LOL Macross Sizes

[anime52k8]

That's presuming that the next production won't be included in MC

or that another publication comes along 10 years down the road and gives us ANOTHER set of numbers.

I have an odd feeling that the 3000 km vs. 500km thing is SK giving out different numbers on purpose because he's trying to F**k with us (I really think he's that kind of person).

that or the original numbers are Miyatake's numbers and the new ones are SK's numbers

if it's the second one then I'm more inclined to go with the old numbers since Miyatake is the one who drew the thing.

Edited March 12, 2009 by anime52k8

[Cyclone Trooper]

This is just my take on this...which may not mean jack to anyone else.

I think the reason why there's been so much misuse of the Macross/New Macross monikers is because so many terms in the various series seem to be interchangable. The captain of the Quarter even takes the time to elaborate on why the Quarter has "...been given the honor of being designated the name 'Macross,' even though she's only a 400m class." Apparently being called a "Macross" ship seems to denote that the vessel simply shares similar design elements with the SDF-1 such as the ability to transform into a humanoid Storm Attacker mode, has a main superdimensional energy cannon, and a pinpoint barrier system. To elaborate further, its the same as grouping the Mustang, Camero, and Charger all under the classification of "muscle car" even though they are all made by different automakers. I think its the same thing with "Macross" ships. The SDF-1, SDFN-04, Battle-7, Frontier, et al. are all considered "Macross" ships for the very reasons I just stated, even though their outward appearances vary somewhat from one another. But to say that they are specifically a Macross-Class ship would be a misnomer. Ships like the Megaroad Class would not be considered "Macross" ships since they are just large city ships similar in layout to Zentran ships.

So to paraphrase...

Macross ship = ability to transform and kick butt

All other ships = no ability to transform but can still kick butt

Edited March 12, 2009 by Cyclone Trooper

[Mr March]

No matter how big the factory satellites themselves are, just for the Zentradi fleets we're talking about billions of ships and trillions of Zentradi made over hundreds of thousands of years: and that few if there were only a few fleets of the size that attacked Earth, given constant attrition due to war and lack of maintenance. The numbers are staggering in any case. Fortunately, the amount of useful mass in the galaxy is also staggering, so it works out okay.

That's pretty much the point. With thousands of Zentradi fleets filled with roughly 5 million 1-4 kilometer long space ships, talking about any kind of "moderation of building materials" or "reasonable sizes" in the Macross universe is patently absurd. Macross, for better or worse, is a megastructure universe, filled with continent-sized space ships, moon-sized factories and planet-encircling rings.

The 3000km factory satellite has about the same volume as the moon. It stands to reason that there are barely enough usable metals on the moon to build even one satellite.

Would it? The Factory Satellite is not solid. In fact, it has huge, cavernous areas where entire fleets of ships can dock and the fold system. We can only assume the rest of the Factory Satellite is filled with decks and assembly areas and is not solid. I would think that although the Factory Satellite is roughly 80% the height of the moon, the solid composition of the moon is such that it would be far more massive than a Factory Satellite.

or that another publication comes along 10 years down the road and gives us ANOTHER set of numbers.

I have an odd feeling that the 3000 km vs. 500km thing is SK giving out different numbers on purpose because he's trying to F**k with us (I really think he's that kind of person).

that or the original numbers are Miyatake's numbers and the new ones are SK's numbers

if it's the second one then I'm more inclined to go with the old numbers since Miyatake is the one who drew the thing.

That's pretty much why I'm sticking to both sets of figures. It's a rare circumstance where two primary source publications have clearly stated contradictory figures without any tertiary statements or prior problems (as would arise if the VF-4 were properly detailed or the VF-11 was resized as Kawamori has "hinted" before). The 1,400 km figure in particular is the most silly of the two contradictions. It's like some Chronicle writer wanted to embellish the statistics for the FB Mothership, providing a length figure where there was none before. So he decides to split 1,400 into a length x width figure, thus allowing the 1,400 figure from Macross Perfect Memory to remain "kinda" correct. I've seen this kind of "writer's compromise" before, such as the infamous published size history of the Super Star Destroyer from the Star Wars franchise. That ship's was sized all over the place, from 8 km all the way to 19 km. Decades later, it turns out the original model build had the ship properly scaled at 17.6 km all along.

