Valkyrie Driver

36 minutes ago, SMS007 said:

Thanks for the explanation although my opinion remains unchanged.

I guess that's fair. Still, I actually prefer the way Macross does it. It's familiar, and it's descriptive. The Designation tells you everything you need to know about what it is and what it does, as long as you know how to decode the designation. Further indicators like block numbers which we discussed earlier in relation to the VF-171 give even more information.

1 hour ago, SMS007 said:

I don't like how RVF-25 and RVF-171EX have the "R" in front. I prefer how electronic warfare VF-31E has the designating letter at the end.

So, the E in VF-31E doesn't denote that it's an electronic warfare variant. Macross more or less Uses a US post-1962 triservice aircraft designation based system. 

With the YF series of fighters (19, 21, 24, 29, 30) we see the use of status prefixes:

• G: Permanently grounded
• J: Special test, temporary
• N: Special test, permanent
• X: Experimental
• Y: Prototype
• Z: Planning

Then there are Modified mission prefixes, which we see with the RVF-25, RVF-171EX, EVA-3:

• A: Attack (i.e., air-to-surface)
• C: Transport (i.e., cargo)
• D: Drone director
• E: Special electronic mission
• F: Fighter
• H: Search and rescue, MEDEVAC
• K: Tanker
• L: Equipped for cold weather operations
• M: Missile carrier (1962 – c.1972), Mine countermeasures (c.1973–1976), Multi-mission (1977 onwards)
• O: Observation
• P: Maritime patrol
• Q: Unmanned drone
• R: Reconnaissance
• S: Antisubmarine warfare
• T: Trainer
• U: Utility
• V: Staff transport
• W: Weather reconnaissance

And finally the Basic Mission Codes:

• A: Attack aircraft (for tactical air-to-surface mission)
• B: Bomber (for strategic air-to-surface mission)
• C: Transport (Cargo)
• E: Special electronic installation
• F: Fighter
• K: Tanker (dropped between 1977 and 1985)
• L: Laser-equipped
• O: Observation (Forward Air Control)
• P: Maritime patrol
• R: Reconnaissance
• S: Anti-submarine warfare
• T: Trainer
• U: Utility
• X: Special research

Further in the Tri-Service designation system, you have vehicle type designators. Aircraft that don't fall under one of these categories don't require a type (e.g. fixed wing heavier-than-air craft):

• D: Unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) control segment
• G: Glider
• H: Helicopter
• Q: Unmanned aerial vehicle
• S: Spaceplane
• V: Vertical take-off/short take-off and landing (VTOL/STOL)
• Z: Lighter-than-air

Now there are plenty of Aberrant designations; F/A-18, which derives from a shorthand referring to two variants of the same basic design, SR-71, in which the S stands for strategic, and a few others. So if we take the VF-19C for an example, V would be either aberrant meaning Variable, or out of sequence denoting a V/STOL Aircraft. F denotes a primary mission as a Fighter, 19 is the design number, and C indicates the major modification. In this case a C model is a single seat, the D would be the two set variant of the C. Looking at the EVA-3A, that's an Electronic Warfare modification on a VA-3A. Again V indicates variable or V/STOL, A meaning attack, 3 is the design number, and A indicates the first model of the series. With the VF-31 Siegfrieds, you have 5 distinct modifications on the original VF-31A/B (I have to assume there's a B model 2 seater). You have the Mirage C model, Chuck's E model, Messer's F model, Hayate's J model, and Arad's S model. For Some reason the D model gets skipped. "I" and "O" would be skipped in order to avoid confusion with "1" and "0", as it is in the real world. 

In this case, it may not be coincidental that Chuck's VF-31 is the E model, but that's not implicitly what the E stands for. In fact, R doesn't seem to be the right modifier for the RVF-25 or RVF-171 either. Since those are both technically Airborne Early Warning, and would thus have an E prefix designation (e.g. EVF-25, EVF-171). Furthermore those two fighters should have a Series letter attached to them. Again though they would fall under aberrant designations.

I hope that does some explaining of how things are designated in Macross.

I mean it's not that I mind the push for automation. I'm all for making things easier and more efficient. I think that the headlong rush is bad. In a military context though, networks are one of the most vulnerable systems, and as we saw with Bradley/Chelsea Manning, all it takes is one knucklehead with a removable storage device to compromise the system. There is also the fact that writing the programming for such a system is hugely complex, and the ways the various programs will interact with one another is unpredictable as well. Which means there must be a lengthy debug phase.

