sketchley

The last one is probably the most realistic one to date. Though your signature/e-mail has now become illegible and I think that it's an advert for yahoo. Also, on all the logos that you add, the マクロスゼロ is borderline illegible...

Uhm isn't the 'let's flame Macross 7 because it's different' thread somewhere else? What's the common line? Use the search feature? The last word on Macross 7: come and live in Japan for a few years. Watch Macross 7 no more than one episode a day. Do NOT take in heavy expectations such as it being the same as the original series, movie or Macross Plus. Don't expect anything at all, in fact.* It actually makes sense and is, despite claims to the otherwise, pretty interesting. Not the best, but interesting in its own, unique, way. * Some of you may jump on this, so I'll state my intent: Macross 7 is like coming to Japan. If you have an expectation, you will be disappointed, no matter what. If you come with no expectations, you will be pleasantly surprised. And no, no expectations doesn't mean negative expectations either.

The VFERRs: http://www.macrossworld.com/macross/magazi...acter_model.htm http://www.macrossworld.com/macross/magazi...2004-page-6.jpg I fully realize that this is a column in a 'character modeling magazine' and that it being canon could be in dispute. Nevertheless, it does firmly plant the idea that the UN, though it may not have used the design in actual operations, probably raided it for useable technology. There is evidence of the UN doing this later, in canon parts of the series with the Variable Gluag, and the YF-21/VF-22 - raiding Zentraedi technology that is. Nevertheless, the only thing that I am 'requesting' being 'imported' from the SV-51 is that the gun pod becomes part of the fuselage in fighter mode. This is not a big sticking point for me (whether the community accepts this or not) as I am waffling between incorporating the gun pod as part of the fuselage, storing the gun pod internally, or doing the standard thing (gun pod mounted externally below the centerline of the fighter.) After all, the VF-5 is designed for water landing - which doesn't mean that it always has to land in water.

I've been doing a lot of thought on this (specifically: turning the VF-5 into something futuristic looking), and the conclusion I have is: Agreed that the VF-5 sits between the VF-4 and VF-9. Facts (all from the Macross Compendium): VF-4: mass production from 2012; development began before SWI/end of the Macross TV series. VF-5 development from 2009, first flight 2013. VF-5000: development from 2011. First flight 2018. I mention them because of the following: SV-51: gun pod forms part of the rear fuselage (between the engines). VF has active stealth. Thrust vectored engines and VTOL in jet mode capable. VF-0: thrust vectored engines. Has (or were in the process of being developed) FAST packs. VF-1: thrust vectored engines. All ordinance carried externally on hardpoints and/or in FAST packs. VA-3: All ordinance carried externally on hardpoints. Has FAST packs. VF-4: some ordinance conformally mounted, some ordinance carried externally on hardpoints. Presumably has thrust vectored engines. One Macross video game gave it FAST packs. VF-5000: ordinance carried internally. Therefore, it is possible for the VF-5 to have everything up to the VF-4, and possibly the internal carried missiles like the VF-5000. (Given that they are present on the FAST packs of the VF-0, the problem is probably more due to internal space of the VF than anything else.) Reason being is that all the items mentioned have seen extensive manufacturing (thus serious cost reductions) except for the active stealth of the SV-51. Therefore, IMHO, limiting the design to something that would’ve come out of the 1980’s is, well, not reflective of the Macross technological reality. I hope that I have presented a reasonable argument for the inclusion of some of the features listed herein, and why they shouldn’t be considered expensive. The other quick thought I’d like to add (late, getting very sleepy) is that for mass produced automobiles, options are the way things have gone. An automobile with 0 options is far cheaper than one loaded with all the options. Perhaps the VF-5 should be considered like that too – your optionizable K-car. In Macross terms, I believe the options are mostly hardpoint loadouts and FAST packs (yes, the VF-5 will have FAST packs in the design I’m working on. ) Though there is the possibility of some of the ‘standard features’ that I’ve listed in this post as being options as well.

Oh, I hadn't seen those picts. Thanks for clarifying. Though I still must ask - is it called the Daedalus II? As it's not listed in the Macross Compendium - what does the game information call it? (You have the Japanese? I can translate!*) * Me a busy boy. My intent is the ship's name from the game documentiation.

That's a fairly accurate* recreation of the one that appeared in that Macross game 'way back in the day'. Though, I don't remember the fin on the bottom. Was this an element added by you guys? Also... isn't it an ARMD class carrier, and not a Daedalus type? *I say this because I've only seen two small .jpeg images of it, so I'm not 100% certain of what the original looks like.

http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e622.html and http://www.geocities.com/japanfaq/FAQ-Manners.html

Yes, here in Japan, white foreigners can get away with a lot of stuff that non-white foreigners can't. One of them is the like of anime. At most it gets a 'that's odd' look, and then a shrug. Believe me, there are much worse things to do than confess about being an anime addict and/or carry shopping bags with anime goods. The first one that comes to mind is leaving your chopsticks standing straight up out of your rice bowl. That'll lose friends fast.

On the date thing - who cares! Most every shop in Japan gives a nice decorative bag to conceal purchases in. As for the bigger worry - space in the suitcase: you could always send things by seamail. (Or airmail, if you're that rich and can afford not to wait.)

