Seto Kaiba

Thank you for making a statement that has no supporting facts included whatsoever. If you're going to say something like that, bring evidence to back it up please. Moving on... Okay, all I got from this is that you have a differing opinion, no supporting basis for why you disagree whatsoever. Do you disagree because you don't like him, because you feel differently, or because you have evidence to the contrary? Moving on... Consistant aesthetic in all canon Macross valkyries eh? Let's see about that shall we? VF-0 Phoenix, smoother than the VF-1 by quite a measure, this was quite literally a refurbished Tomcat. Looked more vintage robotic, the width of the torso and the placement of the shoulders is farther apart than anything else. The design of the nosecone and front of the fighter in fighter mode is more towards the F-14 than the smaller, more aerodynamic VF-1 Valkyrie. VF-1 Valkyrie, a boxy design based largely off the F-14 Tomcat when it was still in service with the US Navy. The fighter's surfaces all had squared off edges, including all major members of the head, legs, arms and torso. The fighter's body was squared to deliberately make transformation more feasable. This will act as a baseline for more detailed studies. The fighter has an overall proportionality that is relatively close to human. VF-4 Lightning III, about as far a leap away from the VF-1 as is humanly possible. This fighter's overall design is a whole other school of thought. Almost a flying wing, really, the shoulders and and upper torso are all integral parts of the back half of the fighter, and there doesn't seem to be a squared off corner on any part of the fighter mode, and very very few on the battroid mode. That hardly presents an consistant aesthetic. VF-9 Cutlass, this one's more along the lines of the VF-4, but the battroid is much boxier, with a bizarre new "conehead" style head unit. The fighter's got those forward swept wings, and is significantly smaller than it's predecessors. This fighter's fighter mode is smooth all around, but the body in battroid is considerably boxy and looks rather heavyset, not following the usual humanoid proportion in the VF-1 or VF-4. VF-11 Thunderbolt. This is another, slightly less radical leap. This is closer to the VF-1 Valkyrie in aesthetics, but the battroid looks suspiciously like the VF-2SS, and the head looks stolen from a VF-1A. The battroid's chest is out of proportion slightly to the rest of the body, and almost every surface is rounded and much smoother than the VF-1 Valkyrie's boxed corners. VF-17 Nightmare. Boxy, heavyset torso with lots of squared off edges and no head lasers to speak of. The "super boob" in the center of the torso makes it's first major re-appearance since the YF-19 and VF-4. The fighter's legs taper outwards to lend additional stability. Also, this fighter is borrowed from the F-117A Nighthawk stealth fighter, which is essentially a flying wing design, with lots of diagonal angles to minimize radar profile. VF-19 Excalibur. Smooth lines are the order of the day. The wings hang from the hips instead of folding into the back. The head unit's head laser is stored topside rather than on the underside of the fighter, extra guns are hidden near the intakes, and there are very few sharp corners. The head unit, torso, arms and legs are all rounded off in battroid mode, and the superboob is back in the center over the cockpit. VF-22 Sturmvogel. Smooth lines all around, except for the wing edge, which is almost square, as opposed to a more traditional wing. The fighter's engines sit on the back in battroid mode, and the arms and legs are not a integral part of fighter mode structure. The head has almost no visible neck, and the laser appears mostly superficial, up on the back of fighter mode instead of underside as traditional designs do. Includes internal mini-missile launchers and guns in the forearms. That represents a consistant design aesthetic? Not likely, goodsir. The designs there oscilate between smooth and chunky, and don't really follow any other recognizable pattern other than growing progressively more rounded off over time (notable exception is VF-17) in battroid mode. Wing placement and design in fighter mode is inconsistant from model to model, head design varies wildly, Transformation modes start moving the wings around to the hips, and the engines onto the back of the mecha completely away from the legs. There isn't much of a consistant design aesthetic present in canon Macross mecha, it's sort of whatever fighter design Kawamori happened to be infatuated with that day. Macross II mecha represents a much more consistant design aesthetic between models than the so-called canon series. Since we've already covered up to the VF-4, let's cover one that's sort of a halfway point between the Macross II timeline and the normal timeline, the VF-1SR. VF-1SR Valkyrie, known by other names including "Raider." Squared, boxy design, drawn directly from the VF-1 series. Refined hands with more articulation points, visible refinements to the head designs but overall common family similarity between the AR and A heads, JR and J heads, and SR and S heads, minor refinements all around, additions of more angles, and occasionally extensions. The FAST packs are semi-fixed, more streamlined than the VF-1's, with large boosters, missile launchers and a visible beam cannon in the center of each one. Other than that this is essentially the VF-1's ultimate makeover. VF-2SS Valkyrie II. Angular, somewhat boxy battroid design, with a more angular and streamlined, but still recognizable airframe. Head bears STRONG resemblence to the VF-1S, as does the torso. Engines are farther towards the outside of the airframe, and the hands display more articulation and less puffyness, the head and neck are more angular, the legs and arms and more streamlined but still boxy, the "feet" are more rounded and angular. FAST packs are completely new. VF-2JA Icarus. Angular, boxy design reminiscent of the VF-1J Valkyrie, head unit is almost identical to the VF-1JR, but with a more pronounced "eye" socket and shield. The airframe is more streamlined, but is essentially extremely close. The shoulders are a little more pronounced and the cockpit is more narrow. The wings are slightly more swept back, and the pelvis is more narrow. VF-1MS Metal Siren. Radical departure from the conventional design, legs taper more narrow towards the foot, thin feet, extra engines along the outside of the legs, rounded front-cockpit without a visible heat shield, extra armor for the faceplate, cockpit sits highter in battroid mode, in front of and between the shoulders, right arm forms underside the nosecone, wings stay out during battroid mode, gunpods are wing mounted, head has no head lasers whatsoever and recessed paired optics instead of a single lens. Need I go on? From this brief analysis alone, it's pretty clear that the Macross II valkyries are much more consistant in their design lineage than the "canon" mecha. There's always a visible link to the last generation, the overall body design doesn't change radically until the Metal Siren, and the head unit just is refined, not completely reinvented. FAST pack systems show a visible evolution in becoming more steamlined, and the overall angles of the body become more dynamic, but remain in relatively the same proportions and styles. The fighter bodies remain boxy as one might expect a mechanical structure with that much articulation to.

