Valk Designs

[SchizophrenicMC]

Elements of its design were transferred into later valks: My reasoning is that the VF-19 didn't transform straightforward like a VF-1, rather it folds up like that, but in a different way.

[Mr March]

d3v

It doesn't appear the head unit would add all that much height. The rear and side views of the SV-51 Battrroid suggest the head tip barely rises above the two lift fans in Battroid mode. It may add half a meter, but I don't think much more than that. The only significant height beyond the lift fans would be the wings and the two outboard fuel tanks/missile launchers. They'd most likely add at least a meter of height.

SchizophrenicMC

I originally thought the same way, but after pulling the SV-51 transformation apart, it doesn't appear anything like the VF-19. The only thing they seem to share is a flip down nose, which Kawamori designed way back in the days of the aborted Advanced Valkyrie line for Bandai (see VF-3000 Crusader).

[ChronoReverse]

Looking at the SV-51 transformation closely for myself, I have to agree. The SV-51 on first glance in Zero had lots of parts going all over but it really is just a rotation and then fold overall whereas the YF-19 has this funky split then rejoin thing going on.

The 19 and 25 both have the cockpits rotating backwards after the split while the SV-51 remains pretty much the same orientation coming out of gerwalk.

Edited October 23, 2008 by ChronoReverse

[SchizophrenicMC]

My point is that the YF/VF-19 didn't fold the nose down, attach the legs to it, fold the fuselage in half, pop out the arms, and call it a mecha. It had all kinds of crazy stuff, like the SV-51.

Moving on, I was bored and I went into paint, drew a simple valk with elements of the VF-0, SV-51, YF-19, and VF-25 in it.

Attached is a side and top profile of the YF-29 Methuselah, as well as a drawing of how the nose section becomes the torso.

[ChronoReverse]

My point is that the YF/VF-19 didn't fold the nose down, attach the legs to it, fold the fuselage in half, pop out the arms, and call it a mecha. It had all kinds of crazy stuff, like the SV-51.

So is all you're saying they have a different transformation from the VF-1? O_o

Is the SV-51 transformation really that radical? Sure it has the crazy jointed wings but the torso transformation isn't that crazy. We still have the same fuselage folding in half thing (more like bending a bit) just with the new fuselage separating from the cockpit thing. The arrangement is different for sure but it's not like there are parts that have to rotate (vertically) like crazy to make it work.

In any case, I see it like this:

VF-1, VF-11: Fuselage folds, cockpit rotates forward

VF-19, VF-25: Fuselage flips on top, cockpit rotates backwards

SV-51: Fuselage flips on top, cockpit rotates slightly forward

Interestingly enough, the VF-22 and VF-17 are closer to the VF-1 in that they also rotate the cockpit forward and fold the fuselage onto the back.

Edited October 23, 2008 by ChronoReverse

[SchizophrenicMC]

So is all you're saying they have a different transformation from the VF-1? O_o

Is the SV-51 transformation really that radical? Sure it has the crazy jointed wings but the torso transformation isn't that crazy. We still have the same fuselage folding in half thing (more like bending a bit) just with the new fuselage separating from the cockpit thing. The arrangement is different for sure but it's not like there are parts that have to rotate (vertically) like crazy to make it work.

In any case, I see it like this:

VF-1, VF-11: Fuselage folds, cockpit rotates forward

VF-19, VF-25: Fuselage flips on top, cockpit rotates backwards

SV-51: Fuselage flips on top, cockpit rotates slightly forward

Interestingly enough, the VF-22 and VF-17 are closer to the VF-1 in that they also rotate the cockpit forward and fold the fuselage onto the back.

Essentially, yes. That is all I'm saying. The VF-0, VF-1, VF-11, VF-22, VF-17, VF-3000, VF-5000, and VF-2SS (Well, technically, it is a valk) have the same nose transformation, basically. The SV-51, YF/VF-19, YF-24, VF-25, and VF-27 have a... Different transformation than the rest. Given, it does look cooler...

What do you all think of the YF-29, so far?

[Mr March]

To my mind, the transformations have remained relatively simple in spite of the more robotic look of the final Battroid modes. They don't appear simple at first glance, but once you really take the time and effort to examine them, the process is not overly complex. Several transformations actually distribute the weight better, or more specifically, distribute more weight to more practical areas. For example, the YF-19 appears to shift nearly all it's weight into the bottom half of the mecha, including the wings. This would make the YF-19 bottom heavy with a low center of gravity for superior stability.

