Jump to content

sketchley

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    7400

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by sketchley

  1. sketchley
    Wait a sec... didn't you just contradict yourself? Earlier (in the same post) you mention that the a space fleet is air force. The link I gave above to the Macross Compendium itself also errs for the air force ranking structure too...
  2. sketchley
    EXCELLENT post. That said, I think he's getting it from here: http://macross.anime.net/wiki/U.N._Spacy#Ranks That link comes with a whole bunch of questions (E.g. Who decided the English terms for the UN ranks? Why isn't the US's navy ranks listed? ... and, why aren't there any other English speaking countries represented?) Sidestepping that for a mo', we can also ask Jim Breen: http://nihongo.monash.edu/cgi-bin/wwwjdic?1E he has both versions (Commodore, Brigadier General), but frustratingly, it's without context. The Wikipedia entry is also helpful: https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/准将 It helpfully lists some English ranks in the opening paragraph, HOWEVER, it unhelpfully links to the English "Brigadier General". So, the main question I have is: where did Mr Egan Loo get the UN ranks from? Were they dictated by the creators of Macross? Or is it merely an artifact of the 'army bias' when he originally translated those ranks?
  3. sketchley
    Variable Fighter Master File: VF-1 Battroid Valkyrie: http://sdfyodogawa.mywebcommunity.org/OTvfmf/OTvfmf.php I've completed my main goal of all the bits that mention the VF-1EX, and a secondary goal of the QF-3000E (which was much more thought provoking than I thought it would be). Alas, as my site's host has forbidden "apple incident", it means I still have to use a butchered spelling to get "Sharon Apple Incident" past their auto-censors. I really like the book's reasoning for why the VF-1 continues to be produced and used 70 years after its introduction. ... and it begs the question, is the VF-1X++ (from MtR) the basis for the VF-1Z? Or should we consider the VF-1X++ a fighter localized to the Macross Frontier fleet, and distinct from the VF-1J/VF-1EX lineage?
  4. sketchley
    http://sdfyodogawa.mywebcommunity.org/Stats/Statistics/Sourcebook/Timeline1945.php#protoculture What you seek is all the text in green (ignore the text in black—it's unofficial [not canon]).
  5. sketchley
    Well, Kawamori-san et al are on record as saying the Monster has literally a "one-step world". As for the Cheyenne... keep in mind that the Macross Zero version is essentially gasoline engine powered, and the later, SDF-1 era Destroids have nuclear reactors. So, visuals aside, the MBR-04, MBR-07, etc. series are all more advanced (and larger, and carry more weapons, and...). In the background materials for M0, they did indicate (or imply) that the MBR-03 series (the Cheyenne) was a developmental stepping stone to the MBR-04 series—paralleling the relationship of the VF-0 to the VF-1. Of course, the MBR-03 series was abandoned in favour of the larger MBR-04 series because of their poor combat performance in M0 (not that the MBR-04/07 series performed better or anything in SWI. )
  6. sketchley
    As he's said it more than a handful of times, you'll have to peruse my translations for specific instances: http://sdfyodogawa.mywebcommunity.org/ (Most likely one of the interviews in the Great Mechanics section). Check out the VFMF section for the unofficial "DYRL is a sequel" nonsense.
  7. sketchley
    Technically, the TV series version is an in-universe filmed TV show, and the movie the same. VFMF: VF-1 Valkyrie Space Wings goes a step further, and claims that the 2036 DYRL is actually a sequel to a 2012 (or 2013) released movie!
  8. sketchley
    Wasn't he cloned by the Empire remnants in one of the EU stories? ... which begs the question: can Force Ghosts possess people? (Which probably doesn't need to be answered, as Disney has already introduced "Decraniated" characters in RO and Solo...)
  9. sketchley
    Thank you for the link. The only thing I think the reviewer got wrong was about Solo: it was in development (in the sense of a script being worked on) before Disney bought Lucasfilm. Based on the situation JJ Abrams described when he took over the hot seat for SW, I get the impression that he handles high pressure, high stress situations well—given his the lack of grey hair on JJ Abrams.
  10. sketchley
    As far as the official setting goes... it may help to include the names of all the known main fighter requirement packages. Gen 1: VF-1 (it won over the VF-2—mostly because while the VF-2 was more technologically advanced, it was still in development and the UNS needed a fleet of VFs like yesterday). Gen 2: VF-4 (it won over the VF-3... which was effectively blown up by the enemy in SWI, and they needed a space fighter like yesterday. The VF-5000 came about later to plug the gaps in the VF-4's capabilities, and effectively shared the main fighter seat) Gen 3: VF-11 in Project Nova (it won over the VF-14) Gen 4: VF-19 in Project Super Nova (it won over the VF-22, but ultimately the main fighter went to the VF-171) Gen 5: VF-24 in (?)Evolution(?) (it won over... itself? Admittedly the name of this one is a bit fuzzy. There was the joint Shinsei Industry/General Galaxy YF-24 in development, but that stalled for a few years before the YF-24 Evolution happened (ISC and a doubling of engine output being the main bumps, if memory serves).
  11. sketchley
    Speaking of sun and fading... I recently discovered a Bandai Rigado that I had accidentally left on a downstairs window frame (long story short: earthquake damage repairs), and all the decals facing outside were faded (especially the reds). The plastic doesn't appear to have faded/yellowed, but keep in mind that thicker plastic usually takes longer to show discolouration. What about a 'throwaway' VF? Something that doesn't matter if it falls off the desk and breaks, or becomes discoloured from the sun, etc. Like one of the Mecha Collection VFs?
  12. sketchley