Sumdumgai, the scene in question is during the last major battle scene, in "Marduk Disorder" I believe, right after the emulators begin singing the Song of Death. EDIT: For some reason I originally said "Marduk Syndrome." That's what I get for typing that during a lecture.

Your statement lacks something... context. True, the VF-2SS is the first valkyrie to ever be shown getting stuck in mid-transformation. But you left out WHY it got stuck halfway between fighter and battroid mode. The Valkyrie II in question was hit through the upper left side of the torso, a few feet in from the shoulder joint, right where the fighter mode fuselage folds in half to form the front and back of the battroid. Obviously it damaged or froze some of the mechanical components in the transformation process, and thus locked the Valkyrie in a very undignified and vulnerable position. This isn't a problem specific to the VF-2SS, this is a potential problem in ANY variable mecha. Damage to the integral mechanisms of the transformation would be problematic for anything that transforms like a valkyrie or similar mecha. It would be like blowing a few gears out of your car's transmission, or one of a harrier's VTOL jets getting damaged in combat. Just because the Valkyrie II is the only one SEEN having that problem doesn't mean that it isn't likely to happen to other valkyries. It's a little more realistic to have that possibility on the table, since in a real war, you don't have the convienant plot device of enemies being so amazed or mystified by the transformation that they forget to shoot at you, or are too stunned to score a hit.

