Super Macross Mecha Fun Time Discussion Thread!

[pengbuzz]

4 minutes ago, Hiriyu said:

This is probably a dumb and elementary question, but why is it that on the VF-1 dual-mount RMS-1 pylons are placed at the outer wing hardpoints? Wouldn't you usually want to keep unexpended mass closer to the centerline of the vehicle for reasons of flight trim, balance, thrust alignment and inertial response? Is it just the case that this positioning is to allow greater flexibility in wing geometry when swept? 

I was looking at the Master Files materials and recognize that the later-block models may have had additional hardpoints in comparison to earlier models (eg; three single-pylon installations), but the basic configuration is still generally consistent with having more RMS ordinance located toward the outer extremities of the wing. I am unable to read the accompanying text from the books. Yamato, Arcadia and Bandai all seem to follow this convention with their toys, although Hasegawa and some other model kits seem to follow the later-block vision with multiple single hardpoints.

Er... I think the idea is NOT to have the reaction weapons that close to the body of the fighter when they launch...

That's just me though; Seto Kaiba would probably have a more concise answer that corrects my assumptions.

Edited April 30, 2023 by pengbuzz

[Hiriyu]

2 minutes ago, pengbuzz said:

Er... I think the idea is NOT to have the reaction weapons that close to the body of the fighter when they launch...

Lol. Could be, though I'd guess (hope?) that the reaction weapons aren't armed until well away from the vessel 

[Seto Kaiba]

16 hours ago, Hiriyu said:

This is probably a dumb and elementary question, but why is it that on the VF-1 dual-mount RMS-1 pylons are placed at the outer wing hardpoints? Wouldn't you usually want to keep unexpended mass closer to the centerline of the vehicle for reasons of flight trim, balance, thrust alignment and inertial response? Is it just the case that this positioning is to allow greater flexibility in wing geometry when swept? 

While I don't recall a specific reason ever being given for why certain weapons are placed on certain pylons other than clearance issues for specific options not included in the scope of this question... I feel like the answer is right there in the question itself.

The RMS-1 is a long-range, thermonuclear reaction warhead-equipped, anti-warship and anti-formation missile.  In normal operation as seen in DYRL?, the Valkyrie's going to fire the RMS-1's first to either "thin the herd" of approaching battle pods with the large blast radius of the thermonuclear reaction warhead or strike approaching enemy warships before they close to a range where they can engage with the HMM-01 micro-missiles in the FAST Packs and UUM-7 missile pods or their guns.  Doing so clears the outer wing, leaving the yet-to-be-used UUM-7 missile pods on the pylons closest to the centerline.  

Sources over the years have been reasonably consistent in describing the RMS-1 as one of the longest-ranged, if not THE longest-ranged, missiles the Valkyrie has.  A decision that's somewhat understandable given what older sources have said about the warhead.  Sky Angels gives the most detailed description, suggesting the initial warhead designed for use in the RMS-1 casing was a 0.5kt thermonuclear warhead, later improved to 1.5kt, and that in practice the casing was compatible with many different warhead designs which had MUCH higher blast yields ("tens of kilotons to hundreds of kilotons" is mentioned).  That's reason enough to want it to go off far away from you, even if it's a "clean" thermonuclear weapon that releases all of its energy as heat and produces no/negligible amounts of (other types of) harmful radiation.  Sky Angels also mentions some of the other warheads that the RMS-1 could take include ones intended to produce gamma ray bursts and straight-up neutron bombs.  (Yes, I had to read that several times to believe what I was seeing too...)

EDIT: While I was re-reading that section in Sky Angels I noticed the mention tacked on at the end that the UN Forces were working on a miniaturized high-yield thermonuclear reaction warhead intended for use on the VF-4's regular missiles!

 

16 hours ago, Hiriyu said:

I was looking at the Master Files materials and recognize that the later-block models may have had additional hardpoints in comparison to earlier models (eg; three single-pylon installations), but the basic configuration is still generally consistent with having more RMS ordinance located toward the outer extremities of the wing. I am unable to read the accompanying text from the books. Yamato, Arcadia and Bandai all seem to follow this convention with their toys, although Hasegawa and some other model kits seem to follow the later-block vision with multiple single hardpoints.

The only times we ever actually see the (alleged) three-pylon configuration is in the original Super Dimension Fortress Macross episode #27 "Love Drifts Away" and, I think, #30 "Viva Maria".  The animators working on the original series drew the three equidistant RMS-1's on the VF-1s at the time, presumably without really thinking how those missiles would be attached.  

Some toys and kits for the TV series, I know, have gone with the three-pylon approach... which is where Master File got the idea, since they have borrowed a few things from the Hasegawa kits here and there.

Edited April 30, 2023 by Seto Kaiba

[Hiriyu]

Thanks Seto, that all makes good sense. I think that what kind of threw me for a loop is that going by the existing materials, it's implied that those dual pylons are never to be used on the inner hardpoints, and it seems like Master Files makes that explicit in their station charts. Probably, as you say, it has to do with clearance for different configurations of equipment and mode.

Thanks!

