Macross Chronicle Translations

[sketchley]

Completed:

Mechanic: M7 UN 07a Macross 7 Fleet

http://www.macrossroleplay.org/forums/index.php?topic=2453.0

[sketchley]

Hmmm... must remind self to create a topic about non-Macross Chronicle translations.

Anyhow, Great Mechanics.DX 7: Frontier Fleet and that Military Vessel article translated: http://www.macrossroleplay.org/forums/inde...ic=2454.new#new

(By that military vessel, they mean the Macross Quarter. There's bits on the escort vessels of the MF and MG fleet, but not much... wish I had the time to translate the rest of the article. Alas...

Edited January 14, 2010 by sketchley

[azrael]

Anyhow, Great Mechanics.DX 4: Frontier Fleet and that Military Vessel article translated: http://www.macrossroleplay.org/forums/inde...ic=2454.new#new

GM DX says 402m, Chronicle says 472m. I hate these people.

[RedWolf]

GM DX says 402m, Chronicle says 472m. I hate these people.

Are you reading it as overall length or just the main body?

[azrael]

Are you reading it as overall length or just the main body?

True, but even the other dimensions are inconsistent. Grrrrrr.... Argh.... I stand by my statement. I hate these people.

[sketchley]

Oops, that should've been GM.Dx 7 (not 4)

It appears that the Macross Quarter has grown. I think as the size dimensions of another vessel in the same publication (I think the Environment ship) has different stats to another publication (DVD liner notes?), that it does cast the stats in this publication in a bit of doubt.

Maybe we should consider them work in progress numbers?

Anyhow, publication dates:

GM.Dx 7: 2008.12.15

MC #33: 2009.10.29

[sketchley]

Completed:

Mechanic: DYRL UN 08a ARMD

http://www.macrossroleplay.org/forums/inde...g36574#msg36574

[azrael]

Oops, that should've been GM.Dx 7 (not 4)

It appears that the Macross Quarter has grown. I think as the size dimensions of another vessel in the same publication (I think the Environment ship) has different stats to another publication (DVD liner notes?), that it does cast the stats in this publication in a bit of doubt.

Maybe we should consider them work in progress numbers?

Anyhow, publication dates:

GM.Dx 7: 2008.12.15

MC #33: 2009.10.29

Well, the Chronicle hasn't put out stats for the Ecosystem ships so that one still up in the air. But if it matches the DVD/Blu-ray liner notes, then yeh, that issue of GM DX probably should be questioned.

I hate these people. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

[sketchley]

Well, the Chronicle hasn't put out stats for the Ecosystem ships so that one still up in the air. But if it matches the DVD/Blu-ray liner notes, then yeh, that issue of GM DX probably should be questioned.

Erm... Environment ship. I keep reading (in Japanese) that the entire fleet is considered an ecosystem.

[sketchley]

Completed the front half of Timeline #47 (the part that takes place between M7D and MF, and has VF-X2 and other post M7 game info): http://www.macrossroleplay.org/forums/inde...g36698#msg36698

Sadly, the stuff on the games is disappointingly limited. However, I was pleasantly surprised by the stuff on the 117th Research Fleet.

Sooner or later, I intend to hammer out some more translations of the timeline sheets (right now, my sights are set on the latest Destroid Technology Sheet). Though when I do, my targets are the extra reports and content between the various productions (yes Azrael, the section on the development of the VF-1 is on the list. Not sure when I'll get to it, as some of the extra reports look a lot more juicy).

[azrael]

(yes Azrael, the section on the development of the VF-1 is on the list. Not sure when I'll get to it, as some of the extra reports look a lot more juicy).

Actually I plan on looking at some of the VF-1 stuff but that's after I finish with the additions of Frontier to timeline, M+, M7, M0, and whatever parts of Frontier I haven't looked at yet, and finally MII. SDFM and DYRL? are on the lowest priority on my list unless I know there's something missing.

[sketchley]

Completed: Mechanic: M7 UN 14a Macross 5 Fleet

http://www.macrossroleplay.org/forums/inde...g36990#msg36990

Long story short, yes, the article states that there are several/more than one ship of the same type as the Macross 5 in the Macross 5 fleet. It's not any more specific than that. What was the max seen in any one shot? 3?