Well, finding time to do it at work is the sort of thing that comes during any little lull. You just leave the PC running in the background with your site software open, and you can set your FTP program to keep the connection alive for a few hours before disconnecting. I remember a friend of mine who owned a comic shop used to update her store's website during every sunday card tournament, while everyone else was occupied. Not quite finished with the banners yet, since Photoshop likes to have 512MB or more of memory all to itself, and my temporary computer only has 512MB total, shared with the OS and video card. Of course that changes Friday.

Well if you've already uploaded most of your images then there's really not a lot in the way of transfer to actually do over FTP. Your average HTML page only runs about 20-30kb. So dialup and AOL shouldn't really be that big of a problem, unless you're usnig the AOL browser as your FTP client. (If you are, try SmartFTP instead, it connects faster). My own site goes back on regular updates on Saturday, when the upgraded towers get out here.

Okay, for the Robotech people, here's a quick run-through of those four and their proper Japanese names, because they're right it does rub some members of this site the wrong way when you use Robotech character names. Rick Hunter = Hikaru Ichiyo Ben Dixon = Hayao Kakizaki Max Sterling = Max Jenius Roy Fokker = Roy Focker Miriya = Milia And now on with the show... Roy Focker was, in short, Hikaru's main role model as a soldier, and someone who generally helped insulate him from the bulk of the stress caused by the war. Whenever Hikaru had problems, it was always Roy he ran to for help. They couldn't very well develop Hikaru's character much more with Roy perpetually there to lend his advice and cheer him up. Once Roy was out of the way, Hikaru had nobody to confide in, and therefore had to establish relationships with other characters (Kakizaki and Max, Misa, etc) and start dealing with life as an adult. In war, people get killed. Friends, sometimes family, sometimes someone you don't even know. Hikaru was forced to cope with that and it made him a much more believable character overall. Killing someone else wasn't really in the cards. Hayao Kakizaki was slated to die anyways. He was a first class idiot, and killing him was part of the double-whammy that was reality intruding into Hikaru's childhood (like a camel into a tent, and just as welcome). Hayao wasn't a particularly deep character, so killing him off was always in the cards. He's invariably seen in two moods, cheerful or humbled. Killing Max really wasn't ever in the cards, because he became Hikaru's only real remaining friend after Roy and Kakizaki were killed. Hikaru was like a big brother to Max, in the same way that Roy was to Hikaru, so it was sort of a reversal of roles for Hikaru, again making him a more believable character. Killing Milia kinda ruins it for Max, so they couldn't do that either. Summarizing, Roy was the logical choice to kill off, for inducing maximum sympathy between the viewers and Hikaru. The effect simply isn't as great for any other character.

Well, it's coming, albeit slowly. We're still waiting for some equipment to arrive, and still in the process of designing some of the graphics that'll be used in the final versions of the site. That and we're mapping out a plan to eventually convert the entire site to PHP instead of HTML. Graphics is a slow department because we tried to let one of our better artists integrate him PowerMac G5 into the network, and it encountered all manner of unpleasant difficulties.

This we can help you with. I can walk you through framesets, iframes, CSS and a few other useful gimmicks.

Got number three from you, many thanks for that. I think what's best would be to do a complete redesign of your navigational structure, rather than futzing with the same rather awkward button design.

Well, my spanish is not so good, but your site's got a pretty good look going there. The purples really don't strike my fancy much, but to each his/her own. The CSS usage was pretty good too. There's one little bug that might bear fixing. Running on a 1600x1200 resolution, the banner and other stuff at the top make leaps to the left for some reason, by a good 500px. You might also want to consider tweaking your CSS to put a border around that black transparency for those using monitors with low contrast. You could try also, on your chronology page, using an image map on that gradient image at the top to allow people to browse by chunk of time up there. Just a thought. Excellent navigation scheme, good graphics, good work with CSS, easy to get around, easy on the eyes. All around a great site. Now I just need to work on my spanish to read the content.

All that aside, I'd like to say you have a very visually appealing website. Congratulations and keep up the good work.