So yeah, best to keep a running document on one of the Macross franchise's great scaling errors. Guess each franchise must have them.

[DarkReaper]

Would it? The Factory Satellite is not solid. In fact, it has huge, cavernous areas where entire fleets of ships can dock and the fold system. We can only assume the rest of the Factory Satellite is filled with decks and assembly areas and is not solid. I would think that although the Factory Satellite is roughly 80% the height of the moon, the solid composition of the moon is such that it would be far more massive than a Factory Satellite.

Might be, but the moon also isn't just a gigantic chunk of solid space-worthy metals. I doubt there is enough metal in the crust to build the 3000km Satellite.

You would probably have to excavate all outer layers of the moon to mine the core directly.

[Zinjo]

That's presuming that the next production won't be included in MC

Actually I would not mind appendix pages or additional entries to accompany any future series'. That would be quite cool...

[Zinjo]

This is just my take on this...which may not mean jack to anyone else.

I think the reason why there's been so much misuse of the Macross/New Macross monikers is because so many terms in the various series seem to be interchangable. The captain of the Quarter even takes the time to elaborate on why the Quarter has "...been given the honor of being designated the name 'Macross,' even though she's only a 400m class." Apparently being called a "Macross" ship seems to denote that the vessel simply shares similar design elements with the SDF-1 such as the ability to transform into a humanoid Storm Attacker mode, has a main superdimensional energy cannon, and a pinpoint barrier system. To elaborate further, its the same as grouping the Mustang, Camero, and Charger all under the classification of "muscle car" even though they are all made by different automakers. I think its the same thing with "Macross" ships. The SDF-1, SDFN-04, Battle-7, Frontier, et al. are all considered "Macross" ships for the very reasons I just stated, even though their outward appearances vary somewhat from one another. But to say that they are specifically a Macross-Class ship would be a misnomer. Ships like the Megaroad Class would not be considered "Macross" ships since they are just large city ships similar in layout to Zentran ships.

So to paraphrase...

Macross ship = ability to transform and kick butt

All other ships = no ability to transform but can still kick butt

The name itself isn't really the confusion. As a matter of fact it kinda distills what ship is what. I've also noticed that with the exception of the stealth frigate, that all previous military ships use the "hull type" (or equally correct "ship type") designators, while the civilian craft have none.

So it is entirely possible and possibly likely that the colony class ships have no military designation as they are not combat capable vessels. None of the M7 civilian ships have any designations, yet I believe (Sketchley would be able to confirm better than I) they are all classified.

[MDP310]

So it is entirely possible and possibly likely that the colony class ships have no military designation as they are not combat capable vessels. None of the M7 civilian ships have any designations, yet I believe (Sketchley would be able to confirm better than I) they are all classified.

That makes a lot of sense. The aircraft carrier part is designated "NMCV" and the civilian portion could be whatever the outer space equivalent of "SS" or "MV" is.

[RedWolf]

I was saying SDF, NMCV and SDFN are used on military flagships a few pages ago.

Or else descriptions on top like New Macross Class Aircraft Carrier and Super Dimension Fortress wouldn't be used. Descriptions that relate to their military hull as Zinjo has shed to us.

But I've noticed we are going off topic on this as the discussion is about Sizes not a debate as sketchley insists that the on screen footage is irrelevant.

[SchizophrenicMC]

Uh...

Screw it, I stopped caring...

So, it would seem there are huge planetoid-sized ships that build other ships. Just another day in the world of anime!

[Mr March]

I'm going to adopt the new terminology for my website and the descriptions/headers in each appropriate New Macross Class profile. However, the Battle 13 is really the only one of the New Macross Class profiles which will actually see a change of title to Battle Class Stealth Space Attack Carrier (Battle/Macross 13) because it's the only Battle Class ship found on it's own (with the possible exception of the Battle Galaxy). The others (Macross 5, Macross 7, Macross 25) are all grouped together with either a City Class ship or an Island Cluster Class ship. Thus those profiles will still remain titled as New Macross Class ships for obvious reasons. This seems to make the most sense.

Edited March 13, 2009 by Mr March

[sketchley]

So it is entirely possible and possibly likely that the colony class ships have no military designation as they are not combat capable vessels. None of the M7 civilian ships have any designations, yet I believe (Sketchley would be able to confirm better than I) they are all classified.