Furthermore, I tend to oppose the use of drones, except in the cases of the three D's; Dull, Dangerous, and Dirty. I'm all for replacing the U2 with a drone aircraft. High altitude ISR, is also dangerous and dirty, due to the fact that the pilot could be exposed to intense solar radiation. Dangerous missions mostly would include things like operating inside denied airspace. Heck even using them to augment SEAD missions is fine. Use the drones to light up the radars so that manned aircraft can target the air defenses. Dirty missions would include missions into areas that have been contaminated by Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear materials. Essentially, I believe that drones should stay restricted to their current roles, and that manned aircraft should make up the bulk of US airpower. Increasing the integration of systems is fine, but we shouldn't rush into it, because when we do, we often haven't given the technology a chance to mature. I've seen integrated systems get launched before they were ready, and they make work harder. 

1 hour ago, azrael said:

Just keep in mind there's A LOT of empty space in-between all the fun stuff, relatively speaking (As the Doctor would say, one corner of one country on one continent on one planet that's a corner of a galaxy that's a corner of a universe...).

I was mostly talking about the microscopic stuff. the dust, the elemental hydrogen just floating about. 

20 hours ago, AN/ALQ128 said:

Sensor fusion is the hot new thing in the defence industry. Supposedly, that means the sensors and computers will cut away/automate a lot of the extra work needed on gathering and processing data, leaving the pilot more time to focus on planning and executing the mission.

Call me old fashioned, but, I'm skeptical. I see the potential benefits, but I also see the glaring weaknesses. When I was in the USAF, they tried to automate my job, and tried to make me a glorified button pusher. Sad reality was, I could do the job better than the computer, and I prayed for the system to go down, so I could go back to doing it the old way. I feel that some of the skill gets lost when you add too much technology. Also, I feel that we are way too reliant on technology, I personally know too many people that would be lost without it.

7 hours ago, Arkham said:

Articulate statues, ok?

Let's not perfume the pig here. They're toys, and there's nothing wrong with that... 

I have the wall mount, and I love it. I will caution you though, don't overtighten the bolts, or you will crack the acrylic. Trust me, I know, it happened to me. Mine currently displays my bandai valks, and it does fine. Should work exceptionally well for arcadias, considering that bandai valks are generally heavier (if my Yamato Valks are anything to go by). 

55 minutes ago, SMS007 said:

Well now. How convenient for the Vajra. 

Space isn't just an empty void. It's full of stuff. I mean, It's plausible, especially considering that a single particular Vajra can be born and die in space, without ever landing on a planet, so they obviously don't require an atmosphere. I'm curious to know how they respirate, I'm assuming that they use hydrogen for respiration, considering how abundant it is, and how it's just there in space. 

Awesome Pics @Saburo. I can't wait to see how you get on with Mirage's Super parts!

12 hours ago, kalvasflam said:

Let me just pipe up with a stupid question, why would anyone ever buy a fighter from a company called Airbus. 

Why would anyone buy a fighter from a company called Boeing? Oh, that's right, the US. Because Boeing purchased McDonell-Douglas. Maybe Airbus hired on some folks with experience in fighters. 

12 hours ago, kalvasflam said:

Seriously, given Airbus's trouble with the A400M, does anyone realistically want that particular company to do a new fighter?

That, I believe is a more legitimate concern over Airbus producing a fighter. Especially given how networked the thing will supposedly be. 

On 11/14/2017 at 2:02 AM, AN/ALQ128 said:

I gotta say I have a soft spot for some of these defence industry commercials, a lot of them are slick and well done. I particularly like the BGM in this one.

I'm really skeptical of this. There are too many points of failure built in to this. Not to mention, the workload on the pilot. It had better be a 2 seater. 

2 hours ago, Seto Kaiba said:

My money's on the VF-27.

Looking at the specs without any add-on parts, the General Galaxy VF-27 Lucifer has several distinct advantages over the Dian Cecht Sv-262 Draken III.  The VF-27's T/W ratio is about 15% higher than the Sv-262's, its four engines have a more flexible thrust vectoring arrangement, it doesn't suffer from transformation-related problems with fuel capacity.  The VF-27 also has a HUGE advantage in that, even though the Sv-262 has a better ISC system, its pilot can control the aircraft directly with their mind and, being a cyborg with superior g-force resistance, can exploit the fighter's engine power to a greater extent than the fleshy meats in the Sv-262's cockpit can.

Armaments-wise, they're about on par, though the Lilldrakens are not nearly as flexible as the Goblin II drone the VF-27 has, which can be directly controlled by the VF-27's pilot while they're flying the VF-27.