[RedWolf]

What was the max seen in any one shot? 3?

Yep Three for Macross 5. On the otherhand in the M7 prologue Macross 1 appears to have four shelless dome City Class

[sketchley]

Completed: Technology: 01b Destroid

http://www.macrossroleplay.org/forums/inde...g36798#msg36798

I was mostly interested in the reverse of the page (and I believe the people discussing Destroids in the Destroid thread will find some things enlightening). But I was quite surprised by the content of the front. Not only is there Destroid development history, but there is an open acknowledgement of the change of canon history, AND two (2) of heretofore unknown Anti-UN Alliance Destroids!

Sadly, I don't think we'll be getting any more info, let alone pictures of those to AUA Destroids. It also looks like the Earth Trekkers have been written out. I have mixed feelings about their loss. But in a way it's good, as the development of the ETs started pre-ASS-1 crash. So, their removal means that the world up until the crash of the ASS-1 is much more similar to our Earth. Simplicity is good!

Now this page has got me interested in translating the VF-0/VF-1 development history page... argh, as I want to do the game VF extra sheets... and also have to finish the VF-171EX... time, got time? Need time. T.T

[sketchley]

I've started the Extra Sheet: Game and Advanced Valkyrie #3

http://www.macrossroleplay.org/forums/inde...g37165#msg37165

... and completed the part on the VF-4G. It's disappointingly thin on details. Hopefully the other VFs on these pages will have more enlightening descriptions. Not to mention that I hope the VF-4 page from FB2012 has a bunch of hard stats.

[azrael]

I've started the Extra Sheet: Game and Advanced Valkyrie #3

http://www.macrossroleplay.org/forums/inde...g37165#msg37165

... and completed the part on the VF-4G. It's disappointingly thin on details. Hopefully the other VFs on these pages will have more enlightening descriptions. Not to mention that I hope the VF-4 page from FB2012 has a bunch of hard stats.

I think there's a typo on the Frontier sheet for the VB-6. It says in the spec box that there are 2 thermonuclear engines, when, in the same the article, mentions 4. And in this Game/Adv. Valk sheet, it also mentions 4.

[sketchley]

I'd go with four. It conforms to a visual inspection (two engines per wing/foot assembly; one on the upper side, one on the bottom side for a total of 4).

[sketchley]

Finished the section on the VF-5000B from "Macross Plus -Game Edition-" and "Macross M3": http://www.macrossroleplay.org/forums/inde...g37165#msg37165

Again, there's not really much new. But that's not surprising, as the VF-5000 has excellent coverage already in the Mechanic D7 section.

[sketchley]

Completed the VA-3M Invader section (same page, see post immediately preceeding this for the link)

It's a good complement for the info on the VA-3 presented in the VA-3C Kai Invader Kai from D7. Though, I wish there was a little bit more on it. Sadly, the armaments appears to be directly copied from the VF-X2 publications from a decade ago. No clarification on the number of torpedoes, etc..

Now, this begs a question: will the MC produce a page on the VA-3 that appeared in the back of the TiAS:M+ book? (You know, VA-3A, VA-3B, EVA-3) Or has MC finished with the VA-3?

[Graham]

Seems like the VF-19F/S internal micro-missile capacity has been retconned down to half of what it was.

Earlier sources from the 90s listed it as 48 in total (24 per leg), but Chronicle seems to have now halved that to 12 per leg.

Graham

[sketchley]

... and finished Extra Sheet: Game and Advanced Valkyrie #3

http://www.macrossroleplay.org/forums/inde...g37165#msg37165

There are quite a few interesting tidbits of information scattered about the VB-6 section. It's a good compliment to the MF's VB-6.

[Graham]

Was it ever confirmed in Chronicle (or elsewhere), that the Macross Galaxy fleet is owned by the company General Galaxy, or is the name just a coincidence?

Graham

[RedWolf]

Was it ever confirmed in Chronicle (or elsewhere), that the Macross Galaxy fleet is owned by the company General Galaxy, or is the name just a coincidence?

Graham

http://macross.anime.net/wiki/Macross_Galaxy

Just that General Galaxy spent a lot of money on it.

