ewilen

The last one is the only one I'd really hate to have my head on. Although it would probably have my wife gasping for air from laughter.

You make a good point, Druna Skass. (Edit: and I disagree with Hurin.) Even though there's no drag, there would still be limitations based on the primary axis of acceleration vs. the axes in which fire can be brought to bear. In answering the question, though, you need to postulate answers to a bunch of questions about space combat, though. Detection ranges and effective ranges of various types of weapons (beam/projectile/guided missile) would be important. Also crucial is whether there would be a practical limit on velocity. If not, then for most purposes you can replace velocity with acceleration when considering the tactical effects of weapon facings. Yet another issue is whether space warfare will generally be conducted in deep space or in orbit. Consider the development of naval tactics from the advent of cannons on warships through the mid-20th century. Due to the geometry of naval architecture (ships must be longer than they are wide), from an early date the greatest concentration of firepower was on the broadside. This led to primarily linear tactics in fleet engagements from the 18th century through the era of the dreadnought battleship. (Other considerations included command control and, before the advent of steampower, dependence on the wind.) Fleets of ships lined up bow to stern to present their broadsides to the enemy; the ultimate tactical maneuver was either to cross your fleet in front of the other line so that you could concentrate firepower on the enemy's lead ships while minimizing the amount of return fire he could bring to bear, or if you were more daring, to cut through the enemy line with one or more lines of your own, thus achieving a similar concentration of firepower in several places. Nelson achieved the latter at Trafalgar, while Jellicoe managed the former at Jutland. (Weather and daylight denied Jellicoe a tactical victory, but he did force the German fleet to run for its life, thus achieving the strategic goal of maintaining the naval blockade which eventually contributed to victory in World War I). Around the early 20th century up to the First World War, some naval theorists believed that "end on" fire was more important than broadside firepower. Notably, Jackie Fisher, who revolutionized the British Navy and was the force behind the Dreadnought, insisted on designs which sacrificed broadside firepower by having "wing turrets" capable of firing both forward and aft. The Dreadnought itself was armed with ten big guns, of which six to eight could bear on the fore and aft quarters, while eight could bear on the broadside. The image was of a ship which was designed as much to bear down on the enemy as to slug it out. However, the wing turret layouts rapidly lost favor compared to designs where the turrets were exclusively along the center line. In some cases, this meant that a battleship might only be able to fire two or three guns fore and aft compared to eight or twelve on the broadside. By the 1920's and 1930's, new battleship design had largely adopted the pattern introduced by the Americans, with "superfiring" turrets along the centerline. I.e., the foremost and aftermost turrets were placed below the turrets immediately behind or in front of them. This allowed the guns of two turrets to be fired fore and aft, while all the guns could be brought to bear on the broadside. The most typical arrangements provided a ratio of "end-on" to "broadside" firepower of between 2:3 and 1:3. In my opinion, this represented a recognition of the fact that battleship guns were so powerful that charging the enemy was a highly dangerous maneuver. (The advent and improvement of torpedoes may also have been a factor in encouraging battlships to keep their distance.) At the same time that all this was going on, though, the aircraft carrier had come into existence, and by 1940-1942, it was apparent that aircraft would dominate surface combat, at least during daylight. Since the facing of an aircraft carrier is irrelevant to the direction its bombers can strike, carrier groups had no use for the linear formations of battleships. Instead, carriers and their escorts were arranged in a concentric formation designed to provide maximum layered coverage of antiaircraft artillery. During night battles, fleets continued to employ linear tactics in battles dominated by guns and torpedoes. But since WWII, aircraft and guided missiles have become the weapons of choice both day and night for modern surface combat. Furthermore, submarines and antisubmarine warfare have increased in importance; both employ weapons for which the bearing to the target relative to the launch platform is either relatively inconsequential or easily and rapidly adjusted. Consequently, large linear formations are a thing of the past. I feel I'm digressing, though, so let me bring this back to space warfare... It sounds like you're interested in a scenario where detection and targeting are essentially automatic at the effective range of weaponry, and that the weapons are essentially "dumb" beams/projectiles with a high velocity relative to the target. In this kind of situation, you would want to be able point a maximum number of weapons at the enemy regardless of your axis of acceleration. If you had to compromise, you'd need to consider whether it is more important to be able to engage the enemy while maintaining a constant range, or to be able to engage while closing range. The extreme case would be two ships, one of which can only fire perpendicular to its axis of acceleration (call this a "cruiser"), with the other only capable of firing in the direction it is accelerating (call this a "gunboat"). If you assume that both ships have equal firepower, equal ability to absorb damage, and equal acceleration, and further postulate an engagement where each ship's goal is simply to destroy the other, I think it would be an equal fight. However, the gunboat would be able to control the range of engagement, and as long as it maintained at least parity in acceleration, it would be able to pursue or retreat at will since the cruiser would not be able to fire while approaching or retreating. But if you consider other scenarios, I think you'd find there are situations where the cruiser might have an advantage. Things get even muddier when you consider less extreme designs, where the guns/lasers can be aimed to a greater or lesser degree independently of the axis of acceleration.

