Aurel Tristen Posted February 3, 2004 Share Posted February 3, 2004 New translation: http://nanashi.macrossmecha.info/resrc/lit/va_series.html More to come. Enjoy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr March Posted February 3, 2004 Share Posted February 3, 2004 Weird. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Posted February 3, 2004 Share Posted February 3, 2004 The translation is really rough and tricky to read. Take the first paragraph. Where it says "the lack of the amount of bomb stores was pointed out" seems like a funky phase, and I'm sure "processes" is supposed to be "processors" because materials comes right after this. I could be wrong(it is midnight right know) but please take clarity of reading into mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr March Posted February 3, 2004 Share Posted February 3, 2004 It's been the policy of Nanashi's to leave the translation as true as possible, not correcting grammar of any written material for fear of changing the context of what is said. Unfortunately, that makes it very difficult reading. I admit, keeping the translastion literal has me wondering if I might understand less from this "pure" translation than if they cleaned up the grammar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurel Tristen Posted February 3, 2004 Author Share Posted February 3, 2004 The translation is really rough and tricky to read. Take the first paragraph. Where it says "the lack of the amount of bomb stores was pointed out" seems like a funky phase, and I'm sure "processes" is supposed to be "processors" because materials comes right after this.I could be wrong(it is midnight right know) but please take clarity of reading into mind. "increased number of processes" would be all the things that a VF can do that a regular aircraft could not and/or increased roles taken on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imode Posted February 3, 2004 Share Posted February 3, 2004 Sorry, but it's kind of Engrishy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Posted February 4, 2004 Share Posted February 4, 2004 The VA-3 is one of my favorite Macross mecha, especially the submersible VA-3M featured in VF-X2. I also love the black and white pic of the VA-3 in the TIAS Macross Plus book, which shows it loaded with 24 x MK82 bombs. Graham Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boxer Posted February 4, 2004 Share Posted February 4, 2004 If I understand this correctly, the VA series were developed for the ground-attack and air supremecy role, while the VF series were space-superiority models. This correct? I wonder if other VA designs exist other than the VA-14 and VA-3? ...and thinking of which, didn't the VA-14(FB2012 ish?) come out before the VA-3 (M7?) So does this mean the VA series is NOT in order? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Posted February 4, 2004 Share Posted February 4, 2004 If I understand this correctly, the VA series were developed for the ground-attack and air supremecy role, while the VF series were space-superiority models. This correct? No, I think he means the VA (Variable-Attack(er)) series was developed for ground attack missions and the VF series was primarily for air and space superiority. Graham Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boxer Posted February 4, 2004 Share Posted February 4, 2004 ...that's essentially what I just said- bar the air supremecy role. I took VA as Variable Attacker at first, but it's been listed as Variable Aircraft in Nanashi's text. But are the VAs listed out of order? And do more exist? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azrael Posted February 4, 2004 Share Posted February 4, 2004 But are the VAs listed out of order? And do more exist? Nope. Only the VA-3 and VA-14 exist under the VA series. http://www.anime.net/macross/mecha/index.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boxer Posted February 4, 2004 Share Posted February 4, 2004 Not even unofficial ones? Some can say that the NOVA series VFs don't exist... Speaking of which, what happened to those series? There's a VB design in there. ANy of those considered proto-VAs? (Other than the 14, but that wasn't NOVA...) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azrael Posted February 4, 2004 Share Posted February 4, 2004 Well, what do you want? A whole line of VA's. There is the VA-X-3 from Kawamori's Nova series, but that's unofficial so we don't bother to count that. The only designs we got out of the Advanced Valkyrie/Nova series was the VF-3000 and the VF-9. Beyond that, he hasn't used many designs from Advanced Valkyrie in recent years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurel Tristen Posted February 4, 2004 Author Share Posted February 4, 2004 If I understand this correctly, the VA series were developed for the ground-attack and air supremecy role, while the VF series were space-superiority models. This correct?I wonder if other VA designs exist other than the VA-14 and VA-3? ...and thinking of which, didn't the VA-14(FB2012 ish?) come out before the VA-3 (M7?) So does this mean the VA series is NOT in order? The VA-3 was in service in at the time of the Anti-Boddle Zer Fleet Battle (2010) limited numbers as they were replacing the VF-1 Valkyrie VA-1 Skull squadron (attack duty-this squadron designation for the Skull can be found in the DYRL storyboard book). The VA-14 was the variable attack craft of the Zjentohlauedy-operated Macross 5 fleet variant from which the Varuata Forces (Protodeviln) emulated/stole in 2045 to create their Az-130. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurel Tristen Posted February 4, 2004 Author Share Posted February 4, 2004 ...that's essentially what I just said- bar the air supremecy role. I took VA as Variable Attacker at first, but it's been listed as Variable Aircraft in Nanashi's text. But are the VAs listed out of order? And do more exist? Variable aircraft is a general term used in the text referring to any Variable craft/vehicles/mecha. 'VA' stands for "Variable Attack craft" or "Variable Attacker" as Graham as stated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boxer Posted February 4, 2004 Share Posted February 4, 2004 Ah, I see. For the moment though it looks like VA doesn't really apply- both the VA designs are aircraft (Unless Kawamori makes other Variable designs- helicopters? ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Southcross Posted February 4, 2004 Share Posted February 4, 2004 New translation: http://nanashi.macrossmecha.info/resrc/lit/va_series.html More to come. Enjoy. Nanashi, you going to place any images of the VAs? I'm not sure what they look like (dummy me). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurel Tristen Posted February 4, 2004 Author Share Posted February 4, 2004 New translation: http://nanashi.macrossmecha.info/resrc/lit/va_series.html More to come. Enjoy. Nanashi, you going to place any images of the VAs? I'm not sure what they look like (dummy me). That page will be linked to the VA-3 and VA-14 entries when those entries are ready and those entries will images on them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurel Tristen Posted February 4, 2004 Author Share Posted February 4, 2004 Ah, I see.For the moment though it looks like VA doesn't really apply- both the VA designs are aircraft (Unless Kawamori makes other Variable designs- helicopters? ) There was a VTOL craft... the non-Macross design VAG-37 Rafaga which is a Variable Attack Gunship from the Capcom giant robot fighting game, Kikaio: http://www.capcom.co.jp/newproducts/arcade...aga2/index.html But, again although Shoji Kawamori designed it-it is not a Macross design. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boxer Posted February 5, 2004 Share Posted February 5, 2004 Does Kawamori include the VA/VF designations in all design sketches he does (and names?) I knew about the Rafaga anyway, I posted in that thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macross_Fanboy Posted February 5, 2004 Share Posted February 5, 2004 Whoa, that definitely was a weird read. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted February 5, 2004 Share Posted February 5, 2004 Macross follows US aircraft designations pretty darn closely, only exception being of course the use of "V" to mean variable, instead of VTOL. (And since variable fighters tend to be VTOL, it's still correct, sort of) "F" is an inherently loose term for aircraft. If you can't quite figure out what it's supposed to do, use an F. Or if you just want to lie, use F. "A" however, pretty much means "not air superiority, and not heavy/strategic bombing". Thus A-6, A-7, A-10, etc. They all bomb, but they aren't heavy bombers like the B-52, B-2, etc. Holds true for both valks and real planes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurel Tristen Posted February 5, 2004 Author Share Posted February 5, 2004 Does Kawamori include the VA/VF designations in all design sketches he does (and names?)I knew about the Rafaga anyway, I posted in that thread. not all VFs/VAs etc. have been named/designated Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JELEINEN Posted February 5, 2004 Share Posted February 5, 2004 It's been the policy of Nanashi's to leave the translation as true as possible, not correcting grammar of any written material for fear of changing the context of what is said. Unfortunately, that makes it very difficult reading.I admit, keeping the translastion literal has me wondering if I might understand less from this "pure" translation than if they cleaned up the grammar A self-defeating policy since the literal translation only makes misunderstanding more likely. Real translation is more than just moving words from one language to another; it's moving the ideas and intent of the words as well and making sure that the one receiving the translation comprehends what's being said or written. I'm sure the translation is accurate, but it definitely needs to be rewritten into regular English. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angel's Fury Posted February 5, 2004 Share Posted February 5, 2004 If I understand this correctly, the VA series were developed for the ground-attack and air supremecy role, while the VF series were space-superiority models. This correct? No, I think he means the VA (Variable-Attack(er)) series was developed for ground attack missions and the VF series was primarily for air and space superiority. Graham Yep. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1st Border Red Devil Posted February 5, 2004 Share Posted February 5, 2004 (Unless Kawamori makes other Variable designs- helicopters? ) Now that I'd like to see....I must admit. Did they every produce a dual role fighter...a VF/A? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted February 5, 2004 Share Posted February 5, 2004 Kawamori has too much class to use "F/A" as a designation. Adding "/A" to the F designation is called "convincing Congress you need more". I still type F-18 when possible, as that's the original, true name. (And "F/A"-22 makes most any plane buff puke) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boxer Posted February 6, 2004 Share Posted February 6, 2004 "F" is an inherently loose term for aircraft. If you can't quite figure out what it's supposed to do, use an F. Or if you just want to lie, use F. I think the F designation means fighter, just as B means Bomber. A probably means 'All-things' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1st Border Red Devil Posted February 6, 2004 Share Posted February 6, 2004 Adding "/A" to the F designation is called "convincing Congress you need more". I still type F-18 when possible, as that's the original, true name. Heh..... well...economic realities are necessary in some cases. As for other types....I see the VBs as totally pointless. Making a variable bomber is plain dumb. A fighter-bomber is stretching it some....but a purely bomber that transforms is a total waste of resources. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr March Posted February 6, 2004 Share Posted February 6, 2004 It's been the policy of Nanashi's to leave the translation as true as possible, not correcting grammar of any written material for fear of changing the context of what is said. Unfortunately, that makes it very difficult reading.I admit, keeping the translastion literal has me wondering if I might understand less from this "pure" translation than if they cleaned up the grammar A self-defeating policy since the literal translation only makes misunderstanding more likely. Real translation is more than just moving words from one language to another; it's moving the ideas and intent of the words as well and making sure that the one receiving the translation comprehends what's being said or written. I'm sure the translation is accurate, but it definitely needs to be rewritten into regular English. I'm all for proper english translations, but it's not my website. I'm just saying what WJ policy is Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angel's Fury Posted February 6, 2004 Share Posted February 6, 2004 "F" is an inherently loose term for aircraft. If you can't quite figure out what it's supposed to do, use an F. Or if you just want to lie, use F. I think the F designation means fighter, just as B means Bomber. A probably means 'All-things' Speaking of letter designations, here they are: Types of Aircraft: A-attack B-bomber C-cargo E-electronic F-fighter H-helicopter K-tanker L-liaison Q-target and drone R-reconnaisance S-search and rescue T-trainer U-utility Modification of basic type: D-director aircraft M-missile aircraft V-staff and administrative transports General Classifications: X-experimental Y-service test Z-obsolete Pretty sure this basic stuff to most of you. Hopefully this helps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coota0 Posted February 6, 2004 Share Posted February 6, 2004 "F" is an inherently loose term for aircraft. If you can't quite figure out what it's supposed to do, use an F. Or if you just want to lie, use F. I think the F designation means fighter, just as B means Bomber. A probably means 'All-things' Speaking of letter designations, here they are: Types of Aircraft: A-attack B-bomber C-cargo E-electronic F-fighter H-helicopter K-tanker L-liaison Q-target and drone R-reconnaisance S-search and rescue T-trainer U-utility Modification of basic type: D-director aircraft M-missile aircraft V-staff and administrative transports General Classifications: X-experimental Y-service test Z-obsolete Pretty sure this basic stuff to most of you. Hopefully this helps. V- is for vertical takeoff (or landing) on a fixed wing aircraft hence AV-8 Harrier and V-22 Osprey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted February 6, 2004 Share Posted February 6, 2004 The lists are separate---thus we have 2 people saying different things for V. V in itself is VTOL, but V as a prefix is VIP. H can be search and rescue, or Helicopter. Yes, there's a lot of overlap (The A, B, C, F are the same in each), but some are different/exclusive, depending on if it's being used as a primary or secondary mission designator. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boxer Posted February 7, 2004 Share Posted February 7, 2004 The Z designation, do they add it after the aircraft has been decommissioned? And what designation is, say, a (P)-38? Plane? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coota0 Posted February 7, 2004 Share Posted February 7, 2004 And what designation is, say, a (P)-38? Plane? P-was for pursuit, now they use F instead for fighter. After WWII there were some aircraft that had originally used the "P" desiganation, but were changed to the "F" desiganation an example is the P-51 it was changed to the F-51. I'm not sure when exactly it happned sometime before the Korean conflict, my guess would be when the Air Force was formed from the Army Air Corps. Today "P" is the desigantion for patrol. On a side note the Navy always used the "F" desigantion for fighters (F4f Wildcat, F6f Hellcat, F2f Buffalo" and the "P" designation for patrol. Hope this explains it for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.