[SebastianP]

On 4/30/2023 at 2:58 AM, Hiriyu said:

This is probably a dumb and elementary question, but why is it that on the VF-1 dual-mount RMS-1 pylons are placed at the outer wing hardpoints? Wouldn't you usually want to keep unexpended mass closer to the centerline of the vehicle for reasons of flight trim, balance, thrust alignment and inertial response? Is it just the case that this positioning is to allow greater flexibility in wing geometry when swept? 

I was looking at the Master Files materials and recognize that the later-block models may have had additional hardpoints in comparison to earlier models (eg; three single-pylon installations), but the basic configuration is still generally consistent with having more RMS ordinance located toward the outer extremities of the wing. I am unable to read the accompanying text from the books. Yamato, Arcadia and Bandai all seem to follow this convention with their toys, although Hasegawa and some other model kits seem to follow the later-block vision with multiple single hardpoints.

For the twin-store in particular, you'll notice that it's pretty much always paired with an UMM-7 micro missile pod, which will stay on the fighter for longer than the RMS-1 missiles. The twin store also seems to be too wide to install on that inboard hardpoint, so you'll never see a VF-1 with four of them. 

The loadout configurations are confusing.

The original VF-1 had two hardpoints under each wing through most of the show, used for the triple-rack AMM-1 missiles. 

In Episode 24, the Booby Duck, the first iteration of the super pack, is introduced, originally with no stores under the wings (but one angle did show the standard mounting holes for the pylons, interestingly).

In Episode 27, the super pack comes back again, this time with three single RMS-1 missiles under each wing. This may or may not be an animation error (among other things the pylons are way short so the missiles look like there's no pylon at all, and the spacing doesn't match anything else), but it was noticed and remembered for later.

Then in DYRL, Kawamori has refined the Super Pack and the VF-1, and come up with the UMM-7 micro missile pod. He also went back to just the two pylons, but they're spaced differently, with the inboard one being *more* inboard than previously, and the RMS-1s are carried in twins.

Then the years go by, with artbooks and fanbooks and the like abounding, and then Hasegawa gets a license to produce a model kit and they decide to make it capable of doing all the things - which ends up giving you the option of five total locations under each wing to stick a hardpoint. 

And then the Master File writers decide to explain that the difference between where and how many hardpoints there are is due to different production blocks. 

 

[Sildani]

The wing has almost no ability to sweep with the dual RMS rack on the inboard pylon, FWIW. Might be a parking/handling issue as well. 

[pengbuzz]

It does to some degree; I checked on my VF-1 w/ wing load (box launcher and RMS-1)

[Seto Kaiba]

5 hours ago, Sildani said:

The wing has almost no ability to sweep with the dual RMS rack on the inboard pylon, FWIW. Might be a parking/handling issue as well. 

Probably, esp. since they store the VF-1 with the wings all the way swept.

Edited May 2, 2023 by Seto Kaiba

[Seto Kaiba]

8 hours ago, SebastianP said:

The loadout configurations are confusing.

The original VF-1 had two hardpoints under each wing through most of the show, [...]

Not really.  In official terms, it only really has the two.

The three-pylon configuration was a much later, unofficial, attempt to rationalize the appearance of the VF-1s with six RMS-1s equidistantly spaced along the wing because they hadn't really considered how those missiles would be attached until the DYRL? design showed the twin mount.

 

8 hours ago, SebastianP said:

Then in DYRL, Kawamori has refined the Super Pack and the VF-1, and come up with the UMM-7 micro missile pod. He also went back to just the two pylons, but they're spaced differently, with the inboard one being *more* inboard than previously, and the RMS-1s are carried in twins.

They're actually in the same place in the line art... that may not be accurately reflected on the toys, however.

The outer pylon attach point is more or less directly aligned with the gap between the flaps, and the inner is just outboard of the inner hinge for the inner set of flaps.  Master File doesn't draw it quite correctly, putting the outer pylon attach point slightly outboard of that seam and the inner one directly in the middle of the flap.

[Seto Kaiba]

Finished unboxing the last of my artbook collection after the impromptu renovations, and I've been on a bit of a tech-doujinshi kick.

Managed to secure another copy of Sky Angels for my archive, as well as R-AREA's rather odd series of Macross doujinshi.  The first volume of that rolled in today.  Both FANKY and R-AREA are definitely drawing pretty heavily on Variable Fighter Master File in their work, though FANKY's a lot more explicit about it.  They directly reference the Second Battle of Spica, an event first described in Variable Fighter Master File: VF-19 Excalibur, in their writeup of the fanmade Kaga-class space carrier (the jumbo version of the Guantanamo-class stealth carrier).

R-AREA's Space Fan "2051 January" issue seems to draw a fair amount of inspiration from Variable Fighter Master File: VF-0 Phoenix in talking about initial development difficulties encountered with adapting the F-14's basic design into a variable fighter.  Their YF-0 is broadly similar to the YVF-X-0 from Master File, though they get onto some weird topics like discussing the practical reasons for excluding horizontal stabilizers and an initial mechanism for storing the hand they came up wtih that has the hand flip out from inside of the forearm 180 degrees.  They also came up with a "VF-1RR" presented as a late improvement of the VF-1 that has a VF-4-like cockpit transformation (the cockpit remains horizontal) and foldable wingtips.  The art's pretty obviously traced from existing Macross artbooks in a few places, and the VF-1RR's head looks suspiciously like a lower-detail version of the VF-1SR Attack Valkyrie from Macross 2036.  Despite the mention of the VF-19 and VF-22 on the cover, the book has basically nothing on them.  It's surprisingly light at not even 40 pages, but for 1000JPY (shipping incl.) I'm not going to shed any tears.