The lyrics to both those songs should be at Animeigo's site, in the liner notes for SDF Macross TV.

I concur with JB0. Although HG is behind the licensing and sale of SDF Macross TV by Animeigo in 2001-2002, the discs I have (which I got as three minibox sets) don't have any RT names on them. You should go to Animeigo's site and look at the product page for Macross TV to see what the packaging looks like. This thread refers to a bootleg that may be the one you've seen: http://www.macrossworld.com/mwf/index.php?...5574&hl=bootleg There are others, but their box art doesn't resemble the Animeigo box art at all.

About 15 inches long in cruiser mode. That's the size of the 1/3000 Takatoku/Bandai/Matchbox transforming SDF-1 toy--and it's accurate based on the official data.

Finally got around to checking out this thread. Your project does look great! Do you mind if I cross-link some of your images to another thread? I've been collecting pictures of Macross toys/models placed next to other toys/models in (near) identical scale. I understand why you chose 1/35, by the way--it's a standard tank/AFV scale, right? It's interesting (although frustrating) how different scales became standard for different subjects.

This is useful to convert currency: http://finance.yahoo.com/currency?u Or you can just divide by 100 to get a very rough yen > dollar conversion. (The actual conversion comes to $35.50. The yen has dropped quite a bit since its March highs.)

Oh, yeah, forgot to say welcome. Welcome!

He does, look here. Kevin, can you comment on the quality of the Mac 0 episode 1/2 combo package. I know a lot of people (including me) had trouble with the video on certain episode 2 discs.

Just want to mention that the .zds file is a plain zipfile. So it can be extracted with a zip utility (or Stuffit Expander), allowing you to examine the script even if you don't have access to a DVD utility that can use it directly. E.g., if you have a Mac (like me), I don't think there's a DVD player that will use the .zds file. But someone could probably write a script to convert from the unzipped files to a format that can be used by VLC or ffmpegX.

Nope. Just because you own the copyright to something, that doesn't mean you can force someone else to give you access to their copy of it, even if that's the master copy. But I seem to recall posting a few pages back that the masters of DYRL appear to have been assigned to Tatsunoko. That's based on a machine translation of a court case, though, so I may have been mistaken.

If anyone's interested, I just calculated that at 1/3000 scale, a Monster is about 1/2" (1.37 cm) long. So tiny little (transforming?) Valks may not be practical, but Monsters would be. So add this as a feature. Plus a Daedalus whose bow opens up.

You might have a look at this thread: http://www.macrossworld.com/mwf/index.php?showtopic=8012 Skip over the final back and forth between me and mislovrit. We got sidetracked. If you have any additional comments or ideas, I'd like to see them.