You'd be correct. Internet Explorer can't currently properly render PNG-format transparencies. That'll be fixed in IE 7.0. Unfortunately, IE is still used by a lot of people, so as a web designer I normally recommend shying away from transparent PNG files in favor of some hand-blended JPGs until there's full cross-browser support for PNG format.

Hmmm... odd. For some reason the java navigation applet you're using killed my web browser. It killed Java 1.50_b9 in a big way. Had to forcibly kill the Java process and browser window using the task manager. Maybe consider using a different navigation method, like a statically aligned nav bar or a frameset? Thanks for scanning #3, I'll get in there and pull that down sometime around midnight tonight, I hope.

Ah well, things go apace. If you want, I can lend a hand setting up a different navigation style that's faster loading. I'm not really great with Flash-based websites, and like most programmers I have an inherent distrust of CSS, especially since it's not supported completely in some browsers, but frames is something I know and use a lot.

Hmm... had to take a look at the transformation sketches before I could come up with a reasonable answer for this one. I'd say that pretty much any standard fighter that follows the same transformation pattern as the old VF-1, where the arms are stored center on the underside should probably be fine, since the VF-1 didn't fall out of the sky after losing an arm. That includes pretty much the VF-0, VF-1, VF-11, VF-2SS, VF-2JA and VF-1MS. The VF-4 is sketchy because both the arms and legs are close to/part of the engines, so losing a significant part of the arm might result in loss of engine components, and losing an engine does significantly reduce anything's air capabilities. The transformation of the VF/A-14 isn't well enough diagramed to tell. The VF-17 shouldn't have any problems since the wings and body are independent of the arms, so it wouldnt' affect any lifting surfaces, but it would probably still cause a fair amount of drag. The VF-19's up in the air, because the arms are on the underside, but the transformation's kind of odd. Losing both arms and legs didn't stop the VF-22, so that's a safe bet on it being able to fly. VF-3000 and VF-5000 look enough like the VF-1 to state safely that it'd fly with a missing arm. The VF-9 is a complete mystery since I'm not sure where the heck it's keeping it's arms.

Awesome, I'll be lookin around for those once we finish getting things set up at our new offices. We're just finishing an across-town move to some new premises, and feelin pretty leery about having to haul ten full-tower machines each weighing in total some 135lb with all accessories upstairs. It's been pretty crazy out here, since we're also expecting delivery on yet another machine. The banners are coming along okay, there's some that need one or two more revisions before I'll let 'em sneak out the door.

Well that depends, it's pretty well armed, by all accounts. Evidence from the artbooks and elsewhere shows that it's got 5 long-range missiles recessed into the shoulder joints, missile launchers stored on each wingtip, the arms and legs are carrying some sort of submunition-based missile system with 7 apertures on each arm and 9 on each leg, and a turret on the chin.

The Gerwalkroid really only appears in the last two episodes, Station Break and Sing Along, and yes, mostly as a starship supporter. It isn't front and center in the screen often, but I did include captures from when it is, barring when it's obscured by the trails from all the missiles it's launching. Judging by it's performance, I'd agree wtih the assessment of it being a starship support unit, at least partially. It's got the overall look of a VTOL attack unit (jets on the undercarriage facing down and front, turret-based guns, lots of missiles) and reminds me more than a bit of the AH-64 Apache. I'll say this, by all animated evidence it's not a bad machine. The one that appears front and center doesn't get offed until after the Marduk's pet Zentradi start going berzerk (see also: "song of death") and he's suicidally rammed by a Zentradi he fatally wounded. Still, it does bring down an admirable number of power armor suits before it's destroyed.