The need for new transformation systems also makes sense from a design perspective, since a simple VF-1-style flip transformation would never work for a variable fighter like the SV-51 or the VF-25 Messiah, especially with those long noses.

I have to make some color coded transformation pictures

[ChronoReverse]

Essentially, yes. That is all I'm saying. The VF-0, VF-1, VF-11, VF-22, VF-17, VF-3000, VF-5000, and VF-2SS (Well, technically, it is a valk) have the same nose transformation, basically. The SV-51, YF/VF-19, YF-24, VF-25, and VF-27 have a... Different transformation than the rest. Given, it does look cooler...

Ah I see.

Well, even for the Folding Fuselage, Cockpit Forward designs there's a great deal of variation up to the point where it starts to resemble the SV-51 design. For instance, the VF-17 also places a section of the fuselage on top remarkably similar to the SV-51 except that the head is where the fuselage bends instead of the back. We still have the cockpit tucked under all that (but the nose doesn't fold). The VF-5000 uses a similar trick.

Honestly, all the transformations beyond the VF-1 "clones" are quite different. Even the VF-11 has an interesting tidbit where the fuselage folds and splits in half. But I think I get what you mean now.

Edited October 23, 2008 by ChronoReverse

[Morpheus]

The need for new transformation systems also makes sense from a design perspective, since a simple VF-1-style flip transformation would never work for a variable fighter like the SV-51 or the VF-25 Messiah, especially with those long noses.

Got to agree with you there

Edited October 24, 2008 by Morpheus

[SchizophrenicMC]

Make the nose shorter, then...

So, what do you all think of the YF-29 Methuselah?

[d3v]

Make the nose shorter, then...

Why, the long nose is a distinctive feature of the VF-25 and VF-27.

Although if you think about it, the VF-11 had something similar in that it had a long neck that actually had to fold in half to shorten it for battroid mode.

[anime52k8]

Make the nose shorter, then...

So, what do you all think of the YF-29 Methuselah?

honestly? first i think the name is a bit odd, second I think the fighter looks a little stubby (in the pic+the color scheme I thought you posted an SD 25F at first)

[SchizophrenicMC]

Methuselah fits the whole Biblical naming motif... It's a bit short, but the VF-1 was shorter...

The VF-11 was the intermediate step between the original and modern valks. It had elements that would be in later ones, but many original features.

Edited October 24, 2008 by SchizophrenicMC

[anime52k8]

Methuselah fits the whole Biblical naming motif... It's a bit short, but the VF-1 was shorter...

The VF-11 was the intermediate step between the original and modern valks. It had elements that would be in later ones, but many original features.

one question on that, when the thing is cockpit facing down and backwards?

[Morpheus]

Can I take an example from Mospeada? The Armo-Fighter fold its entire forward fuselage upward and placed it on the back. The transformation itself seems much more simplified than VF-1.

I think the Varaute FZ series also placed the cockpit in the back in batroid mode since the forward fuselage folded multiple time and the tip of the nose strangely became the batroid head.

Not to mention the mecha itself is quite small in size.

[Mr March]

Make the nose shorter, then...

So, what do you all think of the YF-29 Methuselah?

Why not just make it the VF-1?

Seriously, the Battroid should be built around the type of fighter, otherwise what's the point of transforming robots? Might as well just make Gundam, Patlabor or Evangelion.

Honestly, I don't think much of it. It's somewhat truncated and awkward looking. It feels more like a WIP rather than a finished design. It requires more refinement.

Although if you think about it, the VF-11 had something similar in that it had a long neck that actually had to fold in half to shorten it for battroid mode.

I love the VF-11 transformation. It's such an underrated design, both as a fighter and as a Battroid. The fighter mode is so elegant and I love the football player silhouette of the Battroid mode. Plus the Protect Armor looks fantastic. Loves my Thunderbolt

[Sulendil Ang]

I love the VF-11 transformation. It's such an underrated design, both as a fighter and as a Battroid. The fighter mode is so elegant and I love the football player silhouette of the Battroid mode. Plus the Protect Armor looks fantastic. Loves my Thunderbolt

Seconded. I think that VF-11 is a very good design in terms of grunt VF. Love the Protect Armor as well.

Now, hurry up and get my colour-coded VF pictures done.