None of the (M7) emigrant ships (aside from City class ship 7) are given a class. Without any further information, and it doesn't look there will be any coming, I'm of the conclusion that they are one of a kind ships.

[sketchley]

I was saying SDF, NMCV and SDFN are used on military flagships a few pages ago.

Or else descriptions on top like New Macross Class Aircraft Carrier and Super Dimension Fortress wouldn't be used. Descriptions that relate to their military hull as Zinjo has shed to us.

But I've noticed we are going off topic on this as the discussion is about Sizes not a debate as sketchley insists that the on screen footage is irrelevant.

? We're discussing the appropriate name for specific ships in a size chart. It has been proven that the on screen footage is "representative" and not canon.

Also, since Mr.March has insisted on a "unification" of all published materials, I have given the one name that ALL published material agrees on: "##th Super Long Range Emigration Fleet".

[sketchley]

I'm going to adopt the new terminology for my website and the descriptions/headers in each appropriate New Macross Class profile. However, the Battle 13 is really the only one of the New Macross Class profiles which will actually see a change of title to Battle Class Stealth Space Attack Carrier (Battle/Macross 13) because it's the only Battle Class ship found on it's own (with the possible exception of the Battle Galaxy). The others (Macross 5, Macross 7, Macross 25) are all grouped together with either a City Class ship or an Island Cluster Class ship. Thus those profiles will still remain titled as New Macross Class ships for obvious reasons. This seems to make the most sense.

http://www.new-un-spacy.com/macrossga/uraga-saratoga.htm

You may want to revise this to: "Macross 13 Fleet Carrier" ("Kazutaka Miyatake Design Works: 84).

Having poked my nose in that book, there's also a line on the Macross 13/Battle 13: "next generation (in the) Macross warship series". It's not clear if it's the next generation of the Macross 5/7 series, or that the Macross 5/7/13 are the next generation of SDF-1 type Macross warship.

[RedWolf]

I'm going to adopt the new terminology for my website and the descriptions/headers in each appropriate New Macross Class profile. However, the Battle 13 is really the only one of the New Macross Class profiles which will actually see a change of title to Battle Class Stealth Space Attack Carrier (Battle/Macross 13) because it's the only Battle Class ship found on it's own (with the possible exception of the Battle Galaxy). The others (Macross 5, Macross 7, Macross 25) are all grouped together with either a City Class ship or an Island Cluster Class ship. Thus those profiles will still remain titled as New Macross Class ships for obvious reasons. This seems to make the most sense.

At least that intuitively explains and saves my sanity as to where Battle Galaxy fits on Macross Galaxy.

It doesn't.

Though looking at the chart a number of ships besides City and Island class they can pretty much be the main colony vessels for a fleet on their own.

We got that Macross Galaxy is pretty much uniquely designed along with its very exclusive fleet of escort ships.

Edited March 13, 2009 by RedWolf

[Kelsain]

We got that Macross Galaxy is pretty much uniquely designed along with its very exclusive fleet of escort ships.

So, are there any stats for the Dulfim & Kaitos to add them to the chart?

[azrael]

So, are there any stats for the Dulfim & Kaitos to add them to the chart?

Nope. Only descriptions.

[Zinjo]

I was saying SDF, NMCV and SDFN are used on military flagships a few pages ago.

Not exclusively flagships, mostly on fighting ships of the fleet, it appears. We won't know what designation the Quarter was given until we get more detailed info I suspect.

[Mr March]

http://www.new-un-spacy.com/macrossga/uraga-saratoga.htm

You may want to revise this to: "Macross 13 Fleet Carrier" ("Kazutaka Miyatake Design Works: 84).

Okay, sounds good.

[anime52k8]

time to bring this thread back from the dead!

looks like anon is is at it again. a few new valks and I think the size on the VF-14 looks better, but the VF-3000 and VF-4 are now WAY off.

Edited March 21, 2009 by anime52k8

[Gubaba]

time to bring this tread back from the dead!

Shouldn't that be Tlead...?

[anime52k8]

Shouldn't that be Tlead...?

one... in... morning... need sleep...

[David Hingtgen]

The VF-11MAXL looks awfully small, even compared to a normal VF-11.