Yeah, I get the overall point of the GBP armor, insofar as turning the Valkyrie into a quick and dirty destroid stand-in, or a mobile missile platform with tons of extra armor, but it still strikes me as odd that they never thought to add any more than missiles to the system. They could've taken a leaf from the SAP or Strike armor's book and added a pair of beam cannons, or extra gunpod reloads, or any variety of other useful augmentations that would potentially make the GBP more versitile. Of course the GBP on the VF-0 and VF-1 wouldn't quite work the reload concept, since the GPU-9 and GU-11 weren't field reloadable. Y'know, taking the lower center of gravity from the engine's weight into account, the VF-4 does stand much less of a chance of doing a belly-flop inadvertantly. Still, something about it just doesn't quite feel right. So long as we're talking unorthodox Macross II mecha... For your consideration, one more Macross II mecha that seems to have been, at least on my site's old home, the object of some consternation regarding precisely HOW to classify it. Attached is the aptly named "Gerwalkroid' AGA-1JF. Like how the GBP series Valkyrie armor makes the Valkyrie into essentially a destroid, the Gerwalkroid is essentially the other side of the comprimise, a Destroid playing at being a Valkyrie. It flies, is loaded down with missile launchers on the wingtips, arms, legs, and shoulder joint, and a few other places. It's behavior in the Macross II anime lends to the theory that it's something of a VTOL support destroid, I suppose a space-capable replacement for the attack helecopter. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this unique and rather bizarre mecha.

Thought of another good example that is slightly closer to what I mean, the lifting-body design employed on the American Space Shuttle, in which the wings don't actually do the bulk of the lifting when the shuttle is coasting down. Really an ingenious idea, but it doesn't exactly lend itself to being really maneuverable, so the applications are limited, but it's definately the same sort of revolutionary design leap. I can definately see why you have a beef with the VF-2SS's design, now that I've got a feel for the aircraft you prefer. Mine are the VF-2SS Valkyrie II, the YF-19, the VF-2JA Icarus, the Variable Glaug, the VF-1SR, and the VF-1S Valkyrie. For real planes, I'm more of a fan of the XB-70 (even if it is ugly), the F/A-22, the F-14, the F-17, the B-17 Flying Fortress and B-52 Stratofortress, especially the pre-revision model with the tandem cockpit. I still get the urge to stomp on the VF-22, as it reminds me too much of a gigantic roach. The one constantly returning design that continues to bug me about the Valkyries of the Macross 7 timeline is what a friend of mine dubbed "The Twinkie Suit" (Don't ask, loooooooooooooooooooong story involving too much tequila and many a night spent playing VF-X, VF-X2 and the not-too-bad actually Battlecry). The GBP type armor that shows up on the VF-0, VF-1, and VF-11, which to me just seems TOO DAMN BIG to make much sense. Sure, lots of missiles is nice, but not being able to go anywhere quickly can get a little risky. Well, the VF-4's lower torso looks good and all, it's just it's pre-YF-19 superboob and the two huge chunks on the shoulders that get to me, and give it the impression of being topheavy. Ah well, March, there's not much we can do for you not enjoying the story, but at least we can have a spot of fun debating the finer points of the mecha.

Allow me to clarify my statement regarding the VF-4 Lightning III. Personally I rather like it's design in fighter mode, and have done a few pieces of art on it myself. I just can't stand it's upper torso in battroid mode, because of the projections that come out of it's shoulders and the center of the torso, which would make it abnormally (for a Valkyrie) prone to falling either forward or backward, with that much weight displaced on the top and towards the front. True, the SAP packs would generate similar problems with the VF-2SS, but the SAP packs were never used outside of space combat in Macross II. For both in space it's a non-issue, I suppose, without gravity you really can't fall over. But at least the VF-2SS could jettison the SAP packs to level itself out if the need arose. To me, the VF-4 is a beautiful fighter in fighter mode, but the other two modes just don't do it any justice, and Kawamori's leaving it relatively unused is more than a little unfair to what could have been a really great design. Lots of untapped potential there if he redid it's battroid mode. I'd like to see it used more, but alas, I fear such will never happen. There's some guy on here who did a really awesome CGI of the VF-4, I'll have to look some of his stuff up later. (Also, considering things, is it just me or does the head from the Metal Siren look not too dissimilar from the head on the VF-4 sketch posted by Radd?) Yeah, that big gun the full armor VF-11 used, the XS-06 was it? That's definately gonna be a space-only weapon, unless you get someone else to prop up the other end of the barrel. Still, it looks pretty damn powerful, and I certainly wouldn't want to be on the receiving end. Nice art by the way, I particularly like the pose.