There are a couple fun tidbits I found in FANKY's Battleships of the Galaxy that I want to see if they have any official precedent, like the idea that the Northampton-class's radar cross-section is about the size of a battlepod.  They have some interesting (and mostly accurate) commentary on the usage of high-angle beam guns and the reasons why the guns aren't practical.

[Bolt]

3 hours ago, Seto Kaiba said:

Finished unboxing the last of my artbook collection after the impromptu renovations, and I've been on a bit of a tech-doujinshi kick.

Managed to secure another copy of Sky Angels for my archive, as well as R-AREA's rather odd series of Macross doujinshi.  The first volume of that rolled in today.  Both FANKY and R-AREA are definitely drawing pretty heavily on Variable Fighter Master File in their work, though FANKY's a lot more explicit about it.  They directly reference the Second Battle of Spica, an event first described in Variable Fighter Master File: VF-19 Excalibur, in their writeup of the fanmade Kaga-class space carrier (the jumbo version of the Guantanamo-class stealth carrier).

R-AREA's Space Fan "2051 January" issue seems to draw a fair amount of inspiration from Variable Fighter Master File: VF-0 Phoenix in talking about initial development difficulties encountered with adapting the F-14's basic design into a variable fighter.  Their YF-0 is broadly similar to the YVF-X-0 from Master File, though they get onto some weird topics like discussing the practical reasons for excluding horizontal stabilizers and an initial mechanism for storing the hand they came up wtih that has the hand flip out from inside of the forearm 180 degrees.  They also came up with a "VF-1RR" presented as a late improvement of the VF-1 that has a VF-4-like cockpit transformation (the cockpit remains horizontal) and foldable wingtips.  The art's pretty obviously traced from existing Macross artbooks in a few places, and the VF-1RR's head looks suspiciously like a lower-detail version of the VF-1SR Attack Valkyrie from Macross 2036.  Despite the mention of the VF-19 and VF-22 on the cover, the book has basically nothing on them.  It's surprisingly light at not even 40 pages, but for 1000JPY (shipping incl.) I'm not going to shed any tears.

There are a couple fun tidbits I found in FANKY's Battleships of the Galaxy that I want to see if they have any official precedent, like the idea that the Northampton-class's radar cross-section is about the size of a battlepod.  They have some interesting (and mostly accurate) commentary on the usage of high-angle beam guns and the reasons why the guns aren't practical.

Very interesting stuff you've got your hands on. Are there deck plans in the FANK's ?

[Seto Kaiba]

26 minutes ago, Bolt said:

Very interesting stuff you've got your hands on. Are there deck plans in the FANK's ?

Nope... the FANKY doujins are more like a historical view.  Kind of like how the Master File books are written as in-universe mass-market publications with declassified information, the coverage in the FANKY doujins is written like a historical overview of the various ships.  It does touch on capacity at a few points, though mainly to note that the form factor of mecha contributes to a ship's carrying capacity and that carriers have an operating capacity vs. a maximum capacity.

[TG Remix]

The more I think about it, the more I realized that there's a surprising amount of mind control throughout the franchise.

Plus had Sharon mind controlling the city, Protodevlin brainwashing people for the Supervision and Varauta Armies respectively, Frontier had Galaxy's plan to make the galaxy into a hive mind, and Delta following suit. Then again the standard was set with the Zentradi essentially being programmed for war and not to interact with culture/miclones. Wondering if there's more to it in-universe than just coincidence and repeating themes.

Edited June 9, 2023 by TG Remix

[Seto Kaiba]

12 hours ago, TG Remix said:

The more I think about it, the more I realized that there's a surprising amount of mind control throughout the franchise.

Plus had Sharon mind controlling the city, Protodevlin brainwashing people for the Supervision and Varauta Armies respectively, Frontier had Galaxy's plan to make the galaxy into a hive mind, and Delta following suit. Then again the standard was set with the Zentradi essentially being programmed for war and not to interact with culture/miclones. Wondering if there's more to it in-universe than just coincidence and repeating themes.

Kind of...

There are only three actual examples of mind control in the Macross franchise thus far:

• The Protodeviln's/Supervision Army's mind control technology seen in Macross 7 and later in Macross R.
• The Macross Galaxy fleet's use of cybernetic implants to directly control their populace's perceptions of reality and even hijack their bodies.
• The Mardook's use of brainwashing and other technologies in conjunction with the songs of the Emulators to keep their Zentradi docile and obedient and directly control their fighting instincts through songs that act on them like a combination of strategic orders and battle drugs.