[anime52k8]

The VF-11MAXL looks awfully small, even compared to a normal VF-11.

official numbers say it is that small, as strange as that may be. it's supposed to be 11.24 meters, which matches the chart.

the one's that look REALLY off are the VF-3000, which is supposed to be nearly twice the size of the VF-1, and the VF-4. the closest thing to an actual number I've seen for the VF-4 is a little over 13 meters. I have no idea how accurate that number is though.

[taksraven]

I thought that the VF-17 and VF-171's were supposed to be a bit smaller than other valks? Or am I confused?

[Mr March]

Yeah, the VF-3000 is way off and the VF-4 feels a little big (though it's really kinda a guess anyway).

I wonder why he removed the Super Boosters from the VF-11C, but kept the engine/leg packs?

His VF-5000 Star Mirage and VF-19P Excalibur are interesting re-colors. They look kinda purty

Yeah, the VF-11MAXL Custom is tiny according to the official stats.

No, the VF-17 Nightmare looks fine. It's 15.18 meters tall. The VF-171 Nightmare Plus is a guess, since we've got no stats.

Edited March 21, 2009 by Mr March

[anime52k8]

Yeah, the VF-3000 is way off and the VF-4 feels a little big (though it's really kinda a guess anyway).

I wonder why he removed the Super Boosters from the VF-11C, but kept the engine/leg packs?

His VF-5000 Star Mirage and VF-19P Excalibur are interesting re-colors. They look kinda purty

Yeah, the VF-11MAXL Custom is tiny according to the official stats.

No, the VF-17 Nightmare looks fine. It's 15.18 meters tall. The VF-171 Nightmare Plus is a guess, since we've got no stats.

it's reasonable to assume that the 171 and the 17 are more a less the same, what with the former being a derivative of the latter.

I as for the VF-4, the chart has it at 15.5 to the top of the fins. that makes it a little taller than the length of the fighter. Considering how much less the VF-4 fold up going from fighter to battroid compared to most other VF's

[Mr March]

Yeah, it's not a bad guess to scale the VF-171 Nightmare Plus similar to a VF-17 Nightmare.

The VF-4 Lightning III could be a variety of heights. The official statistics don't even make any sense. Apparently the VF-4 is 14.92 meter long and 14.28 meters wide, but looking at both Kawamori's line art and the official schematics, they clearly show the length-to-width ratio won't support 14.92 to 14.28. We're then left to guess which dimension is supposed to be accurate, length or width? Before we could even begin scaling the VF-4 Battroid, we'd have to know that much.

Edited March 22, 2009 by Mr March

[Sketch]

Yeah, the VF-3000 is way off

This image is from design works page 56. Based on the measurement marks, the VF-3000's fighter mode is approximately 15.7m long; there is no way that it's battroid mode is almost double the height of the VF-1.

There are two problems with the battroid mode image. One is that the VF-1 is actually standing on a much, much, lower plane than the VF-3000, based on the location of their hips. Second is that it doesn't even appear to be a scale image so much as an exposition of how the VF-3000's airframe folds into battroid mode vs. the way the VF-1 does (note the removal of the arms).

Edited March 22, 2009 by Sketch

[eugimon]

This image is from design works page 56. Based on the measurement marks, the VF-3000's fighter mode is approximately 15.7m long; there is no way that it's battroid mode is almost double the height of the VF-1.

There are two problems with the battroid mode image. One is that the VF-1 is actually standing on a much, much, lower plane than the VF-3000, based on the location of their hips. Second is that it doesn't even appear to be a scale image so much as an exposition of how the VF-3000's airframe folds into battroid mode vs. the way the VF-1 does (note the removal of the arms).

so the crusader really is just a heavily modified VF-1 and not some giant version of?

[Sketch]

so the crusader really is just a heavily modified VF-1 and not some giant version of?

It appears that way.

Remodeled version of the Stonewell/Bellcom VF-1 Valkyrie. Intended to be licensed by independent national factions within the United Nations with proprietary technologies incorporated by each. Because the design had a stretched elongated body compared to the VF-1 Valkyrie, the joints tended to slip slightly.

That quote plus the fighter mode scale image on page 65 don't really add up to "largest VF ever made".

