Mr March Posted May 30, 2008 Author Share Posted May 30, 2008 (edited) Okay oreillyrel, if you had specific examples of exactly what was wrong you should have written them out a half dozen posts ago instead of carrying on with these non-specific complaints and giving no reasons to support yourself. We basically had to jump through hoops and pry the answers out of you. Now, the OTEC designation is an error on my part, so it can be fixed. So, what companies that you've implied ARE listed in the texts? If there are none, that's fine, but let me know. Supply what information there is and say why you think something is wrong. Now, next question; if the figures for the VF-2SS are not in Entertainment Bible #51 are there any figures that are in that book? Further, are you certain the figures aren't referenced in another Macross II book? Are you of the opinion that the figures are just totally bogus and why? Again, help me out here. Also, make sure you look at the situation from my point of view: I sometimes have fans telling me my information is incorrect, but when they tell me why (they saw it on another website, a website which I know to be wrong) it's obvious I don't want to repeat a mistake by using their "correction". Lastly, no one claimed the Macross Mecha Manual was official (especially since the exact opposite is stated right on the main page) and no one claimed to be an expert, myself least of all. You're obviously under some mistaken impression. But the website can't become better if all you're going to do is throw complaints and not lift a finger to help. Other members here have often sent me factual corrections, pointed out spelling/grammar mistakes and even provided scans for me to use. And they didn't have to be interrogated to do it. Moral of the story: you have a rare opportunity here where the website owner is available to engage fans and site visitors in the interests of making a better site, so be more specific and get to the point. No one likes to be run around. Edited May 30, 2008 by Mr March Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DestroidDefender Posted May 30, 2008 Share Posted May 30, 2008 I know you must have to deal with this "My website can beat up your website," cr@p alot Marchie. I for one want to give you an unqualified pat on the back for your efforts in gathering all the Macross Mecha info and making it accessible in English to everybody. Hip Hip Hurrah! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oreillyrel Posted May 31, 2008 Share Posted May 31, 2008 (edited) Okay oreillyrel, if you had specific examples of exactly what was wrong you should have written them out a half dozen posts ago instead of carrying on with these non-specific complaints and giving no reasons to support yourself. We basically had to jump through hoops and pry the answers out of you. Well, I did say specifically that it was the power/engine stats that were wrong, but that was somehow misinterpreted to mean length and displacement stats. I was first replying to another poster's general impression of accuracy, so I naturally first replied with general statements and drilled down later. Now, the OTEC designation is an error on my part, so it can be fixed. So, what companies that you've implied ARE listed in the texts? If there are none, that's fine, but let me know. Supply what information there is and say why you think something is wrong. Now, next question; if the figures for the VF-2SS are not in Entertainment Bible #51 are there any figures that are in that book? Further, are you certain the figures aren't referenced in another Macross II book? Are you of the opinion that the figures are just totally bogus and why? Again, help me out here. For the Einstein, there are no listed companies in that book and linked image, compared to the New Macross Class elsewhere. There are no numerical figures for the VF-2SS in that book besides transformation times (unless 2 beam weapons and 2 missile pods count as numerical figures). I'm certain those particular RPG figures are not in the original Japanese release of Macross II, EB51 and the This is Animation book. Also, make sure you look at the situation from my point of view: I sometimes have fans telling me my information is incorrect, but when they tell me why (they saw it on another website, a website which I know to be wrong) it's obvious I don't want to repeat a mistake by using their "correction". And please make sure you look at the situation for my point of view. I first posted in this thread when another poster said this site had unique specs, so I cautioned the poster that many of those unique specs are fan-invented or incorrect. Then another poster said those specs are checked carefully against official stats, so it is quite apparent that there are impressions of the site that are not accurate. Lastly, no one claimed the Macross Mecha Manual was official (especially since the exact opposite is stated right on the main page) and no one claimed to be an expert, myself least of all. You're obviously under some mistaken impression. But the website can't become better if all you're going to do is throw complaints and not lift a finger to help. Other