The examples that don't fit the definition of mind control are:

• The Protoculture's indoctrination of the Zentradi to obey them, to not interfere with or harm them, and to avoid matters related to culture.  A fair amount of it is simply never exposing them to those things in the first place, rather than any kind of actual coercion and they've lost swathes of those directives to irrelevance or the absence of their long lost creators.
• The Sharon-type AI's hypnosis capabilities, intended for use as a non-pharmaceutical mood stabilizer/elevator to make living in the early-type emigrant ships more bearable and prevent or stop the occasional riots on said ships.  She wasn't controlling people's thoughts so much as getting them high and making suggestions.
• Macross Galaxy's implant network plan, which is nominally more of a human hive-mind than mind control... since in theory the human species would have a single will made up of the aggregate of the wills of the entire species.
• Windermere IV's delta wave network plan, which is basically just the same as the above but with some dodgy Protoculture relics instead of cybernetics.

I'd assume it's probably partly a socio-political critique... especially considering the title that really threw it into sharp relief was Macross 7, with the vocally anti-war singer fighting an army of brainwashed mooks with the power of rock.

[Sir Galahad®]

Should Recon Valks be heavily armored? The RVF-25 was under equipped, only having the super pack. It didn't have even have the tornado pack. It did, however, have 3 ghosts to support it. Conversely, the VF-31E even had an armor pack available.

[Seto Kaiba]

1 hour ago, Sir Galahad® said:

Should Recon Valks be heavily armored? The RVF-25 was under equipped, only having the super pack. It didn't have even have the tornado pack. It did, however, have 3 ghosts to support it. Conversely, the VF-31E even had an armor pack available.

Valkyries designed or outfitted for electronic warfare, AWACS, and reconnaissance roles are no less heavily armored than any variant intended for direct combat.

Granted, most are less heavily armed than the front-line variants and a few are totally unarmed... but they also don't typically go anywhere without an armed escort.  Typically, that armed escort seems to be 3+ other Valkyries or Ghosts.  If we take the RVF-25 as an exemplar, it could control up to six unmanned fighters as an escort... which, considering what current-generation Ghosts can do, is pretty formidable against anything short of an unmanned 5th or 6th Generation VF.

Chuck Mustang's VF-31E is a somewhat unusual case in that it's not a dedicated ELINT/AWACS/Recon variant as such.  It's a general-purpose machine like all VF-31s and it's just outfitted with a collapsible fold wave radome container instead of a multidrone charger like the other Siegfried customs.

[SebastianP]

On 7/26/2023 at 7:26 PM, Sir Galahad® said:

Should Recon Valks be heavily armored? The RVF-25 was under equipped, only having the super pack. It didn't have even have the tornado pack. It did, however, have 3 ghosts to support it. Conversely, the VF-31E even had an armor pack available.

Having the Super Pack does not equal under-equipped - those booster pods have a couple of hundred missiles between them at the lowest end estimates, and if you trust the diagrams in the Master File, something like seven hundred at max missile load. That's *plenty* of firepower for dealing with anything short of a capital ship that actually approaches you. The Tornado pack specifically exists to test out the feasibility of a heavy energy weapon for dealing with the annoying Vajra adaptive abilities, and since the gun would have sat where the radome goes, it wouldn't have been compatible with the RVF anyway.

You might be able to Armor an RVF-25 (the major issues would be the spine armor), but why would you? The armored pack is for getting in up close and personal, which is not what an RVF-25 is supposed to do ever. 

 

[Seto Kaiba]

44 minutes ago, SebastianP said:

Having the Super Pack does not equal under-equipped - those booster pods have a couple of hundred missiles between them at the lowest end estimates, and if you trust the diagrams in the Master File, something like seven hundred at max missile load.

... did you read a different book from the rest of us?

The NP-FAD-23 booster pack used by the VF-25 series incl. the RVF-25 holds at most 90 missiles per Variable Fighter Master File: VF-25 Messiah.  

Quote

ビフォーズ マイクロミサイル3連装ランチャー CIMM-3A HMM-25 マイクロミサイルを最大で90発搭載可能

The Bifors CIMM-3A triple micro missile launcher can hold up to 90 HMM-25 micro missiles at a time.

That's 180 between the two boosters, for a total of 226 when the other launchers in the VF-25's Super Pack are accounted for.

The VF-25's Armored Pack has a total of 244, plus 30 armor-piercing rockets.  The VF-31's Super Pack has no number offered, but is almost certainly lower than the VF-25's given how much smaller it is, and the VF-31's Armored Pack has a total of 484... which is still a long way short of 700.

That said, the actual difference in armament between the RVF-25 and VF-25 and VF-31 Siegfried and VF-31E Siegfried is only a little... pretty much just the coaxial laser guns that were mounted on the monitor turret being replaced by antennae on the RVF-25 and the VF-31E sacrificing normal storage for its gunpod in exchange for the radome.  Similarly, the RVF-171 didn't sacrifice ANY weapons... it just can't use the rear-facing beam guns in fighter mode.

 

44 minutes ago, SebastianP said:

The Tornado pack specifically exists to test out the feasibility of a heavy energy weapon for dealing with the annoying Vajra adaptive abilities, and since the gun would have sat where the radome goes, it wouldn't have been compatible with the RVF anyway.

Half right... the Tornado Pack was/is a proof-of-concept for the unconventional aerodynamics of the YF-29 in parallel development at the time.