[Mr March]

First off, no the VF-3000/VF-1S comparison picture is not some out-of-scale shot. Second, the VF-3000 transforms in significantly different ways than the VF-1 Valkyrie, so they won't scale the same. And lastly, the length of the VF-3000 Fighter is not indicative of it's fighter-to-battroid ratio in the same way as the VF-1's ratio of fighter-to-battroid. Why? Notice how the VF-3000 Crusader transforms? The legs? Yeah, that.

So yes, the VF-3000 Crusader is a giant version of a VF-1 Valkyrie. Now, how much larger is the VF-3000 Crusader? Not sure, but the line art clearly establishes a rather significant difference. Is my own choice dead on accurate? Uncertain, especially given the problems scaling line art picture drawn in different perspectives rather than comparing schematics (which would be ideal). However, it's clear the VF-3000 is NOT the same size as the VF-1. What's more, the VF-3000 is significantly larger.

I've done my best to illustrate several differences in scale in the picture attached below (it also shows the extension of the VF-3000's leg/engines). This should give fans an idea why the size of the VF-3000 Crusader is as big as it is.

[Sketch]

First off, no the VF-3000/VF-1S comparison picture is not some out-of-scale shot. Second, the VF-3000 transforms in significantly different ways than the VF-1 Valkyrie, so they won't scale the same. And lastly, the length of the VF-3000 Fighter is not indicative of it's fighter-to-battroid ratio in the same way as the VF-1's ratio of fighter-to-battroid. Why? Notice how the VF-3000 Crusader transforms? The legs? Yeah, that.

So yes, the VF-3000 Crusader is a giant version of a VF-1 Valkyrie. Now, how much larger is the VF-3000 Crusader? Not sure, but the line art clearly establishes a rather significant difference. Is my own choice dead on accurate? Uncertain, especially given the problems scaling line art picture drawn in different perspectives rather than comparing schematics (which would be ideal). However, it's clear the VF-3000 is NOT the same size as the VF-1. What's more, the VF-3000 is significantly larger.

I've done my best to illustrate several differences in scale in the picture attached below (it also shows the extension of the VF-3000's leg/engines). This should give fans an idea why the size of the VF-3000 Crusader is as big as it is.

I'm not claiming that the chart from 4ch is correct, or that the VF-3000 is the same height as the VF-1. However the VF-1 is clearly standing on a lower plane than the VF-3000 in the side by side battroid shot.

Despite the 3000's legs extending, more of the airframes' length is lost to the thicker torso. In addition, the 3000's legs attach to the torso much higher up than the VF-1 (note the folding nosecone) which is why it's battroid mode proportions don't look out of wack despite the longer legs.

Excuse the crappy MSPaint, it's obviously not dead on, but I feel it's a better representation than the LOLHUGE-3000 or the VF-1 sized version represented in 4ch's chart. I'll throw together a schematic disassembly of the 3000 when I have more time.

Edited March 22, 2009 by Sketch

[Mr March]

I'm not claiming that the chart from 4ch is correct, or that the VF-3000 is the same height as the VF-3000. However the VF-1 is clearly standing on a lower plane than the VF-3000 in the side by side battroid shot.

Despite the 3000's legs extending, more of the airframes' length is lost to the thicker torso. In addition, the 3000's legs attach to the torso much higher up than the VF-1 (note the folding nosecone) which is why it's battroid mode proportions don't look out of wack despite the longer legs.

Well, rather than saying what the crusader ISN'T, let's be specific (as we can) and say what it IS.

The VF-3000/VF-1 line art IS a to-scale diagram specifically drawn as such, complete with scale arrows. Also, the VF-1's legs will NOT be the same length as the VF-3000's legs, so the "hips" won't align. Further, the VF-1 Battroid (in the afore mentioned line art) is NOT standing on some "much, much lower plane" than the VF-3000 Battroid because their hips are NOT supposed to align. And lastly, the VF-3000's hips do NOT rest higher upon the nose of the craft: in fact, they appear to rest at almost an identical level (not that it would matter, since the VF-3000 nose is nearly 15% longer than the VF-1 nose). I would have thought my scale pictures posted above made most of these conclusions obvious. But if not, let's work it out and see what can be concluded.