You mentioned that the pilot of the VF-27 would be a cyborg. Are the Cyborgs in Macross Frontier basically cut and paste full prosthetics ala Ghost in the Shell? Or are they the full range of cybernetically enhanced humans? Does the VF-27 absolutely require a cyborg pilot, or is that just the norm?

3 minutes ago, ChaoticYeti said:

Really sorry to see that. It does look like they were overtightened as the breaks are all at the joints. I hope none of your figures broke. PM me and we can work out some replacements.

None of my figures were harmed, I managed to move quickly enough to keep that from happening.

Well, a thing happened. I was trying to adjust my display, and a trio of the joints just cracked. 

I don't know that the contributing factor was, maybe to much tension on the bolts, maybe too much lateral motion at the joint. Bad batch of acrylic. I just heard the joints start slipping as I was sitting at watching tv about 5 minutes after I finished putting up my VF-171EX super in fighter mode. 

edit:

I'm still very satisfied with the product, overall, I just don't  know what to make of this...

18 hours ago, chyll2 said:

Was referring to the lil drone set of 262. Not really every one want the drones but mostly do want the leg attachment and shield & sword

I wanted the complete set, because the Sv-262 never shows up on screen without that stuff. Honestly I think that Bandai should just bundle the Super parts with the Valks when said Valks never appear on screen without. Like The VF-25F/G should have come with their supers and the VF-25S should have come with armor. Just like they did with the VF-19Adv. 

13 hours ago, Lolicon said:

It's all good. I will go out on a limb and make the assumption that we all want to see Bandai release the best/most complete toys possible.

$200 for the 31 itself, plus another $100 for the super parts, but no reaction missiles or speaker pods? That's a lot of money and I can understand when someone is a little irked by the omissions.

Here here!

9 hours ago, hoahuynh said:

Not all new except for the super packs and the VF-1.

Getting worried I buy to store, nothing has been open except for the YF-29.

 

Nice haul. That's a ton of good stuff. 

Aside from the cost and instability of the BDI system, what exactly caused the YF-19 to be chosen over the YF-21? Watching the expanded dogfight between Guld and Isamu in the Plus Movie, the two fighters seemed pretty evenly matched. 

Regardless of Reaction Missiles, I will be getting a set of supers for my VF-31C. I like to have the super parts for my toys. If I want missiles I'll just go order from @Xigfrid's shapeways store. I like the selection he has. 

20 minutes ago, funkymonkeyjavajunky said:

If you did not preorder a Kairos, can you still call yourself a true Macross toy collector?

Yes, the 18 Mecha Toys, VF-19 Master File book, and Mirage Figurine I have all count... 

2 hours ago, Kelsain said:

Highly Sophisticated Interlocking Brick System.

Fair enough.

2 hours ago, M'Kyuun said:

You might change your mind if you got to see one up close, handle it, or just build it yourself. Sets like these are usually full of interesting techniques and novel parts usage. The journey to the final model is as much fun as the model itself, and, honestly, while it is really expensive, given the number of larger parts throughout the model, the price to parts is reasonable. You're getting a giant box of plastic, and a ring bound catalog of instructions.

Considering what a lot of other hobbies cost, LEGO's not too bad, and sets like these not only hold their value, but increase exponentially once they're retired. I should know; I just paid over $200 for two old Classic Space sets in remarkably good condition. No regrets.

I don't doubt any of that. First, I do not have that kind of money. Second, if I did, I would have to consider very hard what I spent it on. Third, if I could afford it and all of my other needs, I'd do it in a heartbeat. 

2 hours ago, Chronocidal said:

Arguably, look at the community on this forum.  Spending $800 on toys is a pretty common occurrence, and arguably, you're going to get a lot more bang for your buck out of that set than you would out of the 4-5 Arcadia/Bandai valks you'd get out of the same investment.

I know. I have  7 DX Chogokin valks, 6 Yamato Valks, and 1 Yamato Destroid. I'm well familiar with the investment. But I tend to control my spending pretty well, Averaging 1-2 Valks per year, That's mostly because I don't make a ton of money.

2 hours ago, Chronocidal said:

Plus, you can rebuild it into something else if the original design gets boring, and if something breaks or is missing, you don't have to make your own replacements with Shapeways.  

That's certainly true. 

2 hours ago, M'Kyuun said:

Preach!

I'm not meaning to disparage anyone. I'm just saying that, it's hard for me to justify because I'm living on a fixed income. I get paid once a month, and so I have to budget very closely to survive. So, you can see my dilemma. When I can afford things like this, that'll be another story...

As much as I would love to have the UCS millenium falcon, I can't see myself ever shelling out close to 1k for a toy. 