 

44 minutes ago, SebastianP said:

You might be able to Armor an RVF-25 (the major issues would be the spine armor), but why would you? The armored pack is for getting in up close and personal, which is not what an RVF-25 is supposed to do ever. 

The Armored Pack is for surviving heavy combat in general, which you shouldn't be throwing a reconnaissance aircraft into regardless.

[SebastianP]

6 hours ago, Seto Kaiba said:

... did you read a different book from the rest of us?

The NP-FAD-23 booster pack used by the VF-25 series incl. the RVF-25 holds at most 90 missiles per Variable Fighter Master File: VF-25 Messiah.  

 

I'm very visually inclined, and I didn't read a word of Japanese, so I went straight for the nicely drawn diagram where I could directly count 96 visible missiles, and infer that there were either 176 (assuming a hollow core) or 320 (assuming they were packed solid) per pod, with just the eight layers we can directly see. And *then* I saw the 90 and wondered if the author had even looked at the diagram.

So I'll stand by my statement that minimum estimates for the super pack are a couple of hundred missiles total (because there's more than ten missiles in each shoulder launcher) and if the launch pods are packed to the extent that the diagram blatantly suggests, we're looking at well over 650 total for the whole kit, so "nearly 700" is appropriate. Though I should have said "packs" instead of missile pods.

Look at the image, and tell me it's not basically saying "there's 320 missiles in this pod". 

[sketchley]

54 minutes ago, SebastianP said:

Look at the image, and tell me it's not basically saying "there's 320 missiles in this pod". 

Because it doesn't.  It says: "ＨＭＭ－２５マイクロミサイルを最大で90発搭載可能。"

Edited July 30, 2023 by sketchley

[Seto Kaiba]

4 hours ago, SebastianP said:

Look at the image, and tell me it's not basically saying "there's 320 missiles in this pod". 

The caption that I quoted in my previous post is literally right there.

It clearly and unambiguously states that the pod holds up to 90 micro missiles. Not 320. Not any other number. Up to 90.

Please don't post your counter-factual suppositions as fact.

Edited July 30, 2023 by Seto Kaiba

[Thom]

I don't have any truck in this, but there is then clearly a disconnect between the text and the diagram.

Counting the missile pack example, that is total of 20 in a pack, with 16 packs. that does equal 320.

The text however, states only 90.

So the answer is clearly a distortion within the Anime Layer between reality and 'toon...

[SebastianP]

2 hours ago, Seto Kaiba said:

The caption that I quoted in my previous post is literally right there.

It clearly and unambiguously states that the pod holds up to 90 micro missiles. Not 320. Not any other number. Up to 90.

Please don't post your counter-factual suppositions as fact.

What part of "there are 96 missiles countable in the drawing" is counterfactual? Are you seriously attempting to gaslight me? Because that doesn't work. 

You can, if you zoom in, see all 96 of them yourself. Start with the top layer. Each missile has two delineated endcaps. You can see both endcaps of the first 35 missiles from the back, plus the endcaps (and part of the rest of the missile on one of them) of the remaining five just peeking out from behind the forward frame. That's 40 in the top. Skipping the corner row since it's already counted, you can count another 56 missiles easily identifiable in the vertical side. That's 96. That is not extrapolation anywhere, that is what I *see and can count* in the picture. Ergo, the caption is not accurate to the drawing. Something is wrong. And I'm more willing to believe it's the caption that took some seconds to write, over the drawing that someone spent a few hours on minimum.

Second, if the drawing isn't correct, why bother putting it into the book? 

So, if the drawing *is* correct as presented, it gives me a few options for interpreting it. Either the 96 missiles we can see and count. Or the full 320 that the rest of the drawing is implying. Or somewhere in between. This is all information presented in the book, but its' not written down. 

So, the DRAWING shows 96 to 320 missiles, depending on interpretation. The CAPTION says 90. That there is a mismatch *at all* lowers the trustworthiness of the book to the point where I am unwilling to give precedence for either number and will hold to my estimate that a Super VF-25 holds somewhere between 200 (because 90 per booster and 15 per shoulder as on the 1/72 model kit is 210) and 700 (because 320 per pod and 20 per shoulder as on the V1 DX super packs is 680).

Anything *else* is dishonest, and basically giving precedence to the one source that is most counter-indicated by everything else, given that Chronicle doesn't say either.

Oh, and speaking of the Armored pack - none of the visual depictions in the anime or on the toys match the officially given number of 64 per leg. That's another number pulled out of someone's... let's say hat... and stuck in a book that can be verified as wrong by watching the anime and counting what's in there. 

Edited July 30, 2023 by SebastianP

[sketchley]

31 minutes ago, Thom said:

I don't have any truck in this, but there is then clearly a disconnect between the text and the diagram.

There is something definitely wrong with that internal diagram.  For starters, it only depicts 2 launchers, when there are clearly three on the outer shell (and accompanying text)...

[SebastianP]

1 hour ago, sketchley said:

There is something definitely wrong with that internal diagram.  For starters, it only depicts 2 launchers, when there are clearly three on the outer shell (and accompanying text)...

