perhaps its range is hampered. In Macross is seems there is a very good reason why they don't fold in a gravity well. Of course it would have helped if the Macross crew knew why that was a mistake before doing it, lol.

[JB0]

To be fair, the Macross' systems were all still a bit flaky. The boobytrap caused some serious issues when they tried to use the ship PROPERLY afterwards.

That or Global's just making up excuses to cover for his crew's ineptitude in Global Report.

[RedWolf]

Though we have seen the Whale liner in Macross Plus fold within Eden's gravity.

Also M7 fleet managed to fold out of Lux despite Exsedol's warning. Though from what I understand the fleet has to be in formation for it to work..

[Mr March]

A Note About...Folding in the Atmosphere

It's probably safe to say that folding space can be achieved almost anywhere. Yes, the original series episode 3 featured a fold within the atmosphere that looked really dangerous. In that particular incident, many factors could have attributed to the problems experience by the crew of the SDF-1 Macross, specifically the ships proximity to the ocean and humanities fumbling inexperience with fold technology. After that one incident, the fold has been shown inside an atmosphere without problem. The Meltran Gunboat in DYRL folded out from the surface of Earth without a problem. The Protodevlin also folded a reaction warhead from the surface of Varauta 4 without a problem and they also defolded the warhead exactly where they wanted it to be (right outside the Stargazer in low orbit). I think it's safe to say the fold can be achieved anywhere and isn't affected by gravity or the atmosphere.

RedWolf

Thanks. I actually had the colored side views of the two Macross ships completed, awaiting addition to the M3. So I figured why not do a quick chart for the thread.

Yes, the regular Guantanamo Stealth Carriers and Uraga Escort Battle Carriers are much smaller than the Macross Class ships. They have fairly thick depth like the Macross ships, but they'd be roughly a third of the length of the BSGR.

EDIT Made another chart with the Uraga Class Escort Battle Carrier and both versions of the ARMD Carriers

Edited August 17, 2008 by Mr March

[RedWolf]

Now looking at that cool chart March just made me think about the defense systems of a battlestar, Macross and a NMC.

A battlestar has railgun battery point defenses also its armor is so thick that a nukes would not destroy it easily. The modern basestars are missile reliant, raider reliant and fragile. That's why Cylons relied on the the backdoors of the CNP made by Baltar.

The Macross does have battery defenses and part of those battery defenses are the destroids.

I assume the Macross uses energy conversion armor like a Valkyrie.

The Macross has a pinpoint barrier and full barrier. Which is necessary as the Zentraedi was using beam weapons.

For the Nmc's ... Battle 7 and Battle 5 from what we've seen don't have that much guns.

They do have missiles and reaction warheads.

But they do have more pinpoint barriers than the original Macross. Sort of a one trick pony with the big Frakking gun. Which has a better firing arc than the original Macross.

NMCs like Battle 13 and Battle Frontier have more batteries. Battle 13 to be appears more heavily armored. Battle Frontier having more gun batteries than any NMC we've seen. But again a one trick pony with the big Frakking gun, especially with Battle Frontier taking the beam projector out of the gunship casing. Battle Frontier from what I've heard has 30 ppb. Not to mention the repulsion field which I guess is a safer version of omni-barrier of the Macross.

If I was a Colonial and thought these UN Spacy people has all these cool stuff but I'd be calling them stupid for having exposed bridges. Colonial military mentality is that the CIC is at the most protected area within the ship.

They have these command towers just waiting to be shot.

[Mr March]

It's all a different interpretation of space combat. I actually really enjoy how well thought out the space combat is in BSGR. They use a lot of attack/counter warfare that is typical of real ship-to-ship combat. They have flanks, firing solutions, defensive fire perimeters, point defense, tactical limitations and all kinds of good stuff for warfare geeks like myself. It really is an absolute dream and it doesn't hurt that the show is also provocative, engaging drama as well

Macross is pretty simplistic by comparison. SDF Macross featured the most strategy they ever used in ship-to-ship combat, but it's basically aim and fire. Even the Daedalus attack was just a clever way to turn a desperation maneuver into a super robot moment. Don't get me wrong; I love the big guns of Macross, but there isn't much reality or complexity to the battles. I suppose it is a kids show after all.

I think BSGR resembled Macross as it was in the finale of Space War I or in DYRL, when it was firing all it's weapons at once and launching missiles from all the hidden launchers and destroids. The BSGR is like that in combat, using literally hundreds of guns with missiles as addition weaponry.

[Kronnang Dunn]

It's all a different interpretation of space combat. I actually really enjoy how well thought out the space combat is in BSGR. They use a lot of attack/counter warfare that is typical of real ship-to-ship combat. They have flanks, firing solutions, defensive fire perimeters, point defense, tactical limitations and all kinds of good stuff for warfare geeks like myself. It really is an absolute dream and it doesn't hurt that the show is also provocative, engaging drama as well

Macross is pretty simplistic by comparison. SDF Macross featured the most strategy they ever used in ship-to-ship combat, but it's basically aim and fire. Even the Daedalus attack was just a clever way to turn a desperation maneuver into a super robot moment. Don't get me wrong; I love the big guns of Macross, but there isn't much reality or complexity to the battles. I suppose it is a kids show after all.

I think BSGR resembled Macross as it was in the finale of Space War I or in DYRL, when it was firing all it's weapons at once and launching missiles from all the hidden launchers and destroids. The BSGR is like that in combat, using literally hundreds of guns with missiles as addition weaponry.

All I can say is...

Thanks, cause this thread needed a repeat of the exact same thing I just said

Edited August 17, 2008 by Kronnang Dunn

[Mr March]

All I can say is...

Obviously not.

But keep baiting, by all means

[Master Dex]

I love the space battles in BSG also.

I do wish the space battles in Macross were more strategic and not as March puts it 'aim and fire' which it indeed is. However with armaments like the Macross cannon you sure can't argue with results. To quote then Colonal Jack O'neill from Stargate SG-1: "It's a big honkin' space gun, General."

[RedWolf]

Now lets compare luxury liners with Megaroads and NMC. Since both have biospheres.

Space Park

Diameter: 381 m

Length: 1219.2 m

Cloud 9 Luxery liner

Length 251.46 m

A Megaroad has a length of 5200 meters and a NMC city 5000 m.

The NMC city being bigger has a 50 square km area.

In conclusion Macross is Macro when it comes to biospheres.