1 hour ago, Seto Kaiba said:

Strong gravitational fields can as well, much as they do in realspace... but fold faults, and the time and energy necessary to either navigate around them or forcibly fold through them could be called the main culprits.

Ok. That makes sense, similar to sailing a ship through swells or a storm.

1 hour ago, Seto Kaiba said:

Warp currents in Warhammer 40,000 play a much more fundamental role in warp navigation... the term "warp engine" is a bit of a misnomer, since it's mainly just the mechanism that makes a warp gate into the Immaterium and to a limited extent allows ships to maneuver within the currents.  In practice, it's the currents themselves doing the heavy lifting when it comes to warp flight.  Ships in the warp are kind of like barges riding the current down a river, using their engines only to ensure they're optimally aligned in the current and avoid navigational hazards.  Time-related shenanigans have more to do with eddies and other navigational hazards in the warp and the fact that time isn't linear in the warp.

So, basically nothing alike?

1 hour ago, Seto Kaiba said:

It's not really a matter of time's passage being "altered", they're traveling through a universe where time straight-up moves at a different rate.  Fold technology wasn't able to produce a fold effect that wasn't impacted by that until the introduction of fold quartz-based zero-time fold systems, and that technology still hasn't been widely adopted.

It is noted in Macross Chronicle that as conventional fold tech and humanity's experience with it has improved, they've been able to reduce the disparity between subjective and objective time.

If you were somehow able to reach the speed of light in realspace, time would stop from your perspective... so yeah, it's definitely better than that, and most other near-lightspeed instances of time dilation.

I didn't mean that time during the fold was altered, just that how people perceived time, was altered. Being that they experience a shorter duration during the fold than is experience by those in realspace. I guess I should have referred to it as the time differential. 

So basically as they evolved from the metaphorical reciprocating engine to the turbojet, and eventually to the turbofan? 

Relativity is a headache...

1 hour ago, Seto Kaiba said:

Well... I wouldn't say realspace isn't distorted in any way.  A space fold does involve a rather potent application of gravity control in order to exchange the space occupied by the ship with an equivalent volume of space from the destination through fold space.  That entry or exit from fold space creates gravity waves detectable from considerable distances.  That's more akin to a temporary creation of an incredibly deep gravity well than a large distortion of the fabric of space-time.

But the impact in realspace is minimal, albeit distinct.

1 hour ago, Seto Kaiba said:

Yep, impulse drives in Star Trek are essentially cheating down the mass of the ship by changing the curvature of space around it so that the weenie little ion engine-augmented fusion rockets can actually move it at a reasonable clip.  It's noted that, by TNG, the fusion rocket component is more or less vestigial, with most impulse drives being half-arsed reactionless warp drives. 

The fusion rocket though is still very much a thing in Macross though, since that's essentially what the TN Reaction turbine engines are in space correct? 

1 hour ago, Seto Kaiba said:

Well, the ship does have a gravity control system so, to a certain extent, relativistic time dilation ought to be a controllable phenomenon, though at the speeds they were going it wouldn't have been a huge problem regardless (they would've been going about 1/1000th the speed of light at their top speed).  In some ways it would've helped, since it would've let them stretch their supplies.

So using the gravity control systems, would that essentially allow them to achieve a similar effect to the impulse drives you mentioned earlier?

2 hours ago, Seto Kaiba said:

Exactly how it does what it does isn't entirely clear... but the fold effect is apparently intense enough that the disparity between subjective and objective time vanishes.

Fold travel, even with a zero-time fold system, would only be instantaneous over short distances of maybe a few light years at most.  The zero-time fold system would be much faster, though, as that technology doesn't require navigating around fold faults and the time disparity isn't present.  (Think the kind of difference you'd get between a regular international flight complete with connections in several countries and flying international on a high-altitude supersonic jetliner's direct flight.)

That's a good explanation. That would make the Zero-time Fold Systems more energy intensive wouldn't it? Or does the Fold quartz negate that?

2 hours ago, Seto Kaiba said:

Both, really.

The energy requirements for a fold jump increase both proportionately with the volume of space the fold effect will encompass and geometrically with the distance the fold jump is circumventing.  That fact alone effectively dictates the maximum range a fold-capable ship can traverse in one fold jump, since a ship can only generate and store a finite amount of energy.  That "perfect world" maximum is reduced by navigation hazards like fold faults, either by forcing the folding ship to avoid them, or by requiring significantly more energy to traverse.