It's actually waaay to broad for me. (Specificiation = specs of finished Sea Dart? Military spec. requirements for the programme that resulted in the Sea Dart?) What I'd really like to see is the Japanese language source - the kanji specifically; because their meaning is almost always very concise and specific.

I was thinking of the idea further, and the wall that I keep running headlong into is the delta wings. IMHO, they are just too big and get in the way of the legs and thrust-vectoring of engine. They also prevent the thing from squatting down... So, I was thinking of making the wings smaller - and that is leading me to something visually like the Eurofighter Typhoon - with the belly airvents and lower fuselage bulge being the legs/water landing keel. It'll take a bit more time to provide a more finessed design. I am going to steal your missile pod pontoon idea. EDIT: I think the easiest way to incorporate top air intakes into your existing design is to include the top intakes that are on the Su-27 (I believe.) The jet is designed to close its main intakes when landing on farmers' fields, and use the top intakes to prevent anything from being sucked into the engines. It shouldn't be too much work to add that to your existing design.

Woah! I hope you mean only in visuals and character designs. That original OVA's story completely missed the point of the Appleseed story and butchered the other elements to make a monstrousity that killed the animated Appleseed franchise for about a decade. I was really happy with the 3DCG movie as it brought animated Appleseed back to the original story and intent of it. (Though still different, but that can be expected when any story makes the jump to the big screen interpretation.) Agreed. Mind you, there's a few years of improvements in both computer hardware and software that added to it as well. I admit that I initially didn't really like the anime-style faces on pseudo-realistic bodies in a pseudo-realistic environment. However, they grew on me and I actually quite like the result. Visually, it's a fairly distinct movie, and that, IMHO, makes it more memoriable. Though, I will mention that in this day-and-age, I think we will be seeing more motion capture animation, as it is cheaper to produce than frame-by-frame animation. Let's hope that the Appleseed movie's motion capture animation will be on par or better than the motion capture animation in Lord of the Rings. (Say what? Check out the extras on the special edition. ) Now what direction could they be taking the Appleseed movie(s)? As they've hit all the major plot points and events in the 1st two manga compilations as well as the cyborg fembots of the 5th (that never finished production.) Will they be based on the 3rd and 4th compilations respectively? Or will they go the route of GiTS: Stand Alone Complex and focus on the crime fighting and anti-terrorist activities of ESWAT?

Those are very nice picts, Kurisama. Though, the rear 3/4 view of the light missile regult is missing the front half of it's left rocket launcher. (Posting mostly for Wongsters benefit than anything else.)

I think that's the point about the really good movies. It's the first one or two views that are truly moving and inspirational. After that, it's hard to get those feelings again. T2 is a good example of rewatchable eye-candy. But other hard-hitting movies on par with BR are out there. Such as "Grave of the Fireflies." THAT movie is painful to rewatch; nevertheless, it is one of the best WWII movies out there.

Very, very good points. I think another thing to add to this is the main intent of the two stories. GiTS: questioning the definition of life, and what makes us human in the absence of flesh and corruption of technology. Appleseed: questioning humanities right to life, despite its warlike nature. In a lot of ways, the basic message of Appleseed is a lot easier to understand than that of GiTS. Both are good stories, it's just that GiTS requires a lot, lot more scientific understanding to understand.

You know, your attitude is really, really poor. It is a real disincentive for people to answer your questions and give civil responses; not to mention making people much more arguementative then normal civil relations would. As for the translations: a) Babelfish's translation is crap and resulted in crap. Thus a more accurate online translator was used to get a fast translation. b) that fast translation was called into question. So out came the dictionaries and real translation. You indicate that this is an argument about semantics. At this time, I'd like to call in your skills as a translator. You are arguing to someone who has worked professionally in translation, between Japanese and English, and claiming that you have a better understanding of the original message and it's just my poor English abilities that are preventing it from being correctly understood. Therefore, what are your translation credentials? What experiences do you have translating from Japanese to English? Let me remind you of the key statement in question: "The 3 of them together, tend to/take care of (...) the child." That's not drunk Warera by himself. PS I do agree that a monetary transaction may or may not be involved with the standard definition of babysitting. However, as the Asian (specifically Japanese) definition of look after/take care of a baby is in the presence of, and with the parents and/or legal guardians, they are two entirely different concepts.

Babysit in Japanese = å­å®ˆã‚’ã™ã‚‹ã€ã¹ãƒ“シッターをã™ã‚‹ Please check the Japanese text for those two variations. See if you can find it. In fact, it has å­ä¾›ã®é¢å€’ã‚’ã¿ã¦ã„ã‚‹. The key verb being é¢å€’ which translates as: trouble, difficulty; taking care of, tending to. The nuance of the statement ロリーã€ã‚³ãƒ³ãƒ€ã¨å…±ã«ã€ãƒ­ãƒªãƒ¼ï¼†ãƒ´ã‚¡ãƒãƒƒã‚µå¤«å¦»ã®ï¼“人ã®å­ä¾›ã®é¢å€’ã‚’ã¿ã¦ã„ã‚‹ is Rorii, Konda and Warera, the 3 of them together, tend to/take care of husband and wife, Rorii's and Venessa's child. And thank you for referring to me as an "automated translation script". Back to the original intent of this topic: Macross Perfect Memory, Pg 131 has the first part of the Warera description, up until the drinking bit.