Article text mentions that a "two-port launcher" is the most common option. Also, it sort of looks like there's something in that opening on the top. 

Basically, there are plenty of contradictions, and picking the image caption as your absolute truth and then complaining when someone else wants to be open minded is to the point that Seto Kaiba did is really not kosher, IMO. 

[Seto Kaiba]

32 minutes ago, SebastianP said:

Basically, there are plenty of contradictions, and picking the image caption as your absolute truth and then complaining when someone else wants to be open minded is to the point that Seto Kaiba did is really not kosher, IMO. 

To be blunt, there's only one contradiction in the material... and that's between what the text says and your interpretation of an art piece that does admittedly have a few issues.

But what's not kosher here is what you're doing.  

9 hours ago, SebastianP said:

I didn't read a word of Japanese

You've already admitted you did not read, and/or cannot read, the book.  Yet you are confidently attempting to tell people what the book says and shows.

That is deeply, deeply disingenuous at best.  It would not be at all unfair to say that what you're doing is spreading misinformation.  

A desire to contribute and help people with answers to their questions is admirable.  There's also nothing wrong with discussing hypotheticals either.  But if someone is here asking a question, the responsibility of the people answering the question is to give factual, verifiable answers or reasonable fact-based inferences where no factual answers exist.

What you posted is a mixture of half-truths and interpretations that run counter to what the book you're claiming to have referenced actually says.  That's not OK.  And those of us who CAN and HAVE read the book aren't going to give it a pass as though it were OK.  Macross has enough problems with fans spreading misinformation as it is thanks to projects like the fan Wikia that doesn't police its content.  We don't need to stand idly by and let more misinformation be introduced to spare your tender feelings and indulge your desire to appear knowledgeable.  

If you post BS, we will call you out on it... because the goal here is accurate information.  If you keep posting misinformation, we'll start reporting your posts as spam/trolling and let the mods remove them.

 

 

9 hours ago, SebastianP said:

I'm very visually inclined, and I didn't read a word of Japanese, so I went straight for the nicely drawn diagram

If you didn't or can't read the book, then you should not be confidently telling others what the book says or shows.

That's just an integrity problem on your part.

 

2 hours ago, SebastianP said:

Something is wrong. And I'm more willing to believe it's the caption that took some seconds to write, over the drawing that someone spent a few hours on minimum.

The problem with your conclusion here is that it runs counter to what the rest of the book says, what other publications say, etc. etc.

In the event of an apparent contradiction, you don't pick a conclusion at random... you go with the one that's the most consistent/supported by the rest of the publication and other publications of similar or greater levels of authority.
 

2 hours ago, SebastianP said:

Second, if the drawing isn't correct, why bother putting it into the book? 

Because sometimes publishers are working to deadlines and don't have time to scrutinize every detail of every art piece.

The text is very consistent.  90 missiles, 3 launchers, two pods.  It's a cinch that this one isolated art piece is the odd man out.

(If you'd read the book, you'd have known that the art was done by a number of different artists while the book was still in development.)

 

2 hours ago, SebastianP said:

So, the DRAWING shows 96 to 320 missiles, depending on interpretation. The CAPTION says 90. That there is a mismatch *at all* lowers the trustworthiness of the book to the point where I am unwilling to give precedence for either number and will hold to my estimate that a Super VF-25 holds somewhere between 200 (because 90 per booster and 15 per shoulder as on the 1/72 model kit is 210) and 700 (because 320 per pod and 20 per shoulder as on the V1 DX super packs is 680).

And this shows why you're not to be taken seriously.  You jumped straight to "The source is not 100% consistent, therefore the source as a whole is useless." and appointed yourself the arbiter of truth.

The art has issues, yes.  But the rest of the text is quite consistent.  Of course, you didn't/can't read it, so I'm not sure why you imagine you're qualified to comment on how consistent or authoritative it is at all.

 

50 minutes ago, SebastianP said:

Article text mentions that a "two-port launcher" is the most common option

It actually says that the most common option is two Bifors CIMM-3A micro-missile launchers.

As in, the same Option Pack mounted on both NP-FAD-23 boosters... rather than mixing and matching with other Option Packs described on the opposite page.

[Seto Kaiba]

As a side note, there is one FAST Pack configuration described in Master File which does potentially have over 400 missiles in it... but it's an original design Master File's authors made up for Variable Fighter Master File: VF-19 Excalibur. 

The Master File original NP-BAP-15c booster pack is a design similar to the one used by the VF-11 Thunderbolt's Super Pack booster, which is said to have an improved rocket motor and a modularized interior that can hold a theoretical maximum of 220 micro missiles, though at the expense of having almost no fuel.  The actual number of missiles and quantity of fuel are presented as a tradeoff depending on mission need, with fuel modules beyond the minimum cutting into the amount of space for munitions.  (Though the Master File-original ELINT/AWACS variants of the VF-19 would probably not be able to equip it due to how the radome is mounted.)

[azrael]

Just remember children, you are arguing about fake specs, for machines that don't exist, from a work of fiction. Calm down.

[SebastianP]

4 hours ago, Seto Kaiba said:

You've already admitted you did not read, and/or cannot read, the book.  Yet you are confidently attempting to tell people what the book says and shows.