My apologies for the overbearing attitude. Guess I'm just used to the general reaction to anything Macross II from the Macross 7 fans as being "ZOMG! That show sucks cuz Kawamori sez so!" That still happens a bit here, guess I'm just conditioned to expect that sort of thing. My apologies to you all, I'll try and rein it in. The inclusion of things like air intakes and wings and the like on a Valkyrie II make perfect sense. If you're going to be flying something that normally is designed primarily for space combat, you at least want to hedge your bets a little, since you'll doubtless be fighting near or in orbit of a planet. So having it be able to fly atmospherically, even if it's not the best performing plane in the air, is at the bare minimum, a good idea. Designed as it is, I have very little in the way of doubts as to it's ability to fly in a planet's atmosphere. If you examine closer, you'll note that in all but one circumstance in which a VF-2SS is flying in all of Macross II, the wings are folded back along the fighter's centerline (I have added a picture that illustrates this). It's a radical design, true. But so were things like the SR-71 Blackbird, the XB-70 Valkyrie, the B-2 Spirit and the F/A-22 Raptor. Sometimes dynamic breaks from the norm are the only way to evolve. Being an engineer, generally if you're going to be criticizing one particular design, you should also be prepared to criticize and evaluate other, competing designs as well. Comparing the development of the control interfaces and body structure of the Macross Plus and 7 Valkyries to those from Macross and Macross II would seem to me at least to be a relevant consideration, as they are this particular field's alternatives. Perhaps I would have an easier time understanding your point of view if you provided a visual aide as to the type of fighter design you prefer?

Believe me, the point of your post got through just fine. Of course you're missing a few key points there yourself. For starters, the Valkyrie II is a "SPACE VALKYRIE." Flying in the atmosphere is more or less moot, since the entire point of the thing is to go into space and pretty much stay there. In space, flying by lift is moot, because outside of planetary orbit, you're not worrying about gravity. Yes, it's very likely that the VF-1, VF-0, SV-51, VF-11 and YF-21 would fly, likewise the VF-2JA Icarus, and in a pinch, the VF-2SS Valkyrie II. There's enough wing surface and aerodynamic structure that given sufficient thrust, it will fly on lift. It will not be the most maneuverable plane flying on lift, but it will likely fly. My point, which you again missed, is that your willing suspension of disbelief is horribly lopsided. You yourself stated that this is whether or not these fictional fighters look as though they could fly via lift in atmosphere, with minimal suspension of disbelief. There's enough evidence to make the conjecture that the Valkyrie II would fly relatively well on lift, if not being the most maneuverable planes out there. The control systems of the fighters are immensely relevant to the subject of whether or not a plane can fly, as a certain degree of precision is necessary to control the aircraft in atmosphere. Therefore my point about Basara's guitar-control interface remains valid. Please do READ my posts, don't just skim them. You might learn something.