[ChronoReverse]

Seriously, the Battroid should be built around the type of fighter, otherwise what's the point of transforming robots? Might as well just make Gundam, Patlabor or Evangelion.

In that line, a transforming fighter based on the X-36 would be interesting and potentially pretty cool.

It doesn't have to look like it too much but a valkyrie without any tail would be neat especially if combined with the deformable wings from the YF-21. In-universe it would make sense too; a tail is dead weight in space after all. If you can design a valkyrie that didn't need a tail AND had better maneuverability (as represented by the X-36), that would be a design win.

Edited October 24, 2008 by ChronoReverse

[Mr March]

Now, hurry up and get my colour-coded VF pictures done.

Yeah, I don't like you anymore

I'm currently working on two size charts, color coded fighter-Battroid transformation pictures, and the SDF-1 and YF-19 animated gifs. I'm even doing one or two additions to the Game & Advanced Valkyrie section.

Here, look at this and leave me alone

In that line, a transforming fighter based on the X-36 would be interesting and potentially pretty cool.

It doesn't have to look like it too much but a valkyrie without any tail would be neat especially if combined with the deformable wings from the YF-21. In-universe it would make sense too; a tail is dead weight in space after all. If you can design a valkyrie that didn't need a tail AND had better maneuverability (as represented by the X-36), that would be a design win.

I can see a lot of the X-36 in the Ghost X-9, aside from the obvious parallel that they are both unmanned. But you're right, it's a good candidate for different kind of variable fighter. Like a VF-5000 Star Mirage kind of design.

[ChronoReverse]

Hmm, I didn't think about the comparison to the X-9 Ghost (although I honestly don't feel it's in the same vein), but that does give me some ideas.

The design of the X-36 allows greater maneuverability, greater speed and lower mass because there's no need for a tail or even vertical stabilizers. This alone would make it a lighter-weight design suitable for front-line usage and mass production. But let's have a modified version that's larger (at least VF-17 in length but not bulk). The extra space could be used to pack in the micro-missile bay from the X-9 giving this fighter a practical method to deal with enemies on its six! Or maybe make it an attachment of some sort that it can transform with (like the VF-25).

Thinking about valkyrie designs really makes me appreciate the YF-19 and VF-25 all the more though. Those are really beautiful designs.

Edited October 24, 2008 by ChronoReverse

[Mr March]

Yeah, it makes sense. A X-36 as a VF-5000 Star Mirage style variable fighter would be good. You could fit a lot of micro-missiles into the body of a full-siozed X-36 style valkyrie. It'd also be cool to see a new Heavy Battroid design like the VF-17. I like the idea of more varied operational role in the line of variable fighters. That's another reason why I really enjoyed Frontier, because it had the Fighter-Bomber VF-171 Nightmare Plus, the main variable fighter VF-25 Messiah (with the Super and Armor variants) and the mobile artillery VB-6 Konig Monster. The more combined arms they have in a fictional military, the more real it feels to me.

I like pondering the transformations. I'm currently working on some color code guides and I think they will help other fans appreciate the transformations as well. It's about time that the transformations got a little more spotlight.

[SchizophrenicMC]

It's still a WIP... Also, It's a quick drawing in paint. If I drew it by hand, it would look better, and make more sense. It is built around the Fighter. The Battroid would probably look funny if it was any more...

Look in the Fan Works section, under VF-1 Updated. The VF-25's like a long-nose, anorexic version of that. (VF-1=Me, the short, slightly stubby kid. VF-25=Ashley Olsen!)

VF-11 is a good VF. Mass produced a lot for that reason. Still in service after the VF-19 and 17. The UN Spacy people aren't stupid, I guess...

Even better, VF from this:

[anime52k8]

you know, when you think about it, a CFA-44 might actually work, though I don't think anything like the X-36 would work. part of what makes the X-36 so distinct is how flat it is, and I've found that it's rather hard to make a valk that's very flat, and looks good in both fighter and batroid mode.

[badboy00z]

The X-36 could be like the YF-21 in terms of transformation?

[ChronoReverse]

you know, when you think about it, a CFA-44 might actually work, though I don't think anything like the X-36 would work. part of what makes the X-36 so distinct is how flat it is, and I've found that it's rather hard to make a valk that's very flat, and looks good in both fighter and batroid mode.

Haha, I have the same problem with the X-36. The side view in fighter-mode doesn't _look_ very impressive unfortunately. The design theory makes sense though and I've been turning it over in my head all afternoon now. Hmm, LERXes or canards? Fluidic TVC or mechanical TVC? It's completely distracting me but quite fun.