    2 suggestions that resulted in more successful results for me: 1) masking. While there *may* be a little bit of bleed through under the edges tape, it'll prevent overspray or the dreaded paint drop. 2) paint it before assembly (in this case... is it possible to disassemble? If not, partially transform it, and mask whatever you don't want painted). .... and while it is a pain in the a$$ at times*, go slow. Work on one part at a time (if you can't disassemble it and work on a batch of parts at the same time). * especially when cleaning the brushes, etc.
  13. sketchley
    I live in Japan, and there's a funky time difference/time warp involved. Seriously... it's actually uncommon for movies to be released concurrently to their 'world premier' here. (Nevermind that due to RL that seeing something in the theatre is more of a costly chore than a fun night out, and I wait for them to come out on BR... in the used shops. )
  14. sketchley
    I fully agree. Well, as long as the comments (even if they are negative) are adding to the conversation. If it's the same poster making the exact same diatribe point for the nth time, well TLDR. As far as movies that I haven't seen yet go: avoiding any and all discussion threads is also my preferred action. You know—internet: spoilers!
  15. sketchley
    Ah... but let's take whatever they reveal with a grain of salt: some of the stuff they decided to produce hasn't always made it into the (final cut of) the movie. E.g.: the First Order Snow Speeder.
  16. sketchley
    You can tell... sort of... when it comes to lighting and shadows. LOL A good rule of thumb with a more realistic* looking movie is: if it is static (e.g. a building or spaceship), there's a good chance that it's a model (something to do with models costing less in the long run). If it's dynamic (e.g. a character), then it's more often than not CG. * perhaps "better director" is better? LOL If I''m not mistaken, directors like Ridley Scott and Christopher Nolan prefer to use them. However, even heavy blue-screen and CG users, such as George Lucas, also use them for cost and ease of production (E.g. the pod race stadium set - in long shots, even the audience were Q-tips being moved by blow dryers!1) 1 https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Mos_Espa_Grand_Arena/Legends#Behind_the_scenes
  17. sketchley
    I was going to argue it, but a line by the producers of the TFA came to mind: "physics works differently in the Star Wars universe." (or something along those lines) So... we're left with only one thing: the needs of the plot. In ESB, it was essential that the X-wing still worked. As far as SW9 is concerned... refer to the line of comments about JJ being a hack, et al.
  18. sketchley
    This is a common SF fallacy. While it is true that spacecraft and submarines are both pressure vessels, one is designed to keep high pressure out (a submarine) and one is designed to keep high pressure in (the spacecraft). Putting it into different words: how many airplanes can keep the water out when they ditch in the sea?
  19. sketchley
    I understand. While I thought Solo was pretty good, the whole new trilogy is "meh". Anyhow, there's an article that sums up our melancholy: "Has Star Wars Reached Peak Prequel?" https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-40973254 It's from the eve of Solo's release. For the TLDR crowd:
  20. sketchley
    Maybe that X-Wing was there just to show how he got there, and that he never, ever, intended to leave?
  21. sketchley
    Re: VF-4 I think that's a case of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing. Though, a more reasonable explanation is that the VF-1 Space Wings book was published years before the VF-4 book. Writers changed (or the writer deepened his knowledge) by the time the VF-4 book was in production. Re: in-universe obfuscating Without going into too much detail, in the justifications for why the VF-1EX (and it's immediate predecessor, the VF-1Z) were still in demand and front line use in the 2060's is because they're still capable fighters when dealing with Zentradi Mobile Weapons. So, the context of my preceding post was preventing that information from falling into their hands. Not to mention that military surplus VF-1's are stripped of most of their military equipment when they're sold to civilians. While FAST Packs can be acquired, perhaps the "it makes lethal poison when used" is just one more excuse to use when the consumer says, "can I get one of those, too?"
  22. sketchley
    Nah... I had finished that section well before it came up in discussion. Marking it up in PHP and slapping it onto my site was on the to-do list (after I had completed the rest of the FAST Packs section). But you know that old story: started working on the VF-1EX translations... and then got a load of work from my side job at a translation company. Perhaps we should take what they say about the beam gun not being used for AA purposes with a grain of salt: as you pointed out, it's a very scary weapon. So, while they didn't describe it that way, it would be a complete and total waste to use it on a 'mere' airplane (on par with overkill taking it past the scorched earth degree). Though, that reminds me of something: these books are written from the perspective of 'in-universe publications'. Could it be what we're seeing is really a bit of misdirection to hide the weapon's true capabilities ?
  23. sketchley
    Bottom of page 23.
  24. sketchley
    Especially because that's *not* the DYRL movie that they're referring to in the book. DYRL is apparently a sequel to the movie that they're referring to!
  25. sketchley
    Variable Fighter Master File: VF-1 Valkyrie Wings of Space: http://sdfyodogawa.mywebcommunity.org/OTvfmf/OTvfmf.php Additional translations of the FAST Pack section (Pgs 021-025). For those participating in that discussion where the subject of the Strike Valkyrie not actually having participating in SWI came up: therein contains a detailed description of how it wasn't possible. And Seto, it also includes the passage you alluded to (however, it means something different than what you think you read. ).
×
×
  • Create New...