Using the rough line art as a guide, I get the following calculations for the VF-3000 Crusader Fighter Mode:

VF-3000 Crusader (fighter mode) = 3,114 pixels long

VF-1A Valkyrie (fighter mode) = 2,814 pixels long

Multiplier = 1.1066098081 x 14.23 meter VF-1 length

VF-3000 is 15.75 meters long.

When the engines/legs of the VF-3000 Crusader are EXTENDED (as they are in Battroid mode) the length is as follows):

VF-3000 Crusader (fighter, LEG EXTENDED) = 3,435 pixels long

VF-1A Valkyrie (fighter mode) = 2,814 pixels long

Multiplier = 1.2206823028 x 14.23 meter VF-1 length

VF-3000 (with legs extended) = 17.37 meters

Now, if I retain use of the line art and roughly align it so that it equals the VF-3000 Battroid side schematic art work and then calculate all that out, I get the following:

VF-3000 Crusader (battroid mode) = 3,240 pixels tall

VF-1A Valkyrie (fighter mode) = 2,814 pixels long

Multiplier = 1.1513859275 x 14.23 meter VF-1 length

VF-3000 is 16.38 meters tall (from foot to head cannon tip)

So, with this very rough guess, the VF-3000 Crusader Battroid is 16.38 meters tall top to bottom while the VF-1 Valkyrie Battroid is 12.68 meters tall (not including cannons). But why stop here? Let's put the "lower plane" theory to rest. I've attached another picture which shows the VF-3000 and VF-1S battroids are not standing on different planes. In fact, both battroids are almost perfectly level with each other. So...

If the battroid line art is to be believed, the VF-3000 Battroid is somewhere around 18-19 meters tall.

If the fighter line art is to be believed, the VF-3000 Battroid is somewhere around 16.38 meters tall.

Digressing ALL THE WAY back to the picture that spawned this excessive analysis, whoever this Anon is, he's using the exact same method I use to scale the perspective line art of the Battroids (both top and bottom anchor points). However, he's not accounting for all the relevant factors (particularly extending legs) so he's ending up with a very small VF-3000 battroid. That small battroid is not accurate to either the fighter art or the battroid art.

Edited March 23, 2009 by Mr March

[sketchley]

Did a quick scanlation of the relevant pages in "Shoji Kawamori Macross Design Works":

- designed as a "voume up" (increased volume) VF-1

- refined VF-1 design; looking closer to the Grumman F-14 Tomocat

- silhouette deliberately made to not look like the Armoured Valkyrie, but parts of it (I believe it specifically mentions the legs) have the same silhouette as the Super Valkyrie.

- side image of the VF-1 and VF-3000 is showing the thickness of the two, to highlight how differently the two transform (it specifically mentions radome, pilot block/compartment, etc.) It does have the kanji for "that size/enlargement", but given the content of the rest of the paragraph, I believe it is referring to how thick the side profile is, not the height difference.

Therefore, the 16.38 m tall version makes more sense, given the known fighter mode size.

More fun info from the web:

VF-3000 クルセイダー (Crusader)

VF-1をベースに、機体の大型化と変形機構の改良を試みた機種。通称「ストレッチバルキリー」。少数生産に止まったが、コンセプトはVF-5000に継承された。ゲーム『マクロスM3』に登場する。派生機として可変爆撃機タイプのVF-3000B（通称「ボンバーバルキリー」）も存在する。

（開発：ストンウェル・ベルコム/新中洲 生産： - 型式： - ）

◆VF-3000：クルセイダー

全てのプラグインが装備可能。

アドバンスドバルキリー版とはデザインが異なっており、ファストパックが機体に直接標準装備されているシルエットがより強調されている。

頭部がファイヤーバルキリーのような複眼タイプになっている複座式機体のVF-3000Bボンバーバルキリーなどの設定が存在する。

VF-X-3スタークルセイダー(メデューサバルキリー：上の画像)なんてのもスタンピードバルキリーとセットでPCゲームでいたなあ…。

そういや河森マクロスデザインワークスにはゼロ関係は抜きでスクランブルバルキリーだけが載っていなかったな。

VF-0はガンダムXの石垣氏のデザインらしいけど。

Edited March 23, 2009 by sketchley

[anime52k8]

oh darn, I made this stupid thing 6 hours ago when it was relevantand totally forgot to post it.