True, most of the fighters in Macross are basically just revisions of or meldings of modern aircraft. Good examples being the VF-17, which looks virtually identical to the F-117A Nighthawk stealth fighter, the VF-22, which is almost line for line a F/A-22 Raptor, the VF-1 Valkyrie, which everyone knows is pretty much a F-14 Tomcat, and the VF-4 Lightning, which greatly resembles a miniature, streamlined XB-70 Valkyrie bomber. Still, you have to note that as time goes on, at least in the Macross Plus/7 branch, there's a marked trend towards making battroids look like Nosjadeul-Ger power armor. Look at the body structure of the VF-19 against the male power armor, looks mighty similar, no? And the VF-22 is pretty much a Queadluun Rau in disguise, both in it's fighting style and in it's looks. We really could've done without the Zentradi-ification of the mecha, and especially not the incredably outlandish Ultraman-esque VF-19 Kai Fire Valkyrie, Mylene's VF-11, and the rest of the Sound Force technology, most of which is baldly ignorant of both style, and of little principles like acoustics. I always thought the VF-22 wasn't very menacing looking, to me it looked more like a giant cockroach, or some other large beetle. If you're willing to suspend disbelief for the incredably impractical transformation sequence of the YF-19 prototype in which it's entire body breaks up at the hips. Or for the ridiculous gunpod deployment scheme of the VF-17 Nightmare in which is blasts outward from the hip. Or all that complete BS about the magical weaponry potential of anima spirita and music, which can be written off as pseudo-religious BS. Or giant space monsters that can control your brain and stop your spaceship dead in it's tracks with a thought, and all this other Magical stuff in Macross 7, then suspending disbelief for the Valkyries of Macross II should be small potatoes and easily within your grasp. Heck, the only application of "spirita" that actually makes sense is from Macross II. The Marduk's emulators use music in conjunction with various other technologies to manipulate the aggressive impulses of the Zentradi they use as soldiers. That, unlike "Anima Spirita" and Sound Force's weaponry, has a solid basis in firm, unrelenting science fact. Using sounds, smells or tastes as hypnotic cues isn't a mystery, it's not magical, and it's done largely on an everyday basis by hypnotherepists for proceedures as mundane as helping people quit smoking. It could also be taken as Pavlovian conditioning, which is another well understood psychological endeavor. Sound Force's technology is largely the product of wishful thinking on Kawamori's part, where the abysmally poor singing of a few lost causes makes aliens shrivel up and die, frees brainwashed citizens and explodes enemy sensors. It has NO BASIS WHATSOEVER in the land of science fact, putting it several standard deviations higher than my general willingness to suspend disbelief. The only thing that the power of Basara's singing, and anima spirita does is make me hit "mute" on my remote control until he's done singing. That's the power of spirita. You want to talk spirita-related design standards, insofar as making fighters go? What about the absurdly impractical guitar, bass, or drum set controls for the sound force valkyries! Macross II's control systems aren't much different from the controls of your average F/A-22 or F-14! However, if you expect me to believe that you can fly such a bewilderingly complex machine using nothing but a bass guitar or a drum kit, you've got another thing coming. The technology in the engines is all well and good, but in the face of such a patently ludicrous control system, they might as well be running on fairy dust and floss, because until you build it and prove otherwise, you can't fly a plane with a guitar. I hope that I have proven to you all which set of Valkyries is really the ones with which your suspension of disbelief should be suffering. If you can suspend disbelief for Mr. Nekki Basara and his amazing flying Ultraman Valkyrie controlled by a hideous guitar and his songs, then suspending disbelief for Macross II's Valkyries should pose you no difficulty whatsoever. EDIT: Added some "oomph" to my last paragraph. The former ending lacked it somewhat.

And in the other two modes it's some sick engineer's mad mistake. A battroid so utterly topheavy it'll fall over if you so much as look at it the wrong way. In a way it's probably a service to Macross that Kawamori never really focussed on the VF-4 past it's fighter mode. Conceded, I'd overlooked the mass/inertia relation in my last post, but the lack of drag from zero gravity does apply, because stellar bodies below the approximate mass of our moon can't maintain a stable atmosphere, and when in the absence of gravity, atmosphere is a foregone conclusion. And yes even I, a heavily biased Macross II fan, will admit that the Metal Siren is one ugly bird. Fortunately it's also a painfully effective bird, so I'm willing to overlook it's beating with the ugly stick. Like I said earlier, it was much more attractive before they added the elongated nose/right arm segment and the extra bits on the engines/legs. EDIT: Sorry about leaving this so painfully incomplete, one of my website clients had a huge complaint about a hacker attack that required my immediate attention.