ewilen

Good to know, David. For those interested, here are links to CVN-76 and CVN-77 pictures and models showing the bow. http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/027602.jpg http://www.2scale.com/image013.jpg http://www.modelshipbuilding.com/reaganmodel.htm http://www.motionmodels.com/ships/cv/cvn76.html

1978, what was I doing then? Ah yes, I had just learned about wargaming, and any remaining interest in toys or models was now being directed to boxes full of cardboard chits, multipage rulebooks, and paper boards. I didn't return to the toy fold until recently, and what do I see: so many licensed toys which are made to look good on the shelf and create an almost unbearable sense of "must have", but which really have very little play value. I'm thinking of those all those semi-static figures which punch their fists or make a sound when you press a button. Many of those are probably fine for adults who want something to display, but I doubt they hold kids' interest very long. I remember spending entire afternoons on GI Joe adventures or Best of the West shootouts with my friends.

The Yamato had something similar, as illustrated in this model. The Iowas and some other battleships also have a somewhat bulbous bow. These links explain what the design is supposed to accomplish: http://www.warships1.com/index_tech/tech-004.htm http://www.chuckhawks.com/post_treaty_battleships2.htm And still more here: http://members.shaw.ca/diesel-duck/library...ulbous_bows.htm You can do a search on "bulbous bow" for many more links.

The sig is Kawamori's and the date is 5/12/2004. I'm guessing it's a sketch done on the spot for a fan at a convention. That's just a guess, though. I like it, BTW. It's good to see the main pic changing from time to time.

Yes, the nose was changed pretty radically from the fighter model to the battroid. I hope that someone will eventually come up with a compromise that looks good in both modes without having to swap the nosecone.

The majic 8-ball on my desk says "without a doubt!" I guess I was somewhat influenced by the interview with Noboru Ishiguro, where he says he thinks Global may be a dirty old man because he sits in a low chair on the bridge surrounded by young women in skirts. "Kim, Sammy, Vanessa--who wants to be the Captain's pipe holder today?"

I don't know if this would help, but it might: http://www.archive.org/

Don't really care about the titles, but I'm just wondering...do I have an overactive imagination, or is that particular title somewhat pornographic?

I don't have the answers for you, but the other thread is worth studying because getting a script with proper timing is 90% or more of the challenge. The other part is finding the tools for your platform which will allow you to extract the video stream (if necessary) and create a DVD which combines it with the script in question. For the latter, I'd suggest you visit http://www.doom9.org/ and possibly http://ffmpeg.sourceforge.net/ At those sites and similar ones, you can find people who can help you with the technical side of the conversion.

Cool stuff! What are the trailer and human figures?

Does that have a horizontal stabilizer? If not, how did they get it to fly? It doesn't look to me like they increased the outward cant of the vertical stabs (very much). Even more mystifying--how does that RC Enterprise fly?

This was the final project for a beginning drawing class I'm taking. The teacher wanted us to create a composition using two or more images, then draw it. So I made a divided composition using a moth taken off the net and a photo of a Yamato 1/60 VF-1J, then I blew it up using charcoal on paper. The name GERWALK in Japanese actually contains a pun on the word for "Moth". The proportions on the Valk are off a bit but overall I'm pretty happy with the results. I'm planning on cropping the right edge slightly to make the images dead center on the paper. Because of the flash on my camera and some curling/creasing of the paper, it was hard to get an optimal image. More thumbnails, with links to larger versions, are at this URL: http://www.sonic.net/~ewilen/Macross/art/Moth/ Your comments are welcome!

It's pretty easy to find pictures of Mika Doi, who did the voice for Lana (as well as Misa in Macross and Houquet in Mospeada). I don't know about the Nova Satori English voice actress. Related trivia: If I'm not mistaken, the Japanese VA for Jeanne Francais is the same as for C-ko Kotobuki from Project Ako. I think there's a passing resemblence between the characters--wonder if there's a connection.

Hurin, I just realized that the best compromise for the single/multi-thruster problem would probably be to employ some form of vectored thrust for the main engine. One design might put the engine at the center of the "hole" of a donut-shaped ship, with struts and moving joints to connect it to the ship, feed fuel from the storage tanks, and allow the engine to point in nearly any direction. Another design would place the main engine off-center longitudinally. Even with limited vectoring capability, the engine could rotate the ship; as the ship rotates to point in the desired direction, the vector of the thrust can be adjusted back to match the central axis of mass and propel the ship forward. Either design would probably still employ auxiliary thrusters, but they wouldn't need to be as powerful as with a fixed main engine. A Valkyrie in space is actually an example of the second design combined with auxiliary thrusters. (Edited to correct a conceptual error.)