[sketchley]

Started on the VF-4 Lightning III: http://www.macrossroleplay.org/forums/inde...g37738#msg37738

(currently only data block and armaments)

I've found it interesting that the armaments are:

a) worded in such a way that it doesn't preclude optional armaments (gun pod in Digital Mission VF-X, wing missiles, etc)

b) that the total number of missiles is still "disputed"! (Though, it could also be interpreted as there being missiles carried internally, that launch from the same spots as the semi-embedded missiles. Yes, it's that vague).

c) that the beam guns can detach, and "light weight" atmospheric use armaments can be placed there (such as the 30 mm 6-barrel Gattling guns as mentioned on the Japanese wiki: http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/VF-4 )!

This page has really piqued my interest and has me wondering if there are other surprises...

[Mr March]

Wow, some radically new dimensions for the VF-4. These new figures are VERY welcome revisions. The length-to-width figures for the VF-4 Lightning III provided in TIAS Macross Plus never did correspond to the actual physical ratio of the craft. The schematics show the VF-4 length-to-width ratio as 1.32 but the old figures (14.92m length x 14.28m width) would have you believe the VF-4 was a L-W ratio of 1.05. These new figures in the Macross Chronicle are a much better description of the craft and now match with the original drawings and the schematics. The new figures (16.8m x 12.65m) are also almost a perfect 1.32 ratio. Great stuff!

[sketchley]

Finished the VF-4 Lightning III sheet: http://www.macrossroleplay.org/forums/inde...g37738#msg37738

The original is a little big vague in some spots (especially in the parts regarding in-atmosphere performance), but I'm happy that there's another nugget of info in the text: comfirmation of the ram jet engine (though it is called a ram-wing...) Anyhow, it's nice to have something that's only appeared in canonicity debated publications to be confirmed.

Mr.March, you'll pleased to learn that the VF-4 is actually considered slightly "large" for a VF. I'm not sure if the translation conveys it, but I get the sense of there being a lot of internal fuel tanks. The option of replacing the entire upper section of the engine nacelle is also eyebrow raising. Shades of a VT-1's FAST pack, perhaps? Though it makes me wonder what weapon it'd rely on instead of the beam guns. A gun pod mounted on a hardpoint?

[Mr March]

Mr.March, you'll pleased to learn that the VF-4 is actually considered slightly "large" for a VF. I'm not sure if the translation conveys it, but I get the sense of there being a lot of internal fuel tanks. The option of replacing the entire upper section of the engine nacelle is also eyebrow raising. Shades of a VT-1's FAST pack, perhaps? Though it makes me wonder what weapon it'd rely on instead of the beam guns. A gun pod mounted on a hardpoint?

The new size figures do make the VF-4 appear quite a bit larger than other VFs. This is rather fitting since the VF-4 is also one of the heaviest of the VFs (nearly 14 tons!). I've rebuilt the Valkyrie size comparison chart to reflect the new VF-4 size and I will include it in the next update of my website. But for now, I'll attach a mini-chart to this post comparing the new size of the VF-4 Lightning III.

Yes, that upper engine/forearm replacement is a strange notion. They do kinda look like the VT-1, but it sure would be strange to see the VF-4 battroid with big super packs for arms! Maybe it would shoot micro-missiles from it's new hand-less oversized arms, like the VF-5000 Star Mirage battroid?

It's a shame they kinda sidestep the question of 6 vs. 12 missiles, but at least they officially acknowledge the obvious contradiction. I was also hoping for more info on the other 4 engines of the VF-4, but the Chronicle only appears to talk briefly of the "Ram Wings"

Having said that, it's great to hear so much about the space-based design of the VF-4. It's large weight and design really do lend itself well to a space superiority VF. Good work on the translation.

[miles316]

The new size figures do make the VF-4 appear quite a bit larger than other VFs. This is rather fitting since the VF-4 is also one of the heaviest of the VFs (nearly 14 tons!). I've rebuilt the Valkyrie size comparison chart to reflect the new VF-4 size and I will include it in the next update of my website. But for now, I'll attach a mini-chart to this post comparing the new size of the VF-4 Lightning III.

Yes, that upper engine/forearm replacement is a strange notion. They do kinda look like the VT-1, but it sure would be strange to see the VF-4 battroid with big super packs for arms! Maybe it would shoot micro-missiles from it's new hand-less oversized arms, like the VF-5000 Star Mirage battroid?