That is deeply, deeply disingenuous at best.  It would not be at all unfair to say that what you're doing is spreading misinformation.  

No, I have admitted that I was unable to read the book at the time I first got my hands on it, and therefore analyzed the image in isolation without the caption first. Which is how I drew conclusions about the image *based on the actual image*. 

I am now perfectly able to use Google Lens to machine translate the text, and have it come out pretty damned readable, but at the time, my only solution to Japanese was to pull out my Intous tablet, and write, by hand, each kanji into the input box of Google Translate and see what it would spit out. I did this with the entire chapter about weapons, one kanji at a time. It took me nearly an hour to do that page. 

What you appear to have done is you saw the caption and discarded the image without looking, which was not an option for me. Do not claim to me that the caption is accurate to the image without having spent a few minutes actually verifying it.

4 hours ago, Seto Kaiba said:

What you posted is a mixture of half-truths and interpretations that run counter to what the book you're claiming to have referenced actually says.  That's not OK.  And those of us who CAN and HAVE read the book aren't going to give it a pass as though it were OK.  Macross has enough problems with fans spreading misinformation as it is thanks to projects like the fan Wikia that doesn't police its content.  We don't need to stand idly by and let more misinformation be introduced to spare your tender feelings and indulge your desire to appear knowledgeable.  

No. What I posted was an accurate summation of what the image actually depicts. It depicts:

1 - a 5x4 grid of missiles, tightly packed.

2 - a picture of the whole magazine, where we can see the magazine is five wide, eight tall with a divider in between, and eight long. 

The immediate implication, absent the caption, is that there are two boxes, each with 5 x 4 missiles per layer, and eight layers, for a total of 320. That is the maximum interpretation.

Zooming in and counting the lines in that artwork, I can verify the presence of 96 missiles, and assuming that the missiles we can see are all of them gives me the lower bound of 96.

The other options are me trying to come up with alternatives in between, but the image ABSOLUTELY shows 96 missiles, and it very definitely seems to imply 320. 

What you appear to have done is you saw the caption and your brain filtered out anything that didn't support that number.

4 hours ago, Seto Kaiba said:

The text is very consistent.  90 missiles, 3 launchers, two pods.  It's a cinch that this one isolated art piece is the odd man out.

(If you'd read the book, you'd have known that the art was done by a number of different artists while the book was still in development.)

 

Is it really consistent? Because "90" only comes up twice in that chapter, once as part of that caption, and once when describing a 90 degree angle, as far as I've been able to tell.

I can't find any other statements about capacity in the rest of that chapter, at least not for missiles. If there are other instances in the book, please give me a page number.

(I am still not able to comfortably read the whole book as the process still involves photographing the thing with my phone. It does a pretty nice job of making the text readable these days, but it's still a royal pain.)

5 hours ago, Seto Kaiba said:

The problem with your conclusion here is that it runs counter to what the rest of the book says, what other publications say, etc. etc.

In the event of an apparent contradiction, you don't pick a conclusion at random... you go with the one that's the most consistent/supported by the rest of the publication and other publications of similar or greater levels of authority.

I did not pick a conclusion at random. I added the logical interpretation of the image as an option to be considered, as an outlier. If you trust the diagram, there might be close to 700 missiles on a Super Messiah, is what I said. As the diagram is hinting at 320 missiles per launcher, this is a correct statement. I have never claimed that there were canonically 700 missiles, because we can't say for sure because the sources *do* disagree. 

(And quite frankly, given how badly for example the Macross chronicle missile counts for the Armored VF-25 match *any* other source - screenshots from the anime, model kits, or toys all give different and much higher counts - and how they blatantly resized the Elysion, I am disinclined to ever trust a specific number given in a book as more than a "possible" unless it's backed up by visual information that *matches*. At this point, if the book says 20 turrets on a ship, I'll still count the ones on the ship to make sure.)

5 hours ago, Seto Kaiba said:

And this shows why you're not to be taken seriously.  You jumped straight to "The source is not 100% consistent, therefore the source as a whole is useless." and appointed yourself the arbiter of truth.

A source that is not consistent *IS* useless as a source of absolute truth, because you have to determine which of the conflicting statements is true. In this case, we have *one* statement about 90 missiles, and *one* drawing that indicates more than 90 at least. Either *could* be true, but we don't know. (Again, I have been unable to find any other mention of 90 missiles in the book). You were the one who decided that it could not be true that the picture itself implied 320 missiles. I gave that interpretation as an option, and I maintain that this is a valid interpretation of the image, but that is all. 

9 minutes ago, azrael said:

Just remember children, you are arguing about fake specs, for machines that don't exist, from a work of fiction. Calm down.

I am aware. I am merely justifiably peeved for being called a spreader of misinformation for pointing out that the image, sans the caption, is very much implying that there could be 320 missiles per pod. You have to read the caption and then not look at the image at all in order to come to that conclusion. 

 

[Seto Kaiba]

25 minutes ago, azrael said:

Just remember children, you are arguing about fake specs, for machines that don't exist, from a work of fiction. Calm down.