The X-36 could be like the YF-21 in terms of transformation?

That's an idea. I've been replacing the single TVC engine with the traditional double-leg twin engine design, but a YF-21 style design could mitigate the need for that. The cockpit would have to rotate though to keep the intake attached to the fuselage which could fold 90 degrees to form the shoulders and back. This would allow the wings to remain attached to the fuselage and even be deployable in battroid. The canards, if kept, would then be on the torso.

What I'm trying to do though is to put the laser turret head at the very rear of the fighter like with the SV-51, but have it more useful there and able to cover a larger arc. Again complementing the rear-fire capable micro-missile pack idea. This would require a more traditional transformation system with the two engines in order to put the turret in between.

Edited October 24, 2008 by ChronoReverse

[SchizophrenicMC]

My nickname for the CFA-44 is the CFA-44 "Itano Circus"... The engines remind me of the YF-21's. Intake shape and Nozzle shape, anyway.

The '36 is a bit flat... Maybe a YF-21 design would work. Here's an idea: Make it a Variable Ghost. Then, the cockpit is no longer necessary, rather some sensors and computer equipment, which wouldn't require as big a space.

[DHX]

off topic, but i gotta ask:

anime52k8 what do you mean by

1/6-1/8 Sheryl figure (no penis please, a cast off is fine too)

[anime52k8]

the first part is in reference to this thread: http://macrossworld.com/mwf/index.php?showtopic=27899

and as for the second part, I think you can figure it out.

[SchizophrenicMC]

"...I see a lady, I see, you know, I see her boobs, I see her penis; Now, I'm confused..."

[Mr March]

It's still a WIP... Also, It's a quick drawing in paint. If I drew it by hand, it would look better, and make more sense. It is built around the Fighter. The Battroid would probably look funny if it was any more...

Keep working at it and don't be deterred. You'll never know if it could be something until you seen it out to the conclusion of what your creative effort can produce.

That CFA-44 is a great design. Very cool.

[SchizophrenicMC]

Keep working at it and don't be deterred. You'll never know if it could be something until you seen it out to the conclusion of what your creative effort can produce.

That CFA-44 is a great design. Very cool.

You know I will... Maybe you don't know... Now you do!

I was playing AC6 this morning. Great game. The legs are too wide to be legs, the area between them, too small. It works for an Itano Pod, but not for a set of arms, even the size of the YF-21's. The engines could be slimmed down, and it'd take care of 2 problems!

[anime52k8]

My nickname for the CFA-44 is the CFA-44 "Itano Circus"...

that's the part that always bothered me about the CFA-44, the weapons on it are so completely cheap, almost as much so as the ADF-01's ZOMGLAZER!!

I miss the X-02, it was awesome, but still somewhat plausible, and it used conventional weapons.

:edit:

you know what, an ADF-01 style valk would be cool, though the V-9 ghost and the VF-27 remind me of them a little bit (both are ridiculously maneuverable jets with big superguns, and the V-9's have the right color.)

Edited October 26, 2008 by anime52k8

[SchizophrenicMC]

Cheap... That's why I like the EML. It can't be swept, like the ZOMGLAZER!. It is a hit, or don't weapon. If your aim is true, you score a kill. If not, try again. Also, it's a bitch to aim, since the CFA-44's too maneuverable. (If I could use the ADMM, I'd be a God in multiplayer. I outdid a Mobius F-22. A MOBIUS F-22! That's the most maneuverable in the game!)

[anime52k8]

Cheap... That's why I like the EML. It can't be swept, like the ZOMGLAZER!. It is a hit, or don't weapon. If your aim is true, you score a kill. If not, try again. Also, it's a bitch to aim, since the CFA-44's too maneuverable. (If I could use the ADMM, I'd be a God in multiplayer. I outdid a Mobius F-22. A MOBIUS F-22! That's the most maneuverable in the game!)

I haven't played AC6 multi since before the mobius scheme F-22 came out so I wouldn't know. personally I liked using the idolmaster SU-33

but like I said, almost as cheap as the ADF-01. the ADMM is just ridiculous, the EML does require some skill to use.

[SchizophrenicMC]

Yeah. Well, still, I couldn't beat mission 9 on Ace, even with ADMM. It still sits there, waiting for my next attempt. I came close with the EML, but...