members here have often sent me factual corrections, pointed out spelling/grammar mistakes and even provided scans for me to use. And they didn't have to be interrogated to do it. Moral of the story: you have a rare opportunity here where the website owner is available to engage fans and site visitors in the interests of making a better site, so be more specific and get to the point. No one likes to be run around. My concern is not that the Macross Mecha Manual is considered official, but that official and unofficial information are mixed together with no distinction, even though we're told that "when unofficial information is added, I make every effort to distinguish it." Judging by the comments earlier in this thread, there are people who are under the mistaken impression that all the information is expertly and carefully checked against official materials. It is because of those impressions that I posted, not because I shared those impressions. I know you must have to deal with this "My website can beat up your website," cr@p alot Marchie. I for one want to give you an unqualified pat on the back for your efforts in gathering all the Macross Mecha info and making it accessible in English to everybody. These comments aren't meant to take away from the work on the image coloring. They're just cautionary notes that the added info (like Mr. March said) are not official or completely accurate, since the comments in this thread indicate that this impression is out there. Edited May 31, 2008 by oreillyrel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurisama Posted May 31, 2008 Share Posted May 31, 2008 I agree also - thanks alot for ur efforts Mr.March! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr March Posted May 31, 2008 Author Share Posted May 31, 2008 DestroidDefender It's not too bad. Most fans mean well, but sometimes have very poor ways of expressing themselves. I appreciate the thanks and glad you enjoy the site. oreilly Yes, but you weren't specific and didn't say why. Also, you're posting on a public board, not an e-mail exchange. Your posts are public and you're in a thread dedicated to my website. You're going to find that "I wasn't talking to you" doesn't work as an excuse in this kind of forum. As for people taking the M3 more literally than they should, thats not for anyone to police. People are their own keepers. I won't speak for others, but I think they meant that the M3 is carefully researched, good for a fan website and useful 99% of the time even if it's not perfect. Lastly, the website is enjoyed by many, so try to keep that in mind when commenting on it. In case you're unware, your comments come across as very dismissive of the site, as if it's good for colored artwork but nothing else (especially toward the vast majority of work that is accurate). You're likely to draw a lot less ire and more support if you offer help rather than complain or tell others what to think. Nonetheless, in appreciation for your help I've corrected all the entries that made reference to specific companies and uploaded the new pages. Don't be shy with any other corrections if you're interested in helping some more. Kurisama Thank you very much. Make sure to keep visiting! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oreillyrel Posted May 31, 2008 Share Posted May 31, 2008 There seems to be some misunderstanding. I wasn't implying that it was a private exchange or using that as an "excuse." I was just talking in general terms at first since I was replying to posters that were talking in general terms as well. The first poster was also referring to the non-Compendium information mixed in with the 99% accurate information derived from the Compendium. It's not the 99% of the information that is derived from the Compendium that has the issues. Lastly, please note that the constructive criticism is intended to be helpful. Your replies come across as making assumptions about my posts and resistant to constructive criticism, when all my replies addressed only the material and never criticized any person personally. Nevertheless, I thank you for making those corrections, and I hope more of the corrections are made as well as more care is taken on adding new material and checking old material. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr March Posted May 31, 2008 Author Share Posted May 31, 2008 That's splitting hairs mighty thin and a distinction not made until now. You may have had the best of intentions, but that's not how you came across. And from the responses it's clear most felt the same. There's being defensive (which goes both ways) and then there's recognizing smoke. As for the criticism, it wasn't constructive (and far too "general") until we pulled it out of you, which was my point. Nonetheless, I've spoken my constructive criticism as well and you can take from it what you will. Feel free to submit more specific help and thanks for enjoying the site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oreillyrel Posted May 31, 2008 Share Posted May 31, 2008 That's splitting hairs mighty thin and a distinction not made until now. From my earlier post: I was first replying to another poster's