It's a shame they kinda sidestep the question of 6 vs. 12 missiles, but at least they officially acknowledge the obvious contradiction. I was also hoping for more info on the other 4 engines of the VF-4, but the Chronicle only appears to talk briefly of the "Ram Wings"

Having said that, it's great to hear so much about the space-based design of the VF-4. It's large weight and design really do lend itself well to a space superiority VF. Good work on the translation.

Is the Valkyrie at the bottom of the Size chart the VF-25 Messiah or the VF-0 from Zero?

[Seto Kaiba]

Is the Valkyrie at the bottom of the Size chart the VF-25 Messiah or the VF-0 from Zero?

The Valkyrie at the bottom of that chart is a VF-0A.

The new size figures do make the VF-4 appear quite a bit larger than other VFs. This is rather fitting since the VF-4 is also one of the heaviest of the VFs (nearly 14 tons!). I was also hoping for more info on the other 4 engines of the VF-4, but the Chronicle only appears to talk briefly of the "Ram Wings"

Hey, it's progress... they've acknowledged the missile disparity and the ramjet engines in the wings... that alone is a nice step forward.

[miles316]

I know this is probably a stupid question why is the VF-0a so much bigger that the VF-1 is it a function of the Reaction engines not needing Fuel in the atmosphere?

Edited March 16, 2010 by miles316

[Mr March]

Hey, it's progress... they've acknowledged the missile disparity and the ramjet engines in the wings... that alone is a nice step forward.

Gotta accept the small victories when we can, hehehe

I know this is probably a stupid question why the VF-0a so much bigger that the VF-1 is it a function of the Reaction engines not needing Fuel in the atmosphere?

Could be an intentional design choice to make the VF-0 that large. They do say the VF-0 Phoenix is based off the F-14 Tomcat, which is a larger fighter. Or it could just be that the VF-0 Phoenix, as a test bed craft, was need to accommodate larger and less efficient equipment as humanity went through the learning curve required to understand and replicate OverTechnology.

[azrael]

Could be an intentional design choice to make the VF-0 that large. They do say the VF-0 Phoenix is based off the F-14 Tomcat, which is a larger fighter. Or it could just be that the VF-0 Phoenix, as a test bed craft, was need to accommodate larger and less efficient equipment as humanity went through the learning curve required to understand and replicate OverTechnology.

Actually, they said the VF-0 inherited the F-14's experimental testing group, not that it was based off the F-14. And it's larger because of the engines.

[Seto Kaiba]

Gotta accept the small victories when we can, hehehe

Totally... though for me the most interesting bit of this VF-4 translation (thanks Sketchley!) was the mention that the VF-4 does have alternate weapons modules that can be mounted in the forearms. I'd always thought that was dubious since I first saw it in a magazine article, but it looks like it's canon.

I know this is probably a stupid question why is the VF-0a so much bigger that the VF-1 is it a function of the Reaction engines not needing Fuel in the atmosphere?

Actually, as seen in Macross Zero the VF-0 didn't have reaction engines, it was using overtuned conventional turbofans, so the larger size is probably part fuel storage, part extra mass for the larger engine.

Edited March 16, 2010 by Seto Kaiba

[David Hingtgen]

Assuming the servos for battroid mode are electrically powered (or something similar) some of the size/space should also be for large engine-driven generators and the like. Even modern day aircraft are needing more and more accessories mounted around the engine to draw off power, air, etc. May need inverters too, etc.

Whereas we assume a reaction engine can more or less "directly" provide power for battroid mode, energy conversion armor, with everything having been designed from the start to interface.

[Mr March]

Actually, they said the VF-0 inherited the F-14's experimental testing group, not that it was based off the F-14. And it's larger because of the engines.

One can only assume that means the people that worked on the F-14 also worked on the VF-0. If that isn't the case, I'd be hard pressed to ascertain a context or relevance for inclusion of that fact in the VF-0 official trivia.

As for the size, I'm sure the engines do have something to do with the larger size of the VF-0. So would those big tanks sitting on the upper fuselage. And likely a lot of other factors too. Not sure if we can distill it down to one single thing.