Babysitting - the nuance is that the parents or guardians leave the area, and the baby, in the care of the babysitter. Looking after by and large means that the parents or guardians are sometimes to mostly with both the baby and the person looking after the baby. Example: Venassa is cooking dinner, Lori is watching TV, and Warera is looking after the baby - all in the same room. Also, if they meant babysitter, with all it's definitions and nuances, they would have said babysitter. They didn't.

It does look like an improvement in the 3DCG from the first one. I'm looking forward to this, as the first movie was really, really great.

Questions: - does any of the information contradict known information in English and/or the various animes and manga? - how much of the database is the same as known information in English? Suggestion: - do the Star Wars extended universe approach to the info - as long as it isn't contrary to canon, it's as good as canon.

Places to look: 商店街 aka: shopping streets. The Japanese equivalent of the Korean 시장 - market. (Especially!) in areas away from trendy, shopping focused areas like 秋葉ã€æ–°å®¿ã€åŽŸå®¿ã€ãªã© (Aki(ha)ba(ra), Shinjuku, Harajuku, etc.). Whenever I go to den-den town here in Osaka (the equivalent of Akiba/Akihabara,) I never see a supermarket. However, a few blocks over, in a more residential district, there are a few supermarkets to be found. Keep in mind that here in Japan, there are two types of supermarkets: normal and ninja*. Normal are usually found in the suburbs. Ninja supermarkets hide in plain sight in the big cities. Sometimes you have to actually go inside of closed doors and up a staircase/escalator or two to get to them. *Theyre not really ninja supermarkets if you know how to read Japanese カタカナ (katakana).

"looked after" is not equal to babysitting. In my mind, babysitting is a paid job or service. Looking after is unpaid. In Asia, babysitting doesn't exist, at least in the North American sense of it, as by-and-large the extended family (usually grandparents) look after the kids if the parents need to do something that they couldn't do without the assistance (shopping for big ticket items, etc..) It's a totally different culture afterall.

The reaction I get by most people that I meet when I mention Macross is "What's that?" Among the ladies, if you mention Lynn Minmei and/or Marii Ijima, the chance of them recognizing it goes up considerably. Among the men, if you show them any pictures of the VF-1, there is a strong chance that they'll recognize it. Macross is alive and well here. It's just not that mainstream.

To put my money where my mouth is, I've sketched up a take on it. Notes: - 3 conformal missiles over the engine/on the back (the back is like the VF-22 - with the wings folding underneath it.) - cockpit goes under the fuselage, forcing the head up, nose cone goes down and becomes the hip joints. (like on the VF-4) - the upper legs retract into the lower legs and the feet are like the ones on the VF-22 (when transformed, they are in the lower leg.) - the shoulders are a bit of an upside-down variation of the VF-14's shoulders. Therefore, laser cannons or missile lanchers could be added. (I've included the original layout sketch, as I think the potential of the shoulders comes across more clearly in them. the layout sketch also has canards there too... I don't think they'd get in the way during a water landing...) - the landing gear is probably in the arms. That would allow for the water-landing skids to extend out of the legs. It shouldn't be too hard to fit in a gunpod into the legs as well. EDIT: the artwork can be seen here: http://studiootaking.deviantart.com/art/VF-5-Rough-62766623

Can I make some suggestions? - In jet mode, move the arms from above the wings to under the wings. The reason is two-fold: a) by making the entire top fuselage and wing into one large, roughly flat area, it'll have greater lift. b) A la the VA-3M, the arms could be lowered into the water and act as the skids/skies. This would save "space" elsewhere. - After the VF-1, basically all of the VF head lasers on standard fighters are aimed towards the rear and there is only one of them. (Yeah, I know of the VF-17 and VF-19 squadron leader exceptions.) - ventral (top) air intake for the engine. It's on the sea dart, and if the arms are moved to below the wings, there should be plenty of space there for them. (Design reason for moving the intakes: to prevent seawater from being sucked into the engine and mangling it.) - a single rear vertical tail is... well, redundant, with the thrust vectoring. For coolness, I suggest copying the tails of the VF-0D. - have you though of including conformally mounted missiles, like those on the VF-4? - I don't think it needs a gun pod. The VA-3M (the only other known VF to have 'good relations' with water) doesn't have a gun pod, and it still performs on par with the other VFs in VF-X2. The only other option I can see it is to do something like the VF-17 and carry it internally. Given that the legs of this design don't have engines, there's plenty of space in them for a gun pod or other special weapon. I personally like the A version of the battroid - because it looks closer to the direction that Shouji Kawamori is taking VFs (SV-51 style - more spindally.) I also really like the missile pod pontoons. It is both unique and remeniscent of the pontoons on the VA-3M as well as the rough design of wing pods for the VF-11 (that never went anywhere but the roughs.) Kudos for the work that you've done so far on this design.