Trying to navigate through fold faults is a risky business.  The increased energy requirement for a ship to traverse a fold fault can drain the fold system's stored energy, forcing the ship to make an emergency defold or potentially even trapping it in fold space to be destroyed when it runs out of power.  Intense fold faults can knock ships trying to traverse them back into realspace, and even damage or destroy them.

I don't know who came up with it first (not that it matters), but it sounds similar to the way BattleTech handles its Hyperspace jumps (Possible evidence of further Macross rip-offery). You need a lot of energy to move a ship across space, and longer jumps are theoretically possible, just practically impossible due to the inability to meet the power requirements. 

At least Fold travel isn't the same as warp drive, being a magic button for ST.

So, is it hard to get a VF-1J GBP HMR toy? Is it still in production?

2 hours ago, Seto Kaiba said:

Well, as the ship isn't actually moving, per se... time dilation never really becomes a factor in fold travel.  A folding ship is technically stationary, and is playing merry hell with the geometry of fold space to exchange the space it was occupying with the space at its destination.  In practice, it's a kind of teleportation more than it is a warp or hyperspace drive.

Ok, so it's really just fold faults that account for the creation of the time differential? Similar to the way WH40k has Warp Currents which can alter when and how a ship returns to realspace? Only, less scary?

2 hours ago, Seto Kaiba said:

The problem is that time flows at a somewhat slower pace in fold space, so a folding ship will be experiencing less time while in fold space than passes in realspace... an effect exacerbated by a number of factors like fold faults and strong gravitational fields.

So, basically the ship and passengers are not insulated from the altered passage of time? It does seem though, that while the passage of time is still a factor, it's much less drastic than the Relativistic effects of FTL speeds. Am I correct?

2 hours ago, Seto Kaiba said:

Star Trek's warp drive gets around the time dilation problem in exactly the manner you described... the ship is riding in a bubble of undistorted space-time around which the drive is manipulating the geometry of space to propel the bubble at FTL speeds.  Impulse drives in that setting also avoid a time dilation issue while traveling at significant fractions of C by a variation of the same trick.

So in comparison, a fold drive manipulates the geometry of super-dimensional space, which I assume must be more malleable, in order to overlap the ship's entry into SD space with the ship's exit from SD space, and subsequent entry into realspace, without distorting realspace in any way? That clears up how starships in ST can move through a solar system so quickly, and how vast distnaces like nebulae can be crossed in a matter of weeks. So how do ships in Macross deal with those effects, because it took the SDF-1 like a month and a half or so to reach earth from mars. The whole trip from Pluto took only about a year, so there must be some insane speeds going on. Unless Macross is also generating some sort of relativity cancelling shenanigans...

2 hours ago, Seto Kaiba said:

Per Leon's remarks in the same episode, the trip would've been very quick (he may be exaggerating a bit when he says "almost instantly") if not for the intense fold fault activity between Gallia IV and the Frontier fleet.

So, once more, it's the fold faults and geometry that create the time differential?

2 hours ago, Seto Kaiba said:

Zero-time fold systems create a fold effect intense enough to insulate the ship from the different flow of time in fold space, and can cross fold faults without disruption... effectively cutting the galactic standard value adjustment out of the picture entirely.

Does the Zero-time fold system essentially even out the time differential? Since ships using such a system can move through faults without difficulty, that means a seemingly instant translation across distances?

So given all of that, What accounts for the given maximum ranges on space folds? Is it purely a matter of energy? I do recall it being stated that a Long Range Fold takes a ton of power, such that rationing became a thing on the Frontier. Or, is it the presence of fold faults? Or is it a combination of both?

2 minutes ago, Kelsain said:

For a moment, I was all NOOOOO!!!

Then I realized that this is good. I'm no longer tempted to drop a whole bunch of $$ I don't have on something that I have no place to display, and no time to play with.

It is purdy, though...

Quoted For Truth...

So does fold travel mitigate relativistic effects in any way? In Star Trek and, presumably, Star Wars their methods of FTL travel mitigate the theory of relativity by equalizing time in the ship and outside the ship. Star Trek's warp drive is explained in more detail, but the Alcubierre Drive explains it in a functional way (contracting space time ahead of the craft, while expanding space time behind the craft, that's overly simplistic, but I'm not a physicist). 

I know there are time adjustments made when a ship defolds. I also know that Alto and Sheryl's journey from the Frontier to Gallia 4 is stated to be a full Day of travel time from their point of view, but to actually take over a week in normal space. Is that mainly due to fold faults, and would the Zero-time engines fully negate the relativistic effects of FTL travel?

What is going on in these pictures? When did this become transformers? How does this even work?