general impression of accuracy, so I naturally first replied with general statements and drilled down later. I think I had made that distinction. You may have had the best of intentions, but that's not how you came across. From my first post in this thread: Lots of great fan-colored images, but be careful on relying on the non-Compendium specs. Those non-Compendium specs has the same issues as those in mahq.net--they often fill in blanks in official materials with fan-invented or incorrect info. I mean, I complimented the most unique feature of the site in my first post. My original advice to others still stands. Feel free to submit more specific help and thanks for enjoying the site. I look forward to the Macross II corrections/retractions described above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sorata Posted May 31, 2008 Share Posted May 31, 2008 oreilly As for people taking the M3 more literally than they should, thats not for anyone to police. People are their own keepers. I won't speak for others, but I think they meant that the M3 is carefully researched, good for a fan website and useful 99% of the time even if it's not perfect. Yep thats what I meant, seems my typing didnt convey what i meant well or others interpreted my post too deeply. Words on a screen often do not convey the same meaning as the same words spoken with visual cues available between two speakers, such as how a word can have two different meaning dependinging on the context of a conversation and the tone used to say them, if I was to swear at an individual it would be an insult but in person that same swear depending on my tone can imply familiarity and playfulness as a term of endearment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr March Posted May 31, 2008 Author Share Posted May 31, 2008 Yeah, we’ll quit the run around. I'm certain someone said how no one likes those. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sulendil Ang Posted May 31, 2008 Share Posted May 31, 2008 (edited) Well, oreillyrel, when you mean "I look forward to the Macross II corrections/retractions described above.", do you mean this? Unfortunately, the Macross Mecha Manual does have RPG stats that aren't from official Japanese sources, and even mistakenly credits them as coming from official Japanese sources. For example, the Macross Mecha Manual lists the VF-2SS as "Fighter Mode: wingspan variable 7.9 meter to 12.2 meters; height 5.2 meters; length 15.8 meters" and claims this is "Translated information taken from Entertainment Bible #51." These are all RPG stats and not listed in Entertainment Bible #51. (bold mine) Mm... First thing first, do you have EB #51 yourself? And do you found any other specs that really are RPG stats, such as the other stats for the VF-2SS (empty weight, power plant etc)? Trying to tell us more about this will help March and those working for the Compendium to improve their sites. BTW, March, don't give up! I really like your site. Edited May 31, 2008 by Sulendil Ang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d3v Posted June 2, 2008 Share Posted June 2, 2008 Just watched Dynamite 7. Now the M3 states that the VF-19P turns fire bomber red when it's burned by the reaction warhead. However, it seems more like it was covered by some reddish material from the whale instead, in fact I think we see Basara wipe it off from the battroid's eyes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr March Posted June 2, 2008 Author Share Posted June 2, 2008 (edited) EDIT: Yep, looks like you're right. There's a very brief shot of a massive red spray inside the reaction detonation accompanied by a squirting sound. Easy to miss. I've made the correction and uploaded a new description. Thanks d3v! Hmmm, you may be right. I'll give episode four a quick review. Back in a bit Edited June 2, 2008 by Mr March Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d3v Posted June 2, 2008 Share Posted June 2, 2008 (edited) EDIT: Yep, looks like you're right. There's a very brief shot of a massive red spray inside the reaction detonation accompanied by a squirting sound. Easy to miss. I've made the correction and uploaded a new description. Thanks d3v! You're welcome! Space whales, good for fold engines and quick red paintjobs! Edited June 2, 2008 by d3v Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d3v Posted June 2, 2008 Share Posted June 2, 2008 (edited) More spotting, the magazine scan link in the Vf-25S section shows a Alto's VF-25F. Speaking of which, is the VF-25 there hand drawn, or did they simply draw over a 3D model? Edited June 2, 2008 by d3v Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr March Posted June 2, 2008 Author Share Posted June 2, 2008 Ahh, good catch. Now that there's full views of all three modes available, I should just delete that magazine scan. I think picture itself is probably line art that's been colored. It doesn't look like the CGI model. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.T. Silversmith Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 Mr March, I have really enjoyed your website, the one thing missing from the macross compendium is pictures or line-art of the Mecha, a shortcoming your site remedies nicely. I did notice that on the page of the VAB-2 Variable Fighter-Bomber the picture of the Battroid mode is missing. It is obvious you intended it to be there, but I can't see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr March Posted June 4, 2008 Author Share Posted June 4, 2008 That's weird. I don't have a color psd file for it either. I must have missed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