I've never seen anything that proves that "the hold up hasn't been on their end". What we know is that the various sides weren't able to come to an agreement. It could be that BW wasn't willing to work with HG at all, but it could just as easily be the case that HG was making demands regarding payments and fees which BW saw as unreasonable. We still don't know what agreement, if any, has been reached to allow Toynami to license the DYRL trademark and designs for use in their superposables. The structure of the agreement could take nearly any form in terms of direct payments between BW and HG, licensing fees from Toynami to one or both of them, and distribution and licensing arrangements with Yamato/Sunwards. HG has shown in the past that it is willing to use copyright and trademark claims to leverage control over the US Macross market. It is certainly conceivable that even in the context of an agreement with BW, HG could use its claims to exclude Yamato and Bandai from the market unless they agree to impossible terms, then fall back on Toynami after claiming that "HG tried to reach a licensing agreement". This might make a sort of business sense for HG if Toynami can offer higher margins (though at the cost of lower quality). Or even if HG does deal with Yamato and Bandai, HG may be in a position to demand such high fees that domestically licensed Macross products end up costing as much as imports. In other words, there'd be no improvement from the perspective of fans. If this happens, I think that fans would be (rightly) annoyed at BW for giving away the farm. On the other hand, if things work out in such a way that the same or better quality and variety of Macross products becomes available, at better prices, most fans will probably see this as a good thing. But that wouldn't mean that all the argument and litigation has been pointless, because the final deal may be quite different from what would have been reached if HG had its way back in 2000.

Yes, but the interesting thing here is that HG is claiming to own the copyright on all the characters and elements of DYRL, and apparently copyright on the film itself, as well as the trademark on the title. Also I want to remind observers that using "trademark" as a verb is ambiguous. I just checked the US Patent and Trademark Office online database, and I didn't see a record of HG applying to register a trademark on "Macross: Do You Remember Love". I think it's more accurate to say that HG "claims trademark" on DYRL. To own a trademark, you don't have to register it--you just have to use it and be able to show that it uniquely identifies your products.

Even if there's a settlement, the bickering won't stop unless and until the situation improves with respect to getting quality Macross stuff outside of Japan. If HG/Toynami facilitate the distribution of the good stuff, instead of trying to prevent it, people are going to be happy. OTOH, if all they do is pay BW for rights to DYRL and then churn out superposables and MPC versions of the DYRL designs, people are going to remain pissed off. (But some of the anger will also be directed at BW for abandoning the US Macross fans.)

Ali sama, thanks for your answer, but I don't know the URL for "Scripts Online". I guess what I'd really like to see, if it's not too much trouble, is either a link(s) to the script(s) in question, or the translator information.

Sort of like the USS Constellation, originally built in 1797, then "rebuilt" in 1854...Congress wouldn't allocate funds for a new ship, so the Navy took the old one into Gosport Navy Yard for "repairs", broke it up, and used some of the timbers to build a new ship with the same name. Officially, it was the same ship since it had never been stricken from the Naval Register. (I really hate to admit it, because I love that ship and take pride in the fact that the original frigate was built in my home town. I take some consolation in the fact that the new ship is the only surviving warship of its type, while 18th century warships are already represented by the Constitution and the Victory.)

Where are the raw fansub scripts that you based your work on? I've found a couple, which helped clarify some of the murkier bits of the fx translation, but I'm wondering if you've found something different.

I hope this doesn't mean they're going to leave out the battroid mode. Also of interest: http://www3.hlj.com/shs/sf/pictures/dsc04328.html http://www3.hlj.com/shs/sf/pictures/dsc04329.html VF-0B? Does the nose look pointier than the other VF-0's? And does the "Space Proving Wing" stencil signify that the VF-0 is going to finally get its fusion engines (and fly in space)?

Druna Skass, that's a great picture. Where's it from?

Other ways to spell "Macross"... マクロス which if translated syllable by syllable is MA-KU-RO-SU Stuff in the Valkyrie head is "hybrid sensor/TV camera eye system": http://macross.anime.net/mecha/united_nati.../vf1/index.html Not clear to me whether the radar dome and periscope are supposed to be part of the head or not. Probably not.

The basic facts have been out for a while, but there are a couple of interesting tidbits here. To wit: and That's pretty big news, since until now we didn't know whether HG was claiming only to have obtained a license to make some toys. Now it looks like they are (legitimately or not) claiming to own all of DYRL--at least in the US.

Do the tiny little valkyries need to transform?

Radd, are you thinking of this? Or this?