Oh, I am maximum chill... we're just making sure it's understood that the goal here is to give people accurate and factual answers to questions.  😉 

(I'm actually on a staycation and having a blast getting stuff done WRT translations and some home improvement projects.)

 

13 minutes ago, SebastianP said:

I am now perfectly able to use Google Lens to machine translate the text, [...]

Which has led you to make other inaccurate statements... like when you said there were only two launcher systems in the CIMM-3A missile pod, when the text actually says that there are typically two CIMM-3A missile pods equipped on the Super Pack.  Machine translation has come a long way, but it's still not terribly reliable.  We are, at least past the comically bad phase where using those tools in the dry goods section of an Asian market produced a cluster F-bombing.

 

13 minutes ago, SebastianP said:

(And quite frankly, given how badly for example the Macross chronicle missile counts for the Armored VF-25 match *any* other source - screenshots from the anime, model kits, or toys all give different and much higher counts - and how they blatantly resized the Elysion, I am disinclined to ever trust a specific number given in a book as more than a "possible" unless it's backed up by visual information that *matches*.

That's your opinion and you're welcome to it.

But remember, what matters when we're answering questions here is giving accurate answers based on what the official materials actually say.

[azrael]

Fine. Let me settle this for both of you.

You're both right and both wrong.
Why? When the story says the pilot of the said machine runs out of missiles, they're gonna run outta' missiles. 'Ain't no spec sheet, drawing, or words from a book in the world 'gonna save said pilot. Period.

Now drop it or both of you get a vacation.

[camk4evr]

14 hours ago, sketchley said:

There is something definitely wrong with that internal diagram.  For starters, it only depicts 2 launchers, when there are clearly three on the outer shell (and accompanying text)...

it also doesn't show the feed mechanism for the missiles

[Gendo Koun]

11 hours ago, camk4evr said:

it also doesn't show the feed mechanism for the missiles

Only God know how it works =))

[Seto Kaiba]

On an unrelated, but fun, note... a Gundam book I'm working on for a friend (Gundam Century: Renewal Edition) contains a very familiar friend...

... with a very familiar explanation.  Checked the credits, and lo and behold... "Cooperation: Studio Nue".

This is a drawing of the MS-09B Dom's thermonuclear jet engine and it looks A LOT like the drawings of the FF-1999/FF-2001 initial type thermonuclear reaction engine from the QF-3000E Ghost and VF-1 Valkyrie.  Its description even boasts the same design flaw.  Both designs omit the turbine stage that would normally drive the compressor in favor of using an electric motor because the temperature of the plasma-heated exhaust was too high for a turbine built with available materials to survive.  The main difference between the two, apart from substituting the gravity produced by heavy quanta or the magnetic compression of Minovsky particles is that the Dom's turbine had to use indirect heating to keep the engine at a safe temperature.  

Macross's thermonuclear reaction turbine engines put the compact thermonuclear reactor in the engine core and the heating of intake air is achieved by passive transfer and by injection of minute quantities of plasma from the reactor core into the airflow.  Gundam's Dom wanted to do that, but didn't have materials with the heat resistance to pull it off.  Instead, the primary reactor fusing deuterium and helium-3 inside the MS's body is used to heat hydrogen from a separate set of fuel tanks into a lower temperature plasma for injection into the turbine in order to heat intake air.

 

Just thought y'all might enjoy this fun little bit of serendipity between Macross and Gundam.

[twich]

5 hours ago, Seto Kaiba said:

On an unrelated, but fun, note... a Gundam book I'm working on for a friend (Gundam Century: Renewal Edition) contains a very familiar friend...

... with a very familiar explanation.  Checked the credits, and lo and behold... "Cooperation: Studio Nue".

This is a drawing of the MS-09B Dom's thermonuclear jet engine and it looks A LOT like the drawings of the FF-1999/FF-2001 initial type thermonuclear reaction engine from the QF-3000E Ghost and VF-1 Valkyrie.  Its description even boasts the same design flaw.  Both designs omit the turbine stage that would normally drive the compressor in favor of using an electric motor because the temperature of the plasma-heated exhaust was too high for a turbine built with available materials to survive.  The main difference between the two, apart from substituting the gravity produced by heavy quanta or the magnetic compression of Minovsky particles is that the Dom's turbine had to use indirect heating to keep the engine at a safe temperature.  

Macross's thermonuclear reaction turbine engines put the compact thermonuclear reactor in the engine core and the heating of intake air is achieved by passive transfer and by injection of minute quantities of plasma from the reactor core into the airflow.  Gundam's Dom wanted to do that, but didn't have materials with the heat resistance to pull it off.  Instead, the primary reactor fusing deuterium and helium-3 inside the MS's body is used to heat hydrogen from a separate set of fuel tanks into a lower temperature plasma for injection into the turbine in order to heat intake air.

 

Just thought y'all might enjoy this fun little bit of serendipity between Macross and Gundam.

Not that I have read any Gundam books, but in my mind, Minofsky(sp?) particles where explained away in the same nebulous way that Robotech explained Protoculture fueling their Very-tech’s.   All the gundam shows that I have seen use the particle field as a way to obscure sensors and to show where mobile suits have been and done battle. This explanation is rather interesting.  Thank you for showing us this neat little nugget.

Twich