misterryno Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 That's weird. I don't have a color psd file for it either. I must have missed it. I know this prob. isn't quality enough for ya...but here ya go... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sulendil Ang Posted June 8, 2008 Share Posted June 8, 2008 Hey, March, a question: when I am viewing the profile of ARMD-class, I spotted this line art, which look a little bit funny, with its broken line and bluff image. Is it supposed to look like that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr March Posted June 8, 2008 Author Share Posted June 8, 2008 That's unfortunately the best I have available. There are a few pictures taken from Macross Perfect Memory that were faded or too small when they printed the book, so a lot of the detail was lost for the sake of inclusion. I know there are some other books out there that might have better pictures, but for now, that's all I got. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLoneWolf Posted June 9, 2008 Share Posted June 9, 2008 That's unfortunately the best I have available. There are a few pictures taken from Macross Perfect Memory that were faded or too small when they printed the book, so a lot of the detail was lost for the sake of inclusion. I know there are some other books out there that might have better pictures, but for now, that's all I got. Is that scan supposed to be this image? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr March Posted June 9, 2008 Author Share Posted June 9, 2008 It is indeed. This isn't bad, but have you got a scan that's bigger? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLoneWolf Posted June 9, 2008 Share Posted June 9, 2008 You got it. The best my scanner can do is 400 dpi, I hope that's good enough. PM me your email address and I'll send it over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr March Posted June 9, 2008 Author Share Posted June 9, 2008 That sounds great. My e-mail address is actually now a working link found in the header/footer menu bars within each vehicle profile on the M3. For example, you can send the scan to me using the e-mail address found in the menu bar for the ARMD profile. I fixed all the pages when I last updated Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nemesis_trooper Posted June 16, 2008 Share Posted June 16, 2008 (edited) Great site Mr March - I get my macross mecha fix on your site every week or so! [deleted blurb abt VF-14 in Macross Plus - just found the old thread/debate on this....which I had not read obviously!] CHeers Edited June 16, 2008 by nemesis_trooper Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d3v Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 Since I figured you'd be wanting them. Taken from Graham's scans of Great Mechanics DX5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sulendil Ang Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 Thanks for the scans d3v! I always interested with the cockpit's and fight control's line art, so the first line art of VF-25's cockpit really makes me excited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d3v Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 (edited) Thanks for the scans d3v! I always interested with the cockpit's and fight control's line art, so the first line art of VF-25's cockpit really makes me excited. Thank Graham as I simply got these from his full-page scans. Edited July 9, 2008 by d3v Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr March Posted July 9, 2008 Author Share Posted July 9, 2008 Indeed! Thanks to Graham and d3v. I've got an update coming soon too. Sadly not much new material (only about 12 new profiles), but that's to be expected at this point with almost everything in the franchise now covered. However, there's going to be plenty of VERY welcome revisions, additions and other new goodies to enjoy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seto Kaiba Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 (edited) Gentlemen, on the subject of the VF-2SS and other related mecha from the Macross Mecha Manual's Macross II section... By in large the information in the Macross II section of Mr. March's site there was provided by me. I went to great lengths to acquire print copies of Entertainment Bible #51 and This is Animation Special #5, as well as a number of old B-Club Magazine articles about the timeline and production of Macross II. Unfortunately most of my stuff is stilll all crated up from my recent move to a new house, or I'd source those dimensions on the VF-2SS for you straightaway. I suspect they're from the Palladium Macross II RPG books, but I'd need to dig into my Macross box to tell you where Palladium