Talk about relativity--this conversation is seriously out of synch! Anyway, yes, having many thrusters imposes costs, not only in direct monetary expenses, but also in terms of mass. They also take up surface space that could be used for other things, like guns.

First, correction to my earlier post. I wrote, Actually, while part of the Yamato's acceleration would be in the direction of the enemy, the other part would be away from the enemy (perpendicular to the axis of retreat). So the situation would be even worse than I suggested. Now, in response to Hurin regarding "maximum speed". I can't claim to have a specialist's knowledge of physics, or even a physics B.S.'s, but I think you're somewhat mistaken. The limitation of the speed of light is always in relation to a specific inertial frame of reference. I.e., my spaceship can never appear to have an instanteous velocity at (or beyond) the speed of light relative to your spaceship. However, if at any given moment we're both moving at the same velocity and vector, say 0.9999c relative to a nearby star, that actually makes us motionless relative to each other. So if my engines are more powerful than yours, I can continue to accelerate relative to you. Overall, it would be very weird. Furthermore, the scenario becomes impossible as soon we accept that there's no such thing as "unlimited fuel". And regarding that nearby star, the particles in its solar wind would be buffeting us terribly if we were moving at a such a high relative velocity. So for practical purposes, there has to be a maximum velocity for a starship starting "at rest" relative to some part of the universe. The question is whether the maximum would be a factor in space combat. I'm inclined to think that for any real-world scenario, it would be. Certainly if we tried to fight a battle between robotic ships based on current state of the art interplanetary probes, their ability to maneuver would be severely limited by fuel/reaction mass limitations, unless they had ion drives. In that case, they could probably maneuver a lot, but very, very slowly.

Hurin, yes, a space ship needs to be able to apply thrust in different directions both to adjust its vector and to change its attitude. But if you add equally powerful thrusters in all directions, you'll be giving something up relative to a ship which only has primary thrusters in one direction. That is, unless you posit some kind of reactionless drive that can move the ship in any direction with equal ease.

Jeleinen is right. Just think of the Yamato trying to chase down a fleeing enemy. Both ships want to accelerate at maximum rate, in the direction that the enemy is trying to escape. If Yamato turns to bring its broadside to bear, it can only apply part of its maximum acceleration in the direction of the enemy. So the Yamato will close the range less rapidly (or the range will increase more rapidly). If there's some kind of absolute limit on velocity relative to a local frame of reference, though, it would mitigate this effect. For example, since even a vacuum isn't completely empty, if you keep accelerating, you'd eventually be hitting hydrogen atoms at such a high relative velocity that the impact would release a huge amount of energy. Sort of like absorbing a particle beam. Long before that point, though, you might run out of fuel. A great deal depends on the underlying physical/technological assumptions of the scifi scenario. (Hurin--shucks! Thanks for the compliment.)

I've gotta say the IFV and the human figure give a great sense of scale, even for a work in progress.

Cheers to THOR for letting me link some pics out this thread. Pictured is THOR's 1/35 Spartan work-in-progress, a 1/35th Gasaraki Raiden, its operator, a 1/32 kawasaki zx-12r, and a 1/35th Tamiya Bradley IFV.

I'd put it in a class with... Logan's Run Planet of the Apes (Charleton Heston version, of course) Alphaville Silent Running Brave New World (at least, the TV version I saw once) Sleeper (sort of) A Boy and His Dog and (although not a dystopian movie) 2001 In other words, you need to see it.

The animation and modelling is beautiful, but the transformation sequence looks off to me. Compare the opening of SDF Macross TV. It goes legs-arms-backback, not legs-backpack-arms.

Wasn't so crazy about The Iron Giant--I thought it was fairly paint-by-numbers. But this one looks pretty good. Looking forward to it.

The trailer looks good, better quality than I remember from the time I saw it, but the news stories (thankfully) say that all they've done is restore the footage; nothing about changes or edits. How can you go wrong when Robert Duvall and Blofeld--er, Donald Pleasance are in the same movie!? I love those depressing 60's-70's dystopia/end of the world flicks.