got that information. (I've had a few lengthy chats with Palladium about their RPG in the past, thanks to them being a very short drive away, and I took a LOT of notes on the subject) Aside from one or two minor transcription errors that I've already discussed with Mr. March (namely the introduction year of the VF-2SS, which is given in the B-Club articles as 2081, and that the same article states that a "VF-2" was introduced in 2072 and was the basis of the space-specialized VF-2SS, while no art of this "VF-2" is known to exist, I suspect that it might be the VF-2 with the one head laser that Nanashi's site had) the information on his Macross II section comes directly from Entertainment Bible #51, This is Animation Special #5, and B-Club Magazine's articles on Macross II's timeline. Incidentally, one thing I thought would raise a lot of eyebrows was our determination of the year Macross II: Lovers Again is set in. In the OVA, Silvie Gena mentions that it's been ten years since the last major Zentradi offensive, and Hibiki and Mash parrot the remark that "about eighty years" have passed since Space War 1 ended. Now depending on whether you put the end of the war at the official last battle in 2010, or the end of Quamzin's revolt, that gives us a very effective range of 2090 to 2092 if we're just adding 80 years exactly. 2089 is wrong for a number of reasons... for one it just defies logic that someone would measure time from the start of the war rather than the end of the war, and for two it contradicts statements made by Ken'ichi Yatagai (the director) and several characters in the series. In B-Club magazine's article on the Macross II timeline, it states that the last Zentradi offensive prior to the Mardook invasion was in 2082, one year after the VF-2SS's introduction. In episode 1, Silvie stated that the last Zentradi offensive was ten years ago, so 2082 + 10 = 2092, which is still within the allowable range from the end of Space War 1 (officially, or Quamzin's TV series revolt). 2092 also doesn't seem to be coincidence, since it's exactly 100 years from the date the OVA actually came out, which hardly seems coincidental. All that taken into account, 2092 AD is almost certainly the year Macross II: Lovers Again is set in. Edited July 9, 2008 by Seto Kaiba Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VF5SS Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 Do all those timelines take the PC Engine games into account? It seems like the design philosophy and existence of the VF-1 type R variants in 2036 with all of the random Zentradi attacks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seto Kaiba Posted July 10, 2008 Share Posted July 10, 2008 Do all those timelines take the PC Engine games into account? It seems like the design philosophy and existence of the VF-1 type R variants in 2036 with all of the random Zentradi attacks. Well, I'm not sure if Mr. March intends to include the VF-1AR, VF-1JR, VF-1SR, VF-4S, VF-4SP, and VF-4ST in his site, but the games those mecha came from (Macross 2036: the Neld Fleet Incident, and Macross: Eternal Love Song) are a part of the Macross II timeline as published in B-Club Magazine. Entertainment Bible #51 overtly says as much, they even have a Macross 2036 section in that book, which is where MAHQ and GearsOnline got their VF-1AR/VF-1JR/VF-1SR art, as well as virtually all the other color art of the Macross II mecha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLoneWolf Posted July 10, 2008 Share Posted July 10, 2008 Seto Kaiba, thanks for stepping up to the plate and putting this issue to rest. Also, I think you're right about Macross II occurring in 2092. The linear notes for vol.2 of the Macross II OST refers to that year, but I don't know what exactly it's saying since I can't read kanji. If you or Mr. March can provide a translation, I'd be more than willing to scan that page. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seto Kaiba Posted July 10, 2008 Share Posted July 10, 2008 (edited) Seto Kaiba, thanks for stepping up to the plate and putting this issue to rest. Also, I think you're right about Macross II occurring in 2092. The linear notes for vol.2 of the Macross II OST refers to that year, but I don't know what exactly it's saying since I can't read kanji. If you or Mr. March can provide a translation, I'd be more than willing to scan that page. Well, I had to do something, since I suspect I caused the confusion in the first place. I actually have two copies of the soundtrack in question, but I never really bothered to read the little booklet. I'm gonna go get it right now. *runs off for a minute* Well blow me down... there it is kiddies... an overt statement that Macross II: Lovers Again is set in 2092. It's right there in the story summary in Volume II of the Macross II OST. Bravo TheLoneWolf. Bravo. I never even thought to look there. (Without laboriously translating it word for word, I can tell you it's a "story so far" summary that focusses mainly on the events of episodes 4-6 of the OVA, and explicitly mentions that the year is 2092 AD) Edited July 10, 2008 by Seto Kaiba Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts