Board index » MDC Worlds » Robotech® - The Shadow Chronicles® - Macross II®

 


Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
Unread postPosted: Sun Jun 23, 2019 4:06 pm
  

User avatar
Knight

Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 10:50 am
Posts: 6129
Location: WI
Based on the animation, what is the displayed T/W ratio of the seven Veritech configurations (VF-1, VF-1 Super, Logan, AGAC, Alpha, Beta, A/B-combiner) in the 85episodes. Since the T/W ratio value is equal (1:1) to Acceleration in Earth G's mathematically, and we can calculate acceleration rate from the animation (or at least estimate it) and use that to get the Thrust-Weight Ratio.

To determine the acceleration, we have to know the change in velocity the animation shows us. This means we have to know the starting velocity (with few exceptions I go with scenes that can be taken as zero relative velocity), and the ending velocity, and the time frame this is all taking place in.

Determining the time frame to a high degree of accuracy can be done if you count animation frames (I used Video Editing Software for this, as it was more versatile than the players I have access to). For the purposes of this project I am using the first frame before motion is observed, this might in fact cause distortions (an example is provided later), but as it is being uniformly applied should still allow comparisons. It should also avoid any bias. though it could inflate values.

Determining the distance traveled was done in 2 ways, using a known dimension of the mecha itself to determine how far it travels during the time, OR using trigonometry to derive change in position between frames of the receding/approaching mecha.

A few notes:
-the results should be viewed as an estimate, not a firm calculated number. There is always the chance for human error (either animator in hand drawing or myself). Nor is this an exhaustive analysis of every scene. I am also omitting scene analysis done resulting in less than 1G values or with some type of clear assist (ex. Catapult launches).
-Some specific instances have potential issues that are described (ex. it might have an undetermined starting velocity above zero, or the result is clearly absurd).
-remember if comparing to the written numbers these values are likely not in a dry/empty state, but at some degree of loaded.
-I am using OFFICIAL RT dimensions whenever possible, I used Macross Mecha Manual for the dimensions of the Super VF-1 (no official RT values AFAIK), I have used RT.com's Infopedia Ship Comparison Chart to estimate some measurements . I used AoTSC (pg80) image of the combiner to determine the length of the Alpha-Beta stack (~17.47m if anyone is interested, used the side profile view)
-Time Codes are based on the Legacy DVDs (aren’t precise, but a window to the event).

Quick Summary.
Looking at the estimates based on the animation, and in terms of T/W ratio performance the case of a “technology backslide” just does not appear to be supportable. At minimum the animation suggests stagnation, and quite possibly some degree of advancement.

TRM/NG animation vs TMS written Values.
The later arcs displayed animated estimated T/W ratios when compared to the TMS written values give the edge to the later period veritechs when compared to the VF-1, all 5 configurations are shown to out perform the stock VF-1 in at least two episodes and that is comparing the dry state VF-1 to a what is assumed to be a standard load for the other veritechs. The FAST Pack equipped VF-1 does a bit do much better with a standard load (NG each out perform it more than once, and each in the TRM once), and it requires going to a dry state to out perform three of them (reduced to two if considering derived solo Beta values from the Combiner).

Animation Values of all 3 sagas.
In this venue the displayed ranges the result is slightly different as the TMS Veritechs also have instances that pull them into the same displayed ranges of the other arcs in general. Though the VF-1 configurations aren’t really the best performers, they aren’t the worst at least if we compare best display and ignore ones with potential issues.

Data Set
VF-1
Ep01@ 2020-2036 Skull-1 is flying in front of VT-101, begins to pull ahead and then climbs at a rate of 4.02G, slightly less because I am ignoring the slight change prior to the climb.

Ep02@ 1830-1842 VT-101 in guardian mode launches itself vertically at 11.67G, implied it was at some unknown velocity prior to the vertical climb, which is distorting the result. The B/G trio of engines on the back might also impact the result if they are in use (can’t tell, no contrail visible though).

Ep06@2049-2056 Rick’s VF-1J is seen rising into view from behind a Zentreadi destoryer, likely some velocity achieved out of frame distorting the result to 15.27G.

Ep07@2040-2055 Rick’s rescue of Lisa at Sara Base, the VF-1 in guardian mode is lifting basically straight up. Might have already been accelerating prior, but shows 3.36G.

Ep11@245-255 Max’s VF-1A thruster leaps into the air at 14.39G. Possible assist from the back thrusters? The unit also crouched down potentially giving a mechanical leg boost.

Ep16@1655-1703 Rick’s VF-1J Battloid (partly in shot) crouches down and thruster leaps out of view at rate of 4.03G of acceleration. Timing and distance covered being difficult to judge here.

Ep19@1250-1305 Skull-1 switches to ½ G to thruster brake to endup behind the Fighter pods. Using the Fighter Pods velocity (top left one) as the starting Velocity (assumes they weren't accelerating on Skull-1), Rick’s deceleration profile is 12.66G, though I suppose some of the deceleration here might have nothing to do with thrust and the Fighter Pods are assumed to maintain speed (they might slow down when Rick is breaking, which could impact things)..

Ep28@827-836 Skull-1 in ½ Guardian (arms and back booster in F mode position) takes off vertically and accelerates at 2.46G

Ep36@1740-1756 Skull-1’s takeoff from Khyron’s ship just before the SDF-1 fires the main gun. The ship is in motion, so will distort the acceleration as the viewer position is fixed on the hull (and Skull-1 is approaching camera position. Skull-1 was also physically running prior to transforming and thrusters engaged as it ran, so starting velocity will be impacted. Acceleration is 35.12G if we don’t take into account any of the motion.


VF-1 Super (ie VF-1 w/Fast Pack)
Ep27@ 1107-1111 rear view shot (extreme closeup), engines ignite propelling in forward. 12.07G using all engines (2 legs, 2 booster, plus B/G “backpack” trio). Shot implies “stationary position” at start.

Ep30@ 1317-1323 review shot of shot of 2 Super Valks on Deck in Fighter Mode. Take off is for Max at 34.3G using the typical 4 engines (no B/G backpack trio). Timing might be an issue (if we use engine plume instead of motion it drops down to 9.14G, but that would be different than the way used on all the other instances). The unit also appears to be in a lighter configuration (no wing ordnance), and it is assumed there is no catapult assist.

Ep30@ 1814-1821 Guardian Mode VF-1 Super lift off vertically (tracking one on left), before they bend backward (sweeping the legs into an F-mode type potion) the leg thrusters generate 1.96G. Tracking it to leave screen lowers it slightly to 1.86G, not to sure on the actual distance because after the first length it assumes a new position.
--The Center Guardian mode VF-1 Super to clear the screen displays an acceleration of 2.26G.
--It should be emphasized that the only engines in use in this scene are the VF-1 leg thrusters, the twin booster modules appear dormant.

Logan
Ep39@1450 Marie's Battloid Mode Logan does a vertical thruster leap, the unit appears roughly waist high at start, and clears the screen. Distance covered is more than the height of the Logan, but assumed the height of the logan for distance. Time might be an issue with when acceleration starts exactly, but given the open distance also covered that is not being accounted for... Acceleration is 6.06G.

Ep40@1700 After VTOLing out of the bay it continues to climb (in VTOL fashion) before turning and "diving" and shooting at some bioroids. From the frame it has turned to the time it cuts away yields an acceleration of 1.59G.

Ep46@1349-1359 Logans VTOL up out of the cargo bay of the shuttle, assuming zero relative acceleration to the shuttle, the Logan then accelerates forward and then begins to turn. Acceleration is 6.77G as it enters the turn.

AGAC
Ep37 as a recycled clip show it uses AGAC footage from Ep51 (see appropriate episode)

Ep50@2029-2040 AGAC Battloid inside Bioroid transport and then outside after it blew a new hole in the side. Interior acceleration is ~1.13G and exterior is ~1.33G. Distance traveled is difficult to determine due to posture, and out of view acceleration.

Ep51@1540-1552 an AGAC launches out the hangar, no apparent catapult, a head-on receding shot. Acceleration is 2.97G.

Ep51@1711-1722 Marie re orientates her AGAC in Fighter Mode before accelerating off screen at rate of 15.3G. Unit appears to have zero relative velocity to ships it is in formation with before acceleration occurs. Before it leaves view it is ~1/2 the length visible, which was counted as distance traveled once out of view.

Ep54@ 1510-1522 a trio of AGAC Battloids are attacked, the one on the left of the screen accelerates vertically for 7.25G, technically the distance covered is greater as there are gaps between frames. The right one (turns into center one) leaps vertically for 3.06G before horizontal motion to the left. The third unit was not looked at.

Alpha
Ep61
@720-730 Garfish launches Alphas. Tracking the top left and top center units, and counting fighter lengths traveled I calculate an acceleration of 14.70G.
@750-759 Ikazuchi launches Alpha Battloids from quick reaction bays. Tracking the first one to appear yields up 22.31G acceleration, but the Alpha would have accelerated out of view.
@900-1000 Alpha separates from the Beta, assuming relative zero velocity to the Beta, the Alpha accelerates at 3.67G. Given this is a re-entry situation AND Scott not wanting to burn up as he was attempting to rescue the Horizon-T, a less than full acceleration is likely.

Ep66
@1400-1415 Alpha VTOLs up, hovers then dashes forward (in 2 frames it will be off screen completely) with an acceleration of 9.41G. This sequence appears to be recycled in Ep70 (@1650-1705) and Ep76 (@545-610), at least for the acceleration part as I get identical values.

Ep72
@1332-1347 2 Alphas, combiner and the Jeep deploy in the start of the attack on the Invid Hive. The Alphas likely are in motion before clearing the trees, but assuming zero relative acceleration they display 4.52G of acceleration (time is likely longer as they started behind the combiner).

Ep76
@ 623-633 Rand falls behind the others to come up behind the Shock Troopers. Once they are a non issue he accelerates forward. Assuming relative zero velocity to the group, he achieved 69.99G. Reality here is he should have some initial velocity, I am just not sure on its value (IF, assume, he was traveling at velocity similar to the later starburst for the Z described below, it lowers it down to 44.32G, at maximum sea level speed of the I it would be ~4.65G, at the maximum flight speed of the Shock Trooper it would be 40.86G.)
@1735-1742 2 Alphas (I/Z) and the Beta fly forward and then do booster climbs of varying angle. I used the trig method to determine the initial velocity BEFORE the climb, the Alpha-Z's climb acceleration is a negative value, but there are gaps easily enough to fit an Alpha between each frame location. Doubling the lengths traveled (due to gaps, can fit 5 lengths in the gaps), the acceleration is 17.85G. Without the initial velocity value the acceleration would have been ~141G (illustrating the importance of getting the starting velocity value correct).

Ep79 @1932-1955 the Veritechs all hover, and then accelerate forward off screen. The Alpha-I displays 2.13G of acceleration, and the Alpha-Z 6.4G.

Ep81 @1642-1649 Alpha-I Battloid leaps vertical for 1.02G of acceleration.

Ep82 (both examples for the Alpha in this episode are absurd)
@1854-1900 Alpha-H/I/Z Battloids at various times travel off screen. The Alpha-H floats in air with back to I/Z and is gone in the next frame (Acceleration would be 963.7G going horizontal) the I/Z follow a bit more “leisurely“ with their path shown (Acceleration is 100.38G). For the record these values are in the lethal range IINM.

-Ep84
@338-353 Guardian Mode Alphas VTOL up, hover and then dash forward. Alpha-H displays acceleration of 7.49G
@520-524 Mirror sequence of early shot, but different result of 6.53G as timing in this one was longer.

Ep85 @318-322 a Shadow Garfish is shown to launch Shadow Alphas, this is a head on shot. Using the Size Comparison Chart I estimate the Alpha covers 9 lengths to the nose, technically the shot implies the Shadow Alphas are in front of the nose, but I am going with just the length of the Garfish. This means the Alphas acceleration is 16.01G, technically more since it did cover a greater distance.

Beta
Ep70 @1815-1838 Beta takes off, the receding shot after the shock trooper explodes yields an acceleration of 10.54G. If the distance the shocktrooper traveled could be determined, we could reasonably estimate the acceleration the Beta received (Newton's 3rd law), assuming an empty state and/or (2E RPG) standard load state.

Ep76 @1735-1742 Beta and Alphas fly forward (stagger), then climb in different directions. Used Trig method to determine initial velocity before vertical climb. During the Climb the unit is shown in different position 4 times, with gaps. Without the Gaps the acceleration would be negative, each gap appears to have sufficient space for a Beta (doubling the positions), yielding 11G. The climb is not likely straight vertical, so the distance could be more.

Ep82 @1842 the Beta Battloid lifts off vertically (and is transforming) with some forward drift clearing a 4 story building (each story assumed to be 3m) for 1.31G, if we assume the building is the same height as the Battloid mode it raises it to 1.51G

Combiner (joined Alpha-Beta, figures in parenthesis are for the Beta solo)
-Ep61 @553-612 Combiner detaches from the Horizon-T and takes an angled vector away (skewing the distance shorter than actually traveled). Using Lineart (gearsonline) and Infopedia size comparison chart (Horizon vs Alpha), the unit covers 3.5 Alpha lengths (estimate, not sure if I the placement is exact) or 2 Combiner Lengths (estimate, IF the OSM lineart assumes OSM size and not RT size it will be off). Based on the Alpha it would be 8.23G (12.545G) and Combiner 9.02G (12.21G). Using the length of the Horizon to determine distance yields slightly higher values.

Ep72 @1332-1347 Assuming when the nose appears is when it starts accelerating, it is just barely visible behind the trees. For the entire unit to be 3.31G (5.05G), though if take longer view until it is just barely out of frame (assuming full length traveled) yields 1.92G (2.93G).

Ep76 @1816-1820 Alpha/Beta finishes docking then takes off, Acceleration is 10.79G (16.44G), though there unit did increase in altitude so the distance covered is greater in this rear view shot.

Ep85 @1915-1921 The beginning of the booster climb after VTOL takeoff displays an acceleration of 8.18G (12.46G)


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Sun Jun 23, 2019 7:45 pm
  

User avatar
Knight

Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2010 6:36 am
Posts: 5002
Location: New Frontier Shipyard, Earth-Moon L5
Comment: "My theories appall you, my heresies outrage you, I never answer letters, and you don't like my tie."
ShadowLogan wrote:
Based on the animation, what is the displayed T/W ratio of the seven Veritech configurations (VF-1, VF-1 Super, Logan, AGAC, Alpha, Beta, A/B-combiner) in the 85episodes. Since the T/W ratio value is equal (1:1) to Acceleration in Earth G's mathematically, and we can calculate acceleration rate from the animation (or at least estimate it) and use that to get the Thrust-Weight Ratio.

No, you can't... because all you have for hard data is the mass of the aircraft.



ShadowLogan wrote:
To determine the acceleration, we have to know the change in velocity the animation shows us. This means we have to know the starting velocity (with few exceptions I go with scenes that can be taken as zero relative velocity), and the ending velocity, and the time frame this is all taking place in.

Of course, the logical problem underpinning your "data" set here is that you don't actually have any way to accurately measure any of the relevant data points.

You can measure the number of frames a VF is on screen for, but you don't actually have a way to accurately measure velocity or acceleration because you don't have a way to accurately measure the actual distance traveled in that number of frames due to the limitations of 24 frame-per-second hand-drawn animation and the inevitable dramatic license, and you have no way of knowing how much engine power is actually being applied to achieve it. Even if we were to generously assume that all of your various guesstimates were accurate, the fact that you have no idea what percentage of total engine output is being used to achieve any given scene means that your conclusion can't be treated as anything more than a wild guess.

There are also a number of other concerns that undermine your theory, such as unaccounted-for atmospheric and gravitational influence on acceleration, the disparity between empty and loaded mass and that you're drawing all your conclusions from loaded aircraft, and that these aircraft don't even have the same definition of "maximum thrust". The latter is especially relevant in the case of the VF-1 Valkyrie. Your typical fighter has Maximum Power as 100% of the rated output of its engines. Cruising power is typically 50% and Military power is 75%. The VF-1's actual maximum is 200% (Blocks 1-5) or 240% (Blocks 6+), and yes this is visible in the line art and animation. So if you have the VF-1 and some other aircraft both operating at Military power, the other aircraft is using 75% of its maximum rated output while the VF-1 is only actually using 37.5% (or 31.25% for Block 6+). Even if the throttle is at the same marking, it's not actually at the same percentage of maximum thrust. You can see why this would be a problem for your comparisons even if you did know what the throttle setting was for those scenes.

That your conclusion flies in the face of all the available facts, including the ones from the people who actually created the designs and animation, would generally be considered a fair indicator that you have some severe issues with your methodology. (See below)

In short, your conclusions here are spurious at best... based far more on wishful thinking and a fundamentally flawed methodology than any kind of evidence.




The only way to compare the thrust-to-weight ratios of these VFs would be to know their mass (empty or loaded) and the output power of their engines. The only conclusion you can reliably draw from the animation is that, for the Alpha and Beta, their thrust to weight ratio exceeds 1.0 because they're VTOL-capable. If you work backwards from the official spec and assume the best realistic turbine efficiency possible, you end up with an estimated thrust-to-weight ratio of approximately 1.15. That doesn't sound like a lot, but by modern standards that's a lot. Loaded, most modern fighters don't even top 1.0 (the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet for instance is 0.93), and its difference between loaded and unloaded is going to be a lot less than a modern jet's. Even if we assume that its armaments top out at the same mass as a fully loaded GU-11A (which is 2/3 as long as the Alpha itself and about 1/10th the Alpha's mass, and almost certainly an overestimation) it's still at 1.06 and standing above almost every modern fighter with a full load. With a full combat load, the VF-1's only at 2.486... but its engines are also about three times the size so it's not surprising their power is greater.

_________________
Macross2.net - Home of the Macross Mecha Manual

Zer0 Kay wrote:
Damn you for anticipating my question. I've really got to unfoe you, your information is far more valuable than my sanity when dealing with your blunt callousness. :)


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Mon Jun 24, 2019 12:06 pm
  

User avatar
Knight

Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 10:50 am
Posts: 6129
Location: WI
Seto wrote:
No, you can't... because all you have for hard data is the mass of the aircraft.

I respectfully disagree.

We have the dimensions of the vehicle. That means we can determine/estimate the distance traveled in the animation.

We can measure time it takes to travel a given distance.

I do agree that this is not a perfect system. And if one was looking at a single scene or episode to draw conclusions from for each mecha it would be problematic and subject to potential animation errors. That is why I went with multiple instances, so that if there was an animation error it would likely be an outlier rather than the apparent norm. Now some of the Veritechs where easier to do (Alpha, VF-1) than others owing to number of appearances (logan, VF-1 super) AND criteria for the scene to be considered. Rarely did I go outside of the criteria of zero relative starting velocity, and those instances should be noted. I also made sure to point out any potential issues with the scene/results.

I would also point out that the results are presented as an ESTIMATE based on the animation, NOT Final numbers. As an Estimate they can be off (either good or bad) and aren't always spot on.

Seto wrote:
such as unaccounted-for atmospheric and gravitational influence on acceleration,

Agreed, but what would be displayed would be the net effect taking those into consideration.

Seto wrote:
the disparity between empty and loaded mass and that you're drawing all your conclusions from loaded aircraft,

I agree that we should compare "empty" to "empty" and "loaded" to "loaded". And note if we are comparing apples to oranges (which I did), BUT if the loaded state is on par/better with an empty state of another it is pretty apparent that the loaded one in a similar state will be superior.

Seto wrote:
and that these aircraft don't even have the same definition of "maximum thrust".

Agree that can be an issue. We don't know how much available thrust they are actually using, but that simply reinforces the need for multiple instances to get a better picture.

Seto wrote:
That your conclusion flies in the face of all the available facts, including the ones from the people who actually created the designs and animation, would generally be considered a fair indicator that you have some severe issues with your methodology. (See below)

Except the values provided for the NG/GCM VFs do not add up, and IIRC the TRM/SDC:SC don't exist. And while the creators may intend that for the OSM, that doesn't mean it was actually animated that way nor is it 1:1 applicable to Robotech (OSM doesn't give the Alpha H/I/Z those head missile launchers for example, HG can and has changed things from the OSM before).

The Alpha H/I lists 4x 4800kg engines and 2x 1840shp. The Beta 2x 2040shp and 1x at 1800kg. The Alpha doesn't add up due to scenes where just 2x of those 4800kg engines are used for vertical flight (B/G) on multiple occasions (it takes all 4x of those engines to achieve 1.15), and the Beta's numbers don't make any sense for the role it is to perform for the Alpha.

Seto wrote:
The only conclusion you can reliably draw from the animation is that, for the Alpha and Beta, their thrust to weight ratio exceeds 1.0 because they're VTOL-capable.

Actually we know the Beta's T/W ratio is well in excess of 1.0. By all indications the Beta provides sole VTOL power when connected to the Alpha, PLUS we see it VTOL Lunk's jeep while connected to the Alpha (requires ~62% more thrust minimum than solo operation in a similar maneuver, and that ignores any potential payloads carried by the Beta, Alpha, and jeep which if all are fully loaded would push it ~97% more and this ignores the wing stations of the Beta whose total capacity by the 2E RPG is less than mass of Lunk's empty jeep).

You are also assuming that the VTOL engines in both cases aren't OR can't be used outside of VTOL operations to provide additional forward thrust by redirecting it.


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Mon Jun 24, 2019 1:47 pm
  

User avatar
Knight

Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2010 6:36 am
Posts: 5002
Location: New Frontier Shipyard, Earth-Moon L5
Comment: "My theories appall you, my heresies outrage you, I never answer letters, and you don't like my tie."
ShadowLogan wrote:
We have the dimensions of the vehicle. That means we can determine/estimate the distance traveled in the animation.

You have the stated dimensions of the aircraft... but your conclusion depends on assuming that 1980s-vintage hand-drawn animation made on fairly tight budgets is uniformly perfect in its depiction of scale, that there is no dramatic license in play, that tweening frames aren't a thing, and that the aircraft in question is charting a perfectly linear course. This set of assumptions is, frankly, ludicrous... never mind that you've used assumptions about size that are incorrect to what was actually used for the production of the animation, further skewing results that were already badly distorted.



ShadowLogan wrote:
We can measure time it takes to travel a given distance.

You can measure the time the aircraft is on screen, but at no point is an airspeed or distance traveled given or shown on cockpit instrumentation. You can only make a vague assumption about actual distance traveled based on the above-described "perfect world" fallacies.



ShadowLogan wrote:
I do agree that this is not a perfect system. And if one was looking at a single scene or episode to draw conclusions from for each mecha it would be problematic and subject to potential animation errors. That is why I went with multiple instances, so that if there was an animation error it would likely be an outlier rather than the apparent norm.

To call this a "system" at all feels rather disingenuous, as it's mostly a chain of unsupportable assumptions.

As I noted previously... even if we were to assume for the sake of argument that all of your wild guesses and fallacious assumptions were accurate, you failed to account for the basic reality that thrust production is not all-or-nothing. These engines have throttles, and can vary their outputs according to operator demand. That means that any conclusions you drew based on the assumptions that you made are no more than unfounded assumptions themselves, because you have no way of knowing what the operator demand on the engines was at the time.

Put simply, your methodology is fundamentally flawed.



ShadowLogan wrote:
Now some of the Veritechs where easier to do (Alpha, VF-1) than others owing to number of appearances (logan, VF-1 super) AND criteria for the scene to be considered. Rarely did I go outside of the criteria of zero relative starting velocity, and those instances should be noted. I also made sure to point out any potential issues with the scene/results.

A larger sample collected using the same faulty methodology just means you increase the scope of your error... it doesn't improve the reliability of an already-bad data set.



ShadowLogan wrote:
Except the values provided for the NG/GCM VFs do not add up, and IIRC the TRM/SDC:SC don't exist. And while the creators may intend that for the OSM, that doesn't mean it was actually animated that way nor is it 1:1 applicable to Robotech (OSM doesn't give the Alpha H/I/Z those head missile launchers for example, HG can and has changed things from the OSM before).

That the numbers provided for MOSPEADA do not add up is your assumption, bereft of supporting evidence.

So, wait... you're arguing here that the animation isn't a wholly-accurate representation of the actual stated capabilities of the mecha? Wouldn't that by definition mean you've based your entire theory on a source you know to be unreliable since the written spec is what you're actually disputing? :lol:

Also, that last bit about "they changed it once they could change it again" is a fallacy called an Appeal to Possibility. Just because it changed once doesn't mean it'll change again, especially since that first change wasn't due to an actual case being made for it but due to dishonest fan "experts" who falsely presented their personal theories as OSM-derived fact to HG. This actually ties neatly into the rest of your post, which I will post a detailed analysis for later today.

_________________
Macross2.net - Home of the Macross Mecha Manual

Zer0 Kay wrote:
Damn you for anticipating my question. I've really got to unfoe you, your information is far more valuable than my sanity when dealing with your blunt callousness. :)


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Mon Jun 24, 2019 4:56 pm
  

User avatar
Megaversal® Ambassador

Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2011 1:23 am
Posts: 1417
Location: Houston, TX
Comment: "I will not be silenced. I will not submit. I will find the truth and shout it to the world. "
I have to agree with Seto on this. Most sci-fi / anime is not made with hard statistics in mind so even if you could use the footage to determine these statistics you would almost certainly get something that is wildly inconsistent due to the needs of the plot.

They had a similar problem when creating the hyperdrive values in the old West End Star Wars game trying to make the values match what was in the movies.

_________________
Northern Gun Chief of Robotics
Designer of the NG-X40 Storm Hammer Power Armor & NG-HC1000 Dragonfly Hover Chopper
Ultimate Insider - World Book 32: Lemuria
Ultimate Insider - World Book 33: Northern Gun 1
Ultimate Insider - World Book 34: Northern Gun 2
Proud Showdown Level Backer - Robotech RPG Tactics


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Mon Jun 24, 2019 7:36 pm
  

User avatar
Knight

Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2010 6:36 am
Posts: 5002
Location: New Frontier Shipyard, Earth-Moon L5
Comment: "My theories appall you, my heresies outrage you, I never answer letters, and you don't like my tie."
Now that I've got the dull stuff out of the way, let the education begin!


ShadowLogan wrote:
The Alpha H/I lists 4x 4800kg engines and 2x 1840shp. [...]
The Beta 2x 2040shp and 1x at 1800kg.

Now, this much is correct... but pretty much everything that followed came out cockeyed because of the distortions introduced into the facts by the writers of fanfic "reference" sites like the uRRG.

The AFC-01 Legioss types Eta and Iota do in fact have a pair of JG-79M HBT cell turbines rated at 1,840shp and a quartet of ATF-401 sub-engines rated at 47.07kN.
Likewise, the AB-01 Transport Legioss Escort Armored Dreadnought "TLEAD" has a pair of AB-S-101 HBT cell turbines rated at 2,040shp and a single ATF-404 sub-engine rated for 17.65kN.



ShadowLogan wrote:
The Alpha doesn't add up due to scenes where just 2x of those 4800kg engines are used for vertical flight (B/G) on multiple occasions (it takes all 4x of those engines to achieve 1.15), [...]

Now y'see, this (bold emphasis) is where the problems start to occur because of the misinformation created and spread by the uRRG and sites like it.

In actual fact, the Legioss design has precisely zero dedicated VTOL engines. The two VTOL nozzles are fed by the main JG-79M turbines, similarly to the VTOL nozzles on the AV-8B Harrier II. The four ATF-401 sub-engines are all located in the extremities. This much is clearly visible in the MOSPEADA Color Graffiti book's cutaways, which many Robotech fansites have shared around over the years.

This actually makes it extremely easy to ballpark the main engine output, since it must perforce produce a thrust-to-weight ratio of no less than 1.0. If you work backwards from a ratio of 1.0, you can get the sum thrust of the engines in kilonewtons by simply multiplying the mass of the airframe (16700kg) by the acceleration force of gravity (9.807m/s^2). That's 163.7769 kilonewtons, which when divided by two to yield individual turbine output yields a satisfying 81.88845kN minimum output. Obviously it's going to have to be slightly higher than that given that the aircraft is going to have to go lifting off with things like gunpods, missiles, and a pilot. Amusingly, the power you need to lift all that (assuming a really big bloke around 100kg) is only about 94kN per engine, or about twice what a sub-engine produces. So, for the low end estimate, an atmospheric T/W ratio of 1.15 is pretty much on the nose.

Now, if we work backwards from the engine shaft horsepower and the stated top speed from the correct spec, we can get a good picture of the actual maximum thrust of the engine. We know from the creator's spec that the Legioss's top speed is Mach 2.3 at 18km, or precisely 679m/s, and that the Legioss typically operates on turbines only in atmospheric flight in its fighter mode. Curiously, getting to that speed doesn't actually require all that much thrust if your turbine efficiency is good, you only need around 109kN per engine.

So, its atmospheric T/W ratio with a reasonable estimate of its actual maximum main engine thrust gets you 1.33 for standard operating conditions. Throw in the two dorsal sub-engines and you get 1.91. The foot sub-engines appear to be blocked off by the shape of the fighter mode nozzle but if they were viable that'd get you a theoretical maximum of 2.481. (All numbers for Empty config.)



ShadowLogan wrote:
[...] and the Beta's numbers don't make any sense for the role it is to perform for the Alpha.

We can apply the same principles to the AB-01 TLEAD's AB-S-101 engines, which must be able to produce the requisite 1.0 thrust-to-weight ratio to lift the aircraft via its two VTOL nozzles. The TLEAD weighs 26,400kg, so the bare minimum thrust it must be capable of producing from the two main turbines is 26400kg*9.807m/s^2 or 258.9048kN. That boils down to 129.4524kN per main engine.

To get something like a fully armored humvee off the ground, it'd only need about 298.1328kN (149.0664kN per engine).

The question of getting up to its Mach 2.8 top speed (826m/s at reference altitude) is a woolier one due to its godawful front aspect and lack of aerodynamics, so I'm actually not entirely sure how to approach the math there. I would charitably be inclined to double it as a rough order estimate because the CFD software I was using to model it can't make heads or tails of the topology I was asking it to model for.



ShadowLogan wrote:
By all indications the Beta provides sole VTOL power when connected to the Alpha, [...]

Yeah, that's not correct either. If you look at the design, the TLEAD is actually tapping both of the Legioss's main turbines via the aft VTOL nozzle that serves as the anchor point and the dorsal sub-engines of the Legioss slot directly into its main turbine intakes as well.

So, in short, the Alpha is pulling its own weight (literally) when it's connected to the Beta in VTOL... plus a little extra. The maximum deliverable thrust of the combiner is the sum of the main turbine engine thrust of the two aircraft, plus two ATF-401 and one ATF-404 sub-engines.



ShadowLogan wrote:
You are also assuming that the VTOL engines in both cases aren't OR can't be used outside of VTOL operations to provide additional forward thrust by redirecting it.
[/quote]
They're nozzles driven off the main engines, so it's not assuming they can't be used as the reasonable assumption that the net maximum output of all ports from which the engine provides thrust cannot be greater than 100% of the engine's total power output at any given time.

The reason the Legioss/Alpha displays such high level flight speed in arms-folded Armo-Diver/Guardian is that it's leveraging ALL of its engines simultaneously. The main turbines are pulling for both lift thrust from below and forward thrust via the rear VTOL nozzle, with the lift shortfall coming from the leg sub-engine, and the arm sub-engines are supplementing forward thrust.

_________________
Macross2.net - Home of the Macross Mecha Manual

Zer0 Kay wrote:
Damn you for anticipating my question. I've really got to unfoe you, your information is far more valuable than my sanity when dealing with your blunt callousness. :)


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Tue Jun 25, 2019 1:52 pm
  

User avatar
Knight

Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 10:50 am
Posts: 6129
Location: WI
Seto wrote:
You have the stated dimensions of the aircraft... but your conclusion depends on assuming that 1980s-vintage hand-drawn animation made on fairly tight budgets is uniformly perfect in its depiction of scale, that there is no dramatic license in play, that tweening frames aren't a thing, and that the aircraft in question is charting a perfectly linear course. This set of assumptions is, frankly, ludicrous... never mind that you've used assumptions about size that are incorrect to what was actually used for the production of the animation, further skewing results that were already badly distorted.

I do not dispute that there are issues, even I have them. However some of these things can be minimized by using more than one scene though (the "Vindicator" is in what 1 or 2 scenes, making it likely an animation error can slip in, but looking at 10+ scenes for the Alpha showing similar thing either means NG has a lot of Animation Errors OR it was deliberate).

What I am really looking at is the trend in depictions as opposed to the actual values, but I still need to objectively quantify what is depicted right.

Seto wrote:
You can measure the time the aircraft is on screen, but at no point is an airspeed or distance traveled given or shown on cockpit instrumentation. You can only make a vague assumption about actual distance traveled based on the above-described "perfect world" fallacies.

I agree speed is rarely mentioned for any moving vehicle in RT (I think the only time is when Annie/Magruder "borrow" Rand's Cyclone), but we can know/estimate the distance traveled since we know the position of X in Frame #x and the position of X in #y, so unless the mecha changes actual size distance can be calculated (and receding/approaching objects can be calculated to).

I do agree the distances might be distorted for a few reasons, but I do point issues (such as this).

Seto wrote:
In actual fact, the Legioss design has precisely zero dedicated VTOL engines. The two VTOL nozzles are fed by the main JG-79M turbines, similarly to the VTOL nozzles on the AV-8B Harrier II. The four ATF-401 sub-engines are all located in the extremities. This much is clearly visible in the MOSPEADA Color Graffiti book's cutaways, which many Robotech fansites have shared around over the years.

I agree that is how the setup should be, however officially HG's take on the Alpha fighter that it has dedicated VTOL thruster(s). We know this because of the Shadow Fighter entry in the Infopedia when it was removed from the Alpha (https://robotech.com/roboverse/mecha/ve ... ow-fighter). Since a Thruster is an engine...

Seto wrote:
So, its atmospheric T/W ratio with a reasonable estimate of its actual maximum main engine thrust gets you 1.33 for standard operating conditions. Throw in the two dorsal sub-engines and you get 1.91. The foot sub-engines appear to be blocked off by the shape of the fighter mode nozzle but if they were viable that'd get you a theoretical maximum of 2.481.

Using a simpler approach (1JG=2ATF), I ended up with ~2.3/2.44 (H-I/Z) a while ago. And if 2x ATFs are able to provide sole vertical lift as is HG's implication via the Shadow Fighter entry (and all 4 are identical) that would raise it to 3.45/3.67 (less obviously if only 2), which would make sense for the VF-1's "replacement" than 1.15 or 2.3 since the "large" T/W is cited in the Alpha entry.

That would also likely be atmospheric T/W ratio at a given altitude (likely sea level), but in the vacuum of space it would be more. If the VF-1 didn't have alitude compensating engines in the vacuum of space it would jump from a dry T/W ratio of ~3.47 upto ~5.46 (its Isp of ~75,600sec atmospheric, in Vacuum Isp of ~119,000sec.) assuming I had the right values for the exit area. For comparison the Alpha is a little more than doubles its T/W in a vacuum (assuming PC is x3 more efficient than SLMH fuel, and SLMH is as efficient as OSM slush, and assuming that I have the exit area correct, each engine is generating the correct amount of thrust) and a Delta-V of over 1/2 the VF-1. I also did the Beta (solo/combiner), but there are issues (to get the Delta-V to even approach animated displays either requires the engines to be more efficient OR giving it more propellant than the mass of the PC canisters can have based on the animation and 2E RPG physics calculated a while ago of 2.1kg per canister OR some combination of the two) the result was a 5x increase in T/W ratio (~48k kg engine each was the calculate thrust, 3x). All T/W ratios here are in a dry/empty configuration (mass of propellant factored in).

Seto wrote:
The TLEAD weighs 26,400kg,

If we where talking about Mospeadea that's great, but the RT version of the TLEAD OFFICIALLY has a higher mass 29,500kg. (weight is measured in Newtons in the metric system not kg, though I know what you mean)

This also illustrates some of the problems with looking at just the OSM. We know HG has changed things for Robotech for various reasons, sometimes on the fly due to fan discussions (didn't the VF-1 and Alpha entries in the Infopedia get changed as a result of our discussions in the past when you brought them up with TY?). When discussing RT, shouldn't we be using the official RT values when they are available?


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Tue Jun 25, 2019 5:44 pm
  

User avatar
Knight

Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2010 6:36 am
Posts: 5002
Location: New Frontier Shipyard, Earth-Moon L5
Comment: "My theories appall you, my heresies outrage you, I never answer letters, and you don't like my tie."
ShadowLogan wrote:
I do not dispute that there are issues, even I have them. However some of these things can be minimized by using more than one scene though (the "Vindicator" is in what 1 or 2 scenes, making it likely an animation error can slip in, but looking at 10+ scenes for the Alpha showing similar thing either means NG has a lot of Animation Errors OR it was deliberate).

As noted in my previous replies, the issues in your method can't be corrected for by increasing the sample size. Increasing sample size only corrects for variances in the sample data.

Your sample data is, by its very nature, not viable for the type of conclusions you're trying to draw... and you're introducing further distortions with a method that has significant, unresolvable issues.



ShadowLogan wrote:
What I am really looking at is the trend in depictions as opposed to the actual values, but I still need to objectively quantify what is depicted right.

The problem is that you're assuming - incorrectly - that the animation itself is going to be a consistent and uniformly realistic depiction.

Dramatic license and the vagaries of the animation process mean that you can't draw meaningful conclusions from that source. That we're talking about old school 1980s hand-drawn animation which was made on the legendarily tight budgets of the Japanese anime industry only further increases its unsuitability for the type of measurement you want to do. This approach you're taking would work, at least partially, only on footage of a real world object where the object's size and shape are consistent.



ShadowLogan wrote:
I agree that is how the setup should be, however officially HG's take on the Alpha fighter that it has dedicated VTOL thruster(s). We know this because of the Shadow Fighter entry in the Infopedia when it was removed from the Alpha (https://robotech.com/roboverse/mecha/ve ... ow-fighter). Since a Thruster is an engine...

Whether you missing the point or deliberately evading it, what's being illustrated by this example is that this kind of wild speculation and substitution of guesses for demonstrable facts doesn't add any clarity... it hinders it.

You've concocted this elaborate theoretical process based on faulty assumptions and an obviously unreliable data set in an attempt to explain your way around an obvious error in a Robotech work that was introduced by a group of fans who had - wait for it - concocted elaborate theories based on faulty assumptions and unreliable data sets to explain their way around errors, inconsistencies, and the gaps in their own knowledge rather than simply look for an internally consistent answer that already existed and was what the animation was actually based on.

Removing the original error is far and away the most sensible approach... trying to spackle over it with more errors, inconsistencies, and wild guesses does nothing except further distort the facts.

That all this is in the name of justifying a throwaway remark about the Alpha having a "large" thrust-to-weight ratio makes it even less helpful, since even the computed thrust-to-weight ratios for the fighter based on its correct spec are already quite large for an aircraft of its size and mass by any reasonable standard.



ShadowLogan wrote:
We know HG has changed things for Robotech for various reasons, sometimes on the fly due to fan discussions (didn't the VF-1 and Alpha entries in the Infopedia get changed as a result of our discussions in the past when you brought them up with TY?). When discussing RT, shouldn't we be using the official RT values when they are available?

Since you keep coming back to "HG has changed things in the past", it would be a good time to point out that when Harmony Gold HAS changed things in its official stats it has consistently been for the purpose of bringing Robotech's version more in line with the OSM's. It's not hard to understand why... that information was what was used in the development of the story and animation that the Robotech series adapted, and as such is essentially guaranteed to be more consistent and accurate.



ShadowLogan wrote:
[...] (assuming PC is x3 more efficient than SLMH fuel, and SLMH is as efficient as OSM slush, and assuming that I have the exit area correct, each engine is generating the correct amount of thrust) and a Delta-V of over 1/2 the VF-1. [...]

... so, in short, it's a completely wild guess.

For the record, SLMH is a RPG-only feature... we don't know what the canonical fusion reactors are actually using for fuel, and we don't know what the Alpha is using for propellant since it isn't running fusion engines.

Spoiler:
Due to lack of information on the RT side, the only area in which we could directly compare the two without making any sweeping assumptions would be reactor/generator fuel efficiency.

The OSM version is 4,166.667% as efficient as the RPG version. Liquid metallic hydrogen is ten times as dense as the slush hydrogen the OSM version uses, and the continuous operation time (29 days 4 hours) is 4.1667x the RPG's 7 days on the internal tank volume of 1,410 liters.




ShadowLogan wrote:
[...] (to get the Delta-V to even approach animated displays either requires the engines to be more efficient OR giving it more propellant than the mass of the PC canisters can have based on the animation [...]

Given that those canisters are explicitly fuel cells even in the RPG, I'm not sure why you would've considered them as a source of propellant.

From its earliest developmental days as the Span Loader, the whole TLEAD concept was to be an enormous booster engine to move the Legioss from the Moon to Earth. That it has some substantial fuel tanks is a given.

_________________
Macross2.net - Home of the Macross Mecha Manual

Zer0 Kay wrote:
Damn you for anticipating my question. I've really got to unfoe you, your information is far more valuable than my sanity when dealing with your blunt callousness. :)


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Wed Jun 26, 2019 10:47 am
  

User avatar
Knight

Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 10:50 am
Posts: 6129
Location: WI
Seto wrote:
The problem is that you're assuming - incorrectly - that the animation itself is going to be a consistent and uniformly realistic depiction.

Actually I am NOT assuming the animation is going to be consistent. I know animation errors happen, which is why I looked at more than one scene and more than one episode. It is also influenced why I chose to summarize the trend of the results and not call for Unit X to have ratio of Y or an actual ranking based on the animation but I still need to show what that summary was based on.

As for realistic depiction, yes some scenes might qualify for that. Care to identify any that where actually looked at that are unrealstic that where NOT called out to have issues or to be absurd.

Seto wrote:
Whether you missing the point or deliberately evading it, what's being illustrated by this example is that this kind of wild speculation and substitution of guesses for demonstrable facts doesn't add any clarity... it hinders it.

I do to stick with the relevant facts. The facts though imply that the OSM engine setup we agree on IS NOT officially how HG sees the RT engine setup. So I am looking at how HG sees (or implies they see) the setup not how it is in the OSM.

The Facts also show that some OSM values have also been changed in Robotech yet you still point to the OSM values for things.

Seto wrote:
That all this is in the name of justifying a throwaway remark about the Alpha having a "large" thrust-to-weight ratio makes it even less helpful, since even the computed thrust-to-weight ratios for the fighter based on its correct spec are already quite large for an aircraft of its size and mass by any reasonable standard.

I agree the corrected stats result in a "large" T/W ratio in comparision to modern aircraft. However IN-UNIVERSE does a 2.x T/W ratio seem large coming after a vehicle with 3.x?

Seto wrote:
nd we don't know what the Alpha is using for propellant since it isn't running fusion engines.

By the math I used though we really dont' need to know what the propellant is actually, we just need to know the mass of the propellant carried. What it actually might be is useful since it means we can determine if there is sufficient volume to hold it.

The only fuel/propellant source we know for sure on the Alpha and Beta is the PC-canisters.


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Wed Jun 26, 2019 1:00 pm
  

User avatar
Knight

Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2010 6:36 am
Posts: 5002
Location: New Frontier Shipyard, Earth-Moon L5
Comment: "My theories appall you, my heresies outrage you, I never answer letters, and you don't like my tie."
ShadowLogan wrote:
Actually I am NOT assuming the animation is going to be consistent. I know animation errors happen, which is why I looked at more than one scene and more than one episode.

A point of order... "consistent" and "consistently realistic/accurate" are NOT the same thing.

The animation can be (and in a number of places, demonstrably is) consistently wrong. Off-model animation is commonplace throughout the three original shows thanks to the hair shirt budgets common to TV anime production, and Tatsunoko's poor choices of outsourcing partners like StarPro. Working backwards from the animation to try and extrapolate performance is a boondoggle under conditions like those, and even well-drawn animation may not be an accurate representation of capability due to dramatic license and the simple vagaries of animation itself.



ShadowLogan wrote:
I agree the corrected stats result in a "large" T/W ratio in comparision to modern aircraft. However IN-UNIVERSE does a 2.x T/W ratio seem large coming after a vehicle with 3.x?

This is a valid question, but let's look at it from a slightly different angle.

Are they saying the Alpha's thrust-to-weight ratio is large compared to the VF-1's... or are they saying it's large compared to its contemporaries?

We know that both the OSM spec and the Robotech spec agree that the Legioss/Alpha is slower and has a lower service ceiling than the VF-1, so we can say with reasonable certainty that it does not have a large thrust-to-weight ratio compared to the VF-1. But, if we compare it to its contemporaries, suddenly the remark makes sense. Look at the other aircraft in service in the 2020s through the 2040s. The Logan, the AGACs, and the conventional fighters and fighter-bombers. They're significantly slower, less agile, and have lower service ceilings. Wouldn't it make vastly more sense for that remark to mean the Alpha's thrust to weight ratio is large among craft currently in service?



ShadowLogan wrote:
I do to stick with the relevant facts. The facts though imply that the OSM engine setup we agree on IS NOT officially how HG sees the RT engine setup. So I am looking at how HG sees (or implies they see) the setup not how it is in the OSM.

You and I both know, and agree, that the only reason HG has that remark is because they were lied to. What useful end is served by dogmatically sticking to material we know to be false and a blatant and illogical distortion of the facts used to produce the animation you're evaluating?



ShadowLogan wrote:
The Facts also show that some OSM values have also been changed in Robotech yet you still point to the OSM values for things.

We both know HG weights the OSM higher than assumptions based on the animation alone, because we've seen the corrections they've made based on their discussions with us... and we both know and agree the "fact" you're objecting in defense of is fallacious.

_________________
Macross2.net - Home of the Macross Mecha Manual

Zer0 Kay wrote:
Damn you for anticipating my question. I've really got to unfoe you, your information is far more valuable than my sanity when dealing with your blunt callousness. :)


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Thu Jun 27, 2019 1:20 pm
  

User avatar
Knight

Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 10:50 am
Posts: 6129
Location: WI
Seto wrote:
A point of order... "consistent" and "consistently realistic/accurate" are NOT the same thing.

The animation can be (and in a number of places, demonstrably is) consistently wrong. Off-model animation is commonplace throughout the three original shows thanks to the hair shirt budgets common to TV anime production, and Tatsunoko's poor choices of outsourcing partners like StarPro. Working backwards from the animation to try and extrapolate performance is a boondoggle under conditions like those, and even well-drawn animation may not be an accurate representation of capability due to dramatic license and the simple vagaries of animation itself.

I agree the animation can be off, but we also know that some of those instances have been adapted from "error" to "real". The question with Animation Errors (which I will lump unrealistic depictions) is at what point in terms of use should one stop and look at it to see if it should really be an error. Repeated cases would at least suggest the errors are intentional, and if it can be shown that it is "realistic" is a lot different than ones that are one off or clearly absurd.

Seto wrote:
Are they saying the Alpha's thrust-to-weight ratio is large compared to the VF-1's... or are they saying it's large compared to its contemporaries?

The answer is we don't know what it's in relation to, much like the "short legs in space" and other things. You'd almost think HG has an aversion to math or commitment or something.

Seto wrote:
We know that both the OSM spec and the Robotech spec agree that the Legioss/Alpha is slower and has a lower service ceiling than the VF-1, so we can say with reasonable certainty that it does not have a large thrust-to-weight ratio compared to the VF-1. But, if we compare it to its contemporaries, suddenly the remark makes sense. Look at the other aircraft in service in the 2020s through the 2040s. The Logan, the AGACs, and the conventional fighters and fighter-bombers. They're significantly slower, less agile, and have lower service ceilings. Wouldn't it make vastly more sense for that remark to mean the Alpha's thrust to weight ratio is large among craft currently in service?

The T/W ratio isn't the sole factor in determining the top speed (SR-71 family achieves Mach 3+ and 85000ft, with a T/W ratio of significantly less than 1) , it does determine how fast you can get up to speed. So it is possible they can all have comparable T/W ratios, but have vastly different speed/altitude performance. Even in space the T/W ratio, or even raw thrust, wouldn't determine the maximum speed the vehicle can achieve.

Technically the VF-1 and Alpha are contemporaries as we know the prototype Alpha is around with the VF-1 still operating (and I suspect some overlap in service history is reasonable, even without 2E PB RPG).

Seto wrote:
You and I both know, and agree, that the only reason HG has that remark is because they were lied to. What useful end is served by dogmatically sticking to material we know to be false and a blatant and illogical distortion of the facts used to produce the animation you're evaluating?

The dedicated VTOL engine setup isn't necessarily without realworld precedent (YAK-38 and YAK-141 for example). I agree it isn't the best setup as it incurs a larger mass penalty than something like what the AV-8 or X-32 use (and GCM's Legoiss). It isn't like the UEEF is known to make the best choices with aspects of their mecha designs, why would I assume they took a "best choice" in this regard? It isn't like it breaks the setting or story, or creates plot issues (like say "short legs in space", or technology backslide that doesn't appear supportable).

Seto wrote:
We both know HG weights the OSM higher than assumptions based on the animation alone, because we've seen the corrections they've made based on their discussions with us...

I am actually referring to the dimensions of some vehicles, not capabilities. I think to get HG to make a change based on the animation as opposed to the OSM material would require some degree of repeatability or "cool" factor with minimal work for them at this point.


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Thu Jun 27, 2019 2:51 pm
  

User avatar
Knight

Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2010 6:36 am
Posts: 5002
Location: New Frontier Shipyard, Earth-Moon L5
Comment: "My theories appall you, my heresies outrage you, I never answer letters, and you don't like my tie."
ShadowLogan wrote:
I agree the animation can be off, but we also know that some of those instances have been adapted from "error" to "real". The question with Animation Errors (which I will lump unrealistic depictions) is at what point in terms of use should one stop and look at it to see if it should really be an error. Repeated cases would at least suggest the errors are intentional, and if it can be shown that it is "realistic" is a lot different than ones that are one off or clearly absurd.

The number of instances of animation errors being canonized comes to a grand total of two... the VF-1's "nose lasers" and the YF-1R, the former being kept because other craft had the same feature in the series and the latter being promoted because they needed more designs to pad out a video game.

What I'm talking about isn't just straight-up errors like drawing a character with two left hands or an incorrect hair color, but cases where things are drawn with incorrect proportions or sizes due to the rushed production schedule and hand-drawn nature of the work. This happens fairly often in the series, and tends to be somewhat unavoidable when it comes to giant robots in anime. It makes trying to work backwards from the anime to determine things like speed extremely unreliable.



ShadowLogan wrote:
The answer is we don't know what it's in relation to, much like the "short legs in space" and other things. You'd almost think HG has an aversion to math or commitment or something.

The common sense explanation would be that they mean overall in comparison to the other aircraft in service at the same time... especially given that the Infopedia and derivative resources never did get on the same page as the story material about when certain models were actually introduced. They only said "large", not "the largest". If the highest is 3.87 and it's got 2 where everything else is around 1, 2 is a large thrust-to-weight ratio.



ShadowLogan wrote:
The T/W ratio isn't the sole factor in determining the top speed (SR-71 family achieves Mach 3+ and 85000ft, with a T/W ratio of significantly less than 1) , it does determine how fast you can get up to speed. So it is possible they can all have comparable T/W ratios, but have vastly different speed/altitude performance. Even in space the T/W ratio, or even raw thrust, wouldn't determine the maximum speed the vehicle can achieve.

It isn't the sole factor, but it's a significant one in determining top speed, peak acceleration, climb rate, and service ceiling. That everything else in service alongside it throughout the 2020s and 2030s is slower with lower service ceilings despite having comparable or better aerodynamics and similar-ish size and lifting surface area is a pretty strong argument that the Alpha's engines are significantly more powerful than those of its contemporaries... never mind HG's official position that most of its contemporaries were cheap low-spec garbage.



ShadowLogan wrote:
Technically the VF-1 and Alpha are contemporaries as we know the prototype Alpha is around with the VF-1 still operating (and I suspect some overlap in service history is reasonable, even without 2E PB RPG).

They're not exactly contemporaries, since the Alpha was not concurrently in service with the VF-1 as a production combat aircraft in canon. But even if it was for a brief period, the vast majority of the Alpha's contemporaries are much less capable than either so the point still stands.



ShadowLogan wrote:
The dedicated VTOL engine setup isn't necessarily without realworld precedent (YAK-38 and YAK-141 for example). I agree it isn't the best setup as it incurs a larger mass penalty than something like what the AV-8 or X-32 use (and GCM's Legoiss). It isn't like the UEEF is known to make the best choices with aspects of their mecha designs, why would I assume they took a "best choice" in this regard?

Why would we assume something other than what the people who created the design came up with, though? It's not like the series states that there are separate engines for VTOL.



ShadowLogan wrote:
It isn't like it breaks the setting or story, or creates plot issues (like say "short legs in space", or technology backslide that doesn't appear supportable).

But it does distort the already unreliable assumptions in your study here WRT judging things by the animation. The "short legs in space" schtick doesn't cause any problems with setting, story, or plot unless you ignore the existence of dramatic license, vis a vis the RTSC OVA depicting the moon as a Conveniently Close Planet.



ShadowLogan wrote:
I am actually referring to the dimensions of some vehicles, not capabilities. I think to get HG to make a change based on the animation as opposed to the OSM material would require some degree of repeatability or "cool" factor with minimal work for them at this point.

HG's not going to change anything now, the franchise has about a year and eight months of life left to it... all actual development has been on hold since 2007 anyway.

I'm kind of amazed Tommy, Steve, and Kevin are still drawing a salary given that HG seems set to throw in the towel after losing in court in the UK recently.

EDIT: Even the new comic from Titan is apparently ending at just 24 issues.

_________________
Macross2.net - Home of the Macross Mecha Manual

Zer0 Kay wrote:
Damn you for anticipating my question. I've really got to unfoe you, your information is far more valuable than my sanity when dealing with your blunt callousness. :)


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Fri Jun 28, 2019 10:55 am
  

User avatar
Knight

Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 10:50 am
Posts: 6129
Location: WI
Seto wrote:
The number of instances of animation errors being canonized comes to a grand total of two... the VF-1's "nose lasers" and the YF-1R, the former being kept because other craft had the same feature in the series and the latter being promoted because they needed more designs to pad out a video game.

It is a higher than that. NG has the Alpha head launchers, and the Beta's dual setup chest launcher setup comes to mind as being animation errors in origin. The VHT is supposed to have a beam weapon instead of a 105mm projectile cannon IINM (due to curving trajectories of the main gun is the reasoning, dialogue is ignored calling it a laser cannon to boot).

Seto wrote:
but cases where things are drawn with incorrect proportions or sizes due to the rushed production schedule and hand-drawn nature of the work. This happens fairly often in the series, and tends to be somewhat unavoidable when it comes to giant robots in anime. It makes trying to work backwards from the anime to determine things like speed extremely unreliable.

Incorrect size/proportions I am aware of. However one can check for those things and not use the footage in those cases (I did not).

Seto wrote:
They're not exactly contemporaries, since the Alpha was not concurrently in service with the VF-1 as a production combat aircraft in canon. But even if it was for a brief period, the vast majority of the Alpha's contemporaries are much less capable than either so the point still stands.

Realistically speaking though they would have some overlap in service history. Officially I don't think we know when the VF-1 is retired in RT, nor the entry date for the Alpha (the comics seem to always push it back). Though I suppose they might not overlap, but that would require either an "interm" or "hidden" or "other" design to take its place.

Do we really know that though about the contemporaries being much less capable in fact? Aside from the Conbat (very limited data), officially RT hasn't stated them out. I know they are in the RPG versions, and in the 2E speed wise the difference isn't that great (and at Sea Level the Alpha actually is slower in some cases), sure there are service ceiling differences but the Alpha might be able to fly higher but that might have less to do with the T/W ratio and more to do with the technology put into the engines. I don't think we have anything actual (officially) on the Carpenter Fighter or the Wolf Flashback Fighter (appear in still frame, like the Conbat and Condor in the 85ep). In 1E the speed of available contemporaries actually FAVORS them over the Alpha (ASC VFs are another matter, and yes I know 1E I'm just saying it wasn't always so).

Seto wrote:
Why would we assume something other than what the people who created the design came up with, though? It's not like the series states that there are separate engines for VTOL.

It's also not like anyone in the series states what the engine setup is though. The people who created it also state it runs on HBT (in RT its PC), it doesn't have head missile launchers (in RT it officially does), age of the design differs (RT says its 20+ years old, OSM it is supposed to be "new" IINM). Then there is that officially it is described as a VTOL thruster for Robotech, not that I agree with it but it does make sense (unlike other aspects). The Alpha is also a 2nd or 3rd generation design, in the OSM its what 1st (maybe 2nd).

Seto wrote:
HG's not going to change anything now, the franchise has about a year and eight months of life left to it... all actual development has been on hold since 2007 anyway.

I agree they aren't likely to change anything now. It would be to much work for any gain they might get out of it.


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Tue Jul 02, 2019 12:27 am
  

User avatar
Knight

Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2010 6:36 am
Posts: 5002
Location: New Frontier Shipyard, Earth-Moon L5
Comment: "My theories appall you, my heresies outrage you, I never answer letters, and you don't like my tie."
ShadowLogan wrote:
[...] and the Beta's dual setup chest launcher setup comes to mind as being animation errors in origin. [...]

After some investigation, I'm not entirely convinced that one came to be because of the animation... rather, the chest launchers seem to have become a common misconception due to their usage on early TLEAD toys. MOSPEADA's toys had a fair few off-model moments that used ideas from the design's draft phase (like the optional missile pack for dorsal gunpod mounting) to cover up the mechanical concessions made to provide a reasonably sturdy transforming toy.



ShadowLogan wrote:
[...] The VHT is supposed to have a beam weapon instead of a 105mm projectile cannon IINM (due to curving trajectories of the main gun is the reasoning, dialogue is ignored calling it a laser cannon to boot).

That one's not on the animation, but on the uRRG people who came up with that completely preposterous, show-defying conclusion that it was a solid-ammo cannon despite being well aware that laser weapons being depicted unrealistically is so commonplace in sci-fi that it crosses into "reality is unrealistic" territory.

Robotech's dialog about that weapon being a laser is carryover from the original Southern Cross series dialog.



ShadowLogan wrote:
Incorrect size/proportions I am aware of. However one can check for those things and not use the footage in those cases (I did not).

Checking frame-to-frame would be extremely frustrating, but that's kind of the point... there are frames where it's going to be wrong ON PURPOSE to provide the illusion of certain types of motion (the tweening frames), as well as ones where it's going to be wrong unintentionally due to anime's typically short production cycle and hair shirt budgets. Quite a few off model moments, particularly in the Genesis Climber MOSPEADA animation, are a result of animation looping intended to save money such as the capacity:9 Garfish-class launching twelve fighters.



ShadowLogan wrote:
Realistically speaking though they would have some overlap in service history. Officially I don't think we know when the VF-1 is retired in RT, nor the entry date for the Alpha (the comics seem to always push it back). Though I suppose they might not overlap, but that would require either an "interm" or "hidden" or "other" design to take its place.

Given the unique nature of the Alpha's deployment, I am not so sure. Barring the RPG's "we've given up" Robotech 1 7/8ths: Not Exactly the Sentinels book's take on it, the UEEF seems to have used the Alpha from its inception, supplemented by the Conbat and later the Beta. Exactly when the VF-1 was phased out isn't clear, but the process seems to have already started while the VF-X-6's testing was still underway given that Dr. Lang was already gearing up to dismantle Skull One.



ShadowLogan wrote:
Do we really know that though about the contemporaries being much less capable in fact? Aside from the Conbat (very limited data), officially RT hasn't stated them out. [...]

Did'ja forget about the Logan and the AGACs?

(And, in the OSM, the conventional fighters were worse than their respective settings transformable models with the possible exception of the Logan which was explicitly ineffectual as a fighter in the original series.)



ShadowLogan wrote:
It's also not like anyone in the series states what the engine setup is though.

Which means there's no show precedent to challenge the OSM spec, if we're using anything like sane sourcing practices.



ShadowLogan wrote:
The Alpha is also a 2nd or 3rd generation design, in the OSM its what 1st (maybe 2nd).

OSM-ly, there were preceding robot designs that were proof of concept for it but none were transformable... so its classification as a 1st or 2nd generation robot design is debatable.

But those differences in the Robotech version are explicitly established in the canon materials... that it was a next-generation fighter comes from the show and "From the Stars", its service history is derived from Sentinels originally (where its use was dictated by legal and budgetary constraints), and "protoculture cells" are established in the show as a narrative concession to tie it into what had been done with the previous two sagas. The head missiles are an animation error, but that still comes from somewhere... unlike the dedicated VTOL engine idea.



ShadowLogan wrote:
I agree they aren't likely to change anything now. It would be to much work for any gain they might get out of it.

Well, you remember Kevin McKeever candidly telling fans on the old forums that The Powers That Be considered any part of the site other than the store a waste of time and money... the updates we got were Tommy (and/or Steve) taking the initiative in their off-hours. They don't seem to have even made any fixes to the stats when they ported over to that awful, cheap-looking new site of theirs.

It's not likely to see any fixes ever again either, with 620 days on the clock until The End.

_________________
Macross2.net - Home of the Macross Mecha Manual

Zer0 Kay wrote:
Damn you for anticipating my question. I've really got to unfoe you, your information is far more valuable than my sanity when dealing with your blunt callousness. :)


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Tue Jul 02, 2019 11:56 am
  

User avatar
Knight

Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 10:50 am
Posts: 6129
Location: WI
Seto wrote:
After some investigation, I'm not entirely convinced that one came to be because of the animation... rather, the chest launchers seem to have become a common misconception due to their usage on early TLEAD toys.

I don't think I've seen any lineart depicting the fold down chest launchers (not in the old REF Field Guide or online or in IMAI files), I have seen lineart for the pop-up chest launchers located behind the fold down ones. Nor is it mentioned in the written specs AFAIK (it could be lumped in with another system).

Seto wrote:
That one's not on the animation, but on the uRRG people who came up with that completely preposterous, show-defying conclusion that it was a solid-ammo cannon despite being well aware that laser weapons being depicted unrealistically is so commonplace in sci-fi that it crosses into "reality is unrealistic" territory.

Robotech's dialog about that weapon being a laser is carryover from the original Southern Cross series dialog.

I agree it is the result of the uRRG. There are a few instances in the TRM arc where dialogue is ignored for their "reasons". In this case the animation is in "error" when compared the original written stats and even dialogue.

Seto wrote:
Checking frame-to-frame would be extremely frustrating, but that's kind of the point...

I can atest to this, it's made a bit easier with Video Editing Software instead of just a video player to get frames and track them accurately. Though I will say the specific instances I looked at if the depictions are off, they do not appear to be overly noticeable.

Seto wrote:
are a result of animation looping intended to save money such as the capacity:9 Garfish-class launching twelve fighters.

And you said only 2 animation errors where made canon, all I am saying is the number is higher.

Seto wrote:
Exactly when the VF-1 was phased out isn't clear, but the process seems to have already started while the VF-X-6's testing was still underway given that Dr. Lang was already gearing up to dismantle Skull One.

I'm not sure they would start the phase out that soon though. Around that period (2014) they also implemented the VF-1R program, which was to keep the VF-1 viable while development of the AVF was in progress (and realistically while production ramped up). Lang's statement and the VF-1R program IMHO indicates they where targeting non VF-1A/J frames (at that point) and/or those with a high number of use hours, though it opens the idea up that perhaps another 2nd or maybe even 1.5 Generation design was already in service (VF-1R could be gen 1.5, Logan is 2nd generation, possible VF-2/3 are candidates for 1.5/2.0 gen).

Seto wrote:
Did'ja forget about the Logan and the AGACs?

No.

The AGAC is essentially only in service for what a year or two? It is hard to say what upgrades it could have received over the course of a decade or more of life that could improve it.

The Logan. The other VFs are generally in the same weight class as the Alpha, with the exception of the Beta and Logan. (ignoring the unknown VF-2/3, and the prototype VF-X-4 and VF-X-5). The Beta is in a heavy weight class, and the Logan is a light weight. Even the conventional fighters that are contemporary to the Alpha (when numbers are available) are closer in weight/mass (Chimera is closer to the Beta) by a few tons, the Logan is less than 40% (both dry state). So while the Alpha and Logan might be chronological contemporaries, they really are not in the same weight class.

Seto wrote:
Which means there's no show precedent to challenge the OSM spec, if we're using anything like sane sourcing practices.

Aside from Real World Precedent that establishes it has been done before. Off hand I am not sure on actual counts between various approaches (ducted like AV-8, or secondary engines like the YAKs mentioned previously), as most VTOL jets end up limited to reach.

We know they aren't using sane sourcing practices, or even pay attention to continuity or editing.

Oddly enough AotSC pg79 is filled with contradictions of note, supposedly the Alpha is "significantly lighter [...] than previous Veritech Fighters", this ignores the Logan and VF-1, and the AGAC is only 100kg heavier (~0.6%). I cut out the bit about it being more maneuverable (that would support a T/W ratio+aerodynamics greater than the VF-1). Then there is part about suborbital flight (here it is "unable to exceed suborbital altitude", but not in the Infopedia as " can not reach suborbital altitudes on its own"). The suborbital aspect makes sense in AoTSC (at least if we ignore TSC, or limit TSC's implication to the Shadow Model specifically).

Seto wrote:
OSM-ly, there were preceding robot designs that were proof of concept for it but none were transformable

Sorry should have been more clear: The Alpha is also a 2nd or 3rd generation transformable design, in the OSM it's what 1st (maybe 2nd) generation of transformable mecha.


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Tue Jul 02, 2019 1:47 pm
  

User avatar
Knight

Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2010 6:36 am
Posts: 5002
Location: New Frontier Shipyard, Earth-Moon L5
Comment: "My theories appall you, my heresies outrage you, I never answer letters, and you don't like my tie."
ShadowLogan wrote:
I don't think I've seen any lineart depicting the fold down chest launchers (not in the old REF Field Guide or online or in IMAI files), I have seen lineart for the pop-up chest launchers located behind the fold down ones. Nor is it mentioned in the written specs AFAIK (it could be lumped in with another system).

Yeah, like I said... not something official, but rather apparently something that gained credence among fans who did not do proper research due to its inclusion as a feature on toys.

(If MOSPEADA had spawned a franchise, who knows? Maybe it could've become an ascended feature like the missile on Boba Fett's backpack, which was originally just a feature of an action figure that was adopted as a part of the canon setting decades later in the Star Wars prequel trilogy.)



ShadowLogan wrote:
I agree it is the result of the uRRG. There are a few instances in the TRM arc where dialogue is ignored for their "reasons". In this case the animation is in "error" when compared the original written stats and even dialogue.

But, again, that's not an animation error... like this "VTOL engines" issue, that's a completely unsourced assumption the uRRG's writers snuck past HG by claiming it was OSM. The animation has it correct by depicting the cannon as an energy weapon, even if much of the usual SF license is taken with the depiction of laser weaponry. (Let's get real, where in the nine hells would the Spartas put dozens of anti-tank rounds at such a high caliber?)



ShadowLogan wrote:
Seto wrote:
are a result of animation looping intended to save money such as the capacity:9 Garfish-class launching twelve fighters.

And you said only 2 animation errors where made canon, all I am saying is the number is higher.

Perhaps I should clarify that to "two animation errors were made canon for sound reasons"... other deviations exist mainly as a result of the uRRG's writers proceeding on the demonstrably flawed and obviously insane assumption that the animation is perfect, because they couldn't bother to fact-check themselves, or because they didn't even check that what they were writing made logical sense.



ShadowLogan wrote:
I'm not sure they would start the phase out that soon though. Around that period (2014) they also implemented the VF-1R program, which was to keep the VF-1 viable while development of the AVF was in progress (and realistically while production ramped up). Lang's statement and the VF-1R program IMHO indicates they where targeting non VF-1A/J frames (at that point) and/or those with a high number of use hours, though it opens the idea up that perhaps another 2nd or maybe even 1.5 Generation design was already in service (VF-1R could be gen 1.5, Logan is 2nd generation, possible VF-2/3 are candidates for 1.5/2.0 gen).

How widespread the R variant became is unclear, officially... since the total number of appearances totals two (one in Battlecry that was explicitly a prototype, and one in From the Stars), and legal essentially dictated that the VF-1s were ushered out of service before the Pioneer Mission launched since they were not a design that could legally be used. Widespread conversion of VF-1s into the R variant may have been a planned move that was scrapped, as the units are essentially never seen again after about 2015.



ShadowLogan wrote:
The AGAC is essentially only in service for what a year or two? It is hard to say what upgrades it could have received over the course of a decade or more of life that could improve it.

Or thereabouts... but it's still a contemporary of the Alpha and the best aircraft the UEDF was able to produce in the 2020s, and the Alpha blows it into the weeds despite it arguably being almost a full decade newer.



ShadowLogan wrote:
So while the Alpha and Logan might be chronological contemporaries, they really are not in the same weight class.

That doesn't really mean much in terms of flight performance...

(While the RT spec carries over the OSM line that it was essentially a piece of junk, it's somewhat amusing and frustrating at the same time that they completely missed that it's a lifting body design and heap additional undeserved verbal beatings on it for that.)



ShadowLogan wrote:
Aside from Real World Precedent that establishes it has been done before. Off hand I am not sure on actual counts between various approaches (ducted like AV-8, or secondary engines like the YAKs mentioned previously), as most VTOL jets end up limited to reach.

Yeah, but real-world precedent shouldn't figure into it when the answer is served up on a silver platter from the animation's creators.

On the quasi-related subject of which approach to VTOL is most common, it's worth noting that the dedicated engine approach would win in terms of raw number of programs... provided one overlooks that virtually all of them were projects cancelled due to the unviability of the concept. Lots and lots of accidents, severe degradation of performance, etc. The only marginally successful programs that use dedicated liftjets were the ones that took the hybrid approach of using the bare minimum number of dedicated engines and supplementing them with main engine thrust vectoring nozzles like the Yakovlev concepts. The only successful VTOL jet applications were the ones that relied on main engine power only... either exclusively via thrust vectoring as on the Harrier and Harrier II, or with the addition of a declutched main-engine powered lift fan as on the F-35. At the time the animation was made, the ONLY successful VTOL aircraft design in service was the Harrier, so it's not surprising it would use thrust-vectoring nozzles to divert thrust from the main engines to take off vertically... as that was the only truly viable approach that'd ever been demonstrated up to that point. (The Yak's blended approach came with enough weight and balance issues that the resulting fighter was a pile of hot garbage... sometimes literally if fuel balancing issues occurred, which could cause the fighter to tip over and crash.)



ShadowLogan wrote:
(Oddly enough AotSC pg79 is filled with contradictions of note, supposedly the Alpha is "significantly lighter [...] than previous Veritech Fighters", this ignores the Logan and VF-1, and the AGAC is only 100kg heavier (~0.6%).

... and, no surprises, look at the credits to see who helped write that. :wink:



ShadowLogan wrote:
Sorry should have been more clear: The Alpha is also a 2nd or 3rd generation transformable design, in the OSM it's what 1st (maybe 2nd) generation of transformable mecha.

Granted, but it wasn't an entirely unproven concept there because its systems had already had a field-workable production testbed in the Condor... so the transformation aspect of it was about the only part of it that was truly 1st Generation.

_________________
Macross2.net - Home of the Macross Mecha Manual

Zer0 Kay wrote:
Damn you for anticipating my question. I've really got to unfoe you, your information is far more valuable than my sanity when dealing with your blunt callousness. :)


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Wed Jul 03, 2019 11:25 am
  

User avatar
Knight

Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 10:50 am
Posts: 6129
Location: WI
Seto wrote:
But, again, that's not an animation error... like this "VTOL engines" issue, that's a completely unsourced assumption the uRRG's writers snuck past HG by claiming it was OSM. The animation has it correct by depicting the cannon as an energy weapon, even if much of the usual SF license is taken with the depiction of laser weaponry. (Let's get real, where in the nine hells would the Spartas put dozens of anti-tank rounds at such a high caliber?)

For the Spartas to fit large caliber rounds might work if the cannon is a Rail Gun (or variant of), but even then its questionable with conventional shells (maybe the more compact ball?). Still I'd go with it as a beam weapon for this reason along with the dialogue cue.

Curving an energy beam is possible (as of 2009, post-dates the uRRG), though not to the extent shown as I understand it.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... ers-curve/


Seto wrote:
How widespread the R variant became is unclear, officially... since the total number of appearances totals two (one in Battlecry that was explicitly a prototype, and one in From the Stars), and legal essentially dictated that the VF-1s were ushered out of service before the Pioneer Mission launched since they were not a design that could legally be used. Widespread conversion of VF-1s into the R variant may have been a planned move that was scrapped, as the units are essentially never seen again after about 2015.

I don't think legally the VF-1s would need to be ushered out of service before the Pioneer Mission, only they can't be physically depicted. Which is different, much like the hovertanks and bioroids identified in wreckage in NG#2, they could still be present via dialogue cues. It isn't like dialogue cues can't be taken to broaden what was shown to refer to off camera action (or interpreted for relating to on camera action, like the Sylphid's is/is-not VF debate).

The Pioneer Mission also isn't under any obligation to actually have them in its inventory either, the VF-1s could have been kept on Earth.

Seto wrote:
Or thereabouts... but it's still a contemporary of the Alpha and the best aircraft the UEDF was able to produce in the 2020s, and the Alpha blows it into the weeds despite it arguably being almost a full decade newer.

My point is that the AGAC was cut down before its prime really. There was no chance given to it to evolve as the Alpha is known to do (Z, X/S), nor can we be sure the Alpha standard of 2029-31 is different than the 2040s standard.

Seto wrote:
That doesn't really mean much in terms of flight performance...

(While the RT spec carries over the OSM line that it was essentially a piece of junk, it's somewhat amusing and frustrating at the same time that they completely missed that it's a lifting body design and heap additional undeserved verbal beatings on it for that.)

To an extent yes it doesn't mean much in terms of flight performance, but in some ways it does have an impact.

As for the line its a piece of junk, that IMHO isn't supported by the animation. I've also seen the design as a Lifting Body for a long time.

Seto wrote:
Yeah, but real-world precedent shouldn't figure into it when the answer is served up on a silver platter from the animation's creators.

In this particular case I can agree, but there are times where real-world precedent should figure in when considering a Science-Fiction/Fantasy setting.

HG's policy when it comes to using the OSM seems to be more of a cherry pick than anything coherent.


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Wed Jul 03, 2019 1:03 pm
  

User avatar
Knight

Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2010 6:36 am
Posts: 5002
Location: New Frontier Shipyard, Earth-Moon L5
Comment: "My theories appall you, my heresies outrage you, I never answer letters, and you don't like my tie."
ShadowLogan wrote:
I don't think legally the VF-1s would need to be ushered out of service before the Pioneer Mission, only they can't be physically depicted. Which is different, much like the hovertanks and bioroids identified in wreckage in NG#2, they could still be present via dialogue cues. It isn't like dialogue cues can't be taken to broaden what was shown to refer to off camera action (or interpreted for relating to on camera action, like the Sylphid's is/is-not VF debate).

Generally speaking, Harmony Gold's attitude towards material they cannot legally use safely is to usher it out of service and out of the story... preferably offscreen.

(The VF-X-4 is a good example of this, but the best example is what Harmony Gold did to the holdover Macross Saga characters who were central to the Sentinels arc in Prelude. The one plot-critical character was totally redesigned, but everyone else was either summarily killed or put on a bus in such a way that it's guaranteed that they'll never be coming back.)



ShadowLogan wrote:
The Pioneer Mission also isn't under any obligation to actually have them in its inventory either, the VF-1s could have been kept on Earth.

The Pioneer Mission DID have them in its inventory in the now non-canon Sentinels comics... Harmony Gold specifically retconned them out for legal reasons.

(Compare the final issue of the Sentinels comics to the panels that were redone for Prelude, VF-1s and Spartas's were replaced by Alphas and Cyclones.)



ShadowLogan wrote:
My point is that the AGAC was cut down before its prime really. There was no chance given to it to evolve as the Alpha is known to do (Z, X/S), nor can we be sure the Alpha standard of 2029-31 is different than the 2040s standard.

Robotech has, thus far, treated the Alpha as though the models in service in the 2040s were the same models in service in the 2020s.

The only upgrades that have ever been described are the service life extension or major update variants, and only one of the three ever achieved widespread adoption (the VF/A-6X).



ShadowLogan wrote:
Seto wrote:
Yeah, but real-world precedent shouldn't figure into it when the answer is served up on a silver platter from the animation's creators.

In this particular case I can agree, but there are times where real-world precedent should figure in when considering a Science-Fiction/Fantasy setting.

HG's policy when it comes to using the OSM seems to be more of a cherry pick than anything coherent.

Harmony Gold's policy when it comes to using the OSM is actually fairly consistent. They've clearly and repeatedly weighted its information higher than the Robotech series and its dialog, such as when they officially snubbed the Sylphid Veritech idea a few years back. The problem with their application is that they weren't doing their own research. They chose to rely on the uRRG's contributors to do the research and give them the facts, which backfired horribly when the "experts" turned out to be pushing their personal theories and guesses instead of doing actual research. Basically, a good consistent practice fatally undermined by trusting the untrustworthy.

_________________
Macross2.net - Home of the Macross Mecha Manual

Zer0 Kay wrote:
Damn you for anticipating my question. I've really got to unfoe you, your information is far more valuable than my sanity when dealing with your blunt callousness. :)


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Thu Jul 04, 2019 12:16 pm
  

User avatar
Knight

Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 10:50 am
Posts: 6129
Location: WI
Seto wrote:
The Pioneer Mission DID have them in its inventory in the now non-canon Sentinels comics... Harmony Gold specifically retconned them out for legal reasons.

(Compare the final issue of the Sentinels comics to the panels that were redone for Prelude, VF-1s and Spartas's were replaced by Alphas and Cyclones.)



The Pioneer Mission did have them in its inventory going off a lot of sources beyond just the old Sentinels comics (1E RPG, Sentinels Comics, 2E RPG AFAIK, Novels, even the OVA recycled in footage prior to a recent re-edit). What I am saying though is that in unlikely future works they do not need to use them (as shown in Prelude, and the Sentinels OVA recut).

Seto wrote:
The only upgrades that have ever been described are the service life extension or major update variants, and only one of the three ever achieved widespread adoption (the VF/A-6X).

While some letters could be skipped on purpose, the Alpha is known to use the letters H/I/S/X/Z for its model variants. Unless some weird lettering scheme is adopted, there is the possibility for other lettered model variants, even if we use the Greek Lettering scheme over conventional Latin. Based on the H/I to Z performance change, there could be other performance changes (possibility not a guarantee), between these unknown model types. Given a variety of factors we likely will never know what those other letter model variants are or looked like.

Seto wrote:
Harmony Gold's policy when it comes to using the OSM is actually fairly consistent. They've clearly and repeatedly weighted its information higher than the Robotech series and its dialog, such as when they officially snubbed the Sylphid Veritech idea a few years back. The problem with their application is that they weren't doing their own research. They chose to rely on the uRRG's contributors to do the research and give them the facts, which backfired horribly when the "experts" turned out to be pushing their personal theories and guesses instead of doing actual research. Basically, a good consistent practice fatally undermined by trusting the untrustworthy.


There are problems with weighing the OSM so heavily though. We get disconnects from what the animated story suggests and missed opportunities (ex. Slyphid).

The policy toward animation/dialogue errors though is much more cherry picking than other aspects, we have examples of one-off AE/DE being canonized (Garfish capacity, Alpha's head launchers) but also examples of consistent multiple-instance AE/DE being ignored (Slyphid, Logan's weapon effectiveness). We also have examples of selections that don't make any sense (VHT's BFG being a projectile weapon). This is where it starts to becomes incoherent.


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Thu Jul 04, 2019 3:54 pm
  

User avatar
Knight

Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2010 6:36 am
Posts: 5002
Location: New Frontier Shipyard, Earth-Moon L5
Comment: "My theories appall you, my heresies outrage you, I never answer letters, and you don't like my tie."
ShadowLogan wrote:
The Pioneer Mission did have them in its inventory going off a lot of sources beyond just the old Sentinels comics (1E RPG, Sentinels Comics, 2E RPG AFAIK, Novels, even the OVA recycled in footage prior to a recent re-edit).

While that is, in fact, true… we should remember that source accuracy matters.

The Robotech novelization and “1st Edition” RPG are both officially Robotech in name only (non-canon), the Sentinels comics are similarly non-canon and the reused scenes for Prelude deliberately reworked scenes to remove non-MOSPEADA designs (for legal reasons), the animation produced for the cancelled TV series was re-edited to remove all of its Macross footage (for legal reasons), and the “2nd Edition” RPG only got away with it after Harmony Gold bowed to the inevitable and stopped enforcing strict canon compliance (once it could no longer pretend Shadow Rising was a thing).



ShadowLogan wrote:
What I am saying though is that in unlikely future works they do not need to use them (as shown in Prelude, and the Sentinels OVA recut).

In practice, Harmony Gold’s demonstrated approach has been to remove anything which might provoke a lawsuit or even the threat of a lawsuit from anywhere it doesn’t absolutely need to be.



ShadowLogan wrote:
While some letters could be skipped on purpose, the Alpha is known to use the letters H/I/S/X/Z for its model variants. Unless some weird lettering scheme is adopted, there is the possibility for other lettered model variants, even if we use the Greek Lettering scheme over conventional Latin.

For the record, they were explicitly Greek letters in the original source material. Eta, Iota, and Zeta were used officially, while the S that was later changed to X was something Robotech added because the OSM did not assign a designation to the Dark Legioss and unmanned Dark Legioss.

Spoiler:
The S was originally a deliberate out-of-sequence one that was short for “Shadow”. The origin of the X it was changed to is unclear, and may have simply been a case of “X sounds cool” or may be Tommy’s love of Macross showing through since X was a variant letter which was used for the VF-1’s final late-life upgrade that appeared in the Macross VF-X games made in the late 1990s.


Robotech does tend to run with non-sequential variant designations though, ascribing rather different meanings to them than were originally intended. For instance, running with the idea the VF-1J and VF-1S were for Junior and Senior officers respectively rather than the J denoting that variant’s country of origin (Japan) as a failed rival pitch for the VF-1A spec and the S being more or less arbitrary. That it doesn’t start with A doesn’t necessarily imply the existence of an A. (I’m not sure where exactly MOSPEADA got its variant letters, but it’s worth noting several Greek terms that line up with their intended roles do start with the indicated letters. (It may also be that there were unproduced variants whose letters were reserved but never ended up being used, as Robotech does imply the Eta and Iota types have been in service for 20+ years.)



ShadowLogan wrote:
There are problems with weighing the OSM so heavily though. We get disconnects from what the animated story suggests and missed opportunities (ex. Slyphid).

Well, yes and no… it only really becomes a problem if you ignore that Robotech wasn’t a TV series planned out over years of time before production started. The series was rushed to (and through) production with only the most minimal prep-time and virtually no time to check that what was being produced was consistent with itself or the animation. Consequently, no small number of things that fans have spent decades agonizing and theorizing over are simply errors that were caused by the show’s rushed timetable.

That’s the reason Harmony Gold tends to default to the OSM for information. The creative intent that so many fans ascribe to the minute details of the show exists only in the imaginations of the fans. Things like the Sylphid being called a veritech are just honest-to-goodness errors and HG isn’t shy about admitting it (anymore… now that Carl “I meant to do that” Macek is no longer in charge).



ShadowLogan wrote:
The policy toward animation/dialogue errors though is much more cherry picking than other aspects, we have examples of one-off AE/DE being canonized (Garfish capacity, Alpha's head launchers) but also examples of consistent multiple-instance AE/DE being ignored (Slyphid, Logan's weapon effectiveness). We also have examples of selections that don't make any sense (VHT's BFG being a projectile weapon). This is where it starts to becomes incoherent.

Oh, I admit it might look like cherry-picking if you only look at it in terms of what was picked and what wasn’t. In practice, it’s more down to what errors the uRRG people could present as being OSM fact in a way that didn’t raise obvious red flags.

For instance, they were able to slip the nose lasers and Garfish capacity question past HG’s staff because they recur on several occasions. Other things, like the Spartas’s main gun, slid in under the radar because they were able to point to non-laser-like behavior. Then you had those instances where they couldn’t back it up, like the Sylphid Veritech for which no alt-mode line art could be presented because it was not a VF in the OSM, or the Logan allegedly being not a bad fighter falling flat because that it is bad is one of the few repeated statements about it in the SC OSM and the only on that is really shown to not suck is Marie’s which benefits from Plot Armor.

_________________
Macross2.net - Home of the Macross Mecha Manual

Zer0 Kay wrote:
Damn you for anticipating my question. I've really got to unfoe you, your information is far more valuable than my sanity when dealing with your blunt callousness. :)


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Thu Jul 04, 2019 8:14 pm
  

User avatar
Knight

Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 10:50 am
Posts: 6129
Location: WI
Seto wrote:
For the record, they were explicitly Greek letters in the original source material. Eta, Iota, and Zeta were used officially, while the S that was later changed to X was something Robotech added because the OSM did not assign a designation to the Dark Legioss and unmanned Dark Legioss.

I thought I remember something about Greek lettering being connected with it. As for the Shadow Fighter, take a look at the Infopedia entry it's still X or S depending on where you look in the entry.

Seto wrote:
Robotech does tend to run with non-sequential variant designations though, ascribing rather different meanings to them than were originally intended.

That by its very nature would qualify as a "weird lettering scheme". Still there is the possibility of unknown lettered models, and even just a change in engines.

Seto wrote:
Well, yes and no… it only really becomes a problem if you ignore that Robotech wasn’t a TV series planned out over years of time before production started. The series was rushed to (and through) production with only the most minimal prep-time and virtually no time to check that what was being produced was consistent with itself or the animation. Consequently, no small number of things that fans have spent decades agonizing and theorizing over are simply errors that were caused by the show’s rushed timetable.

I'm not ignoring the issue of RT's production, and I realize there are errors. However some of those "errors" show a lack of creativity on HG's part to run with to make Robotech its own thing.

Is Robotech trying to be its own independent story or not?


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Fri Jul 05, 2019 12:06 pm
  

User avatar
Knight

Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2010 6:36 am
Posts: 5002
Location: New Frontier Shipyard, Earth-Moon L5
Comment: "My theories appall you, my heresies outrage you, I never answer letters, and you don't like my tie."
ShadowLogan wrote:
I thought I remember something about Greek lettering being connected with it. As for the Shadow Fighter, take a look at the Infopedia entry it's still X or S depending on where you look in the entry.

Yes, I know... they still haven't fixed that. Officially, it's supposed to be X.



ShadowLogan wrote:
Seto wrote:
Robotech does tend to run with non-sequential variant designations though, ascribing rather different meanings to them than were originally intended.

That by its very nature would qualify as a "weird lettering scheme". Still there is the possibility of unknown lettered models, and even just a change in engines.

IMO, "weird" would be if it were completely arbitrary or if they were Counting to Potato by mixing different alphabets the way some Gundam titles have done.

Out of sequence variant letters aren't necessarily weird if there's a specific meaning behind the out of sequence designation.

As it's being done entirely out of sequence, that doesn't necessarily imply that there are variants that exist for the skipped letters. It doesn't rule them out, but it does nothing to imply their existence either. They're copying from Macross in that regard, that franchise's current best for sequential variant letter designations in canon is six (VF-19A/B/C/D/E/F) and in pseudocanon is seven (VF-25A/B/C/D/E/F/G).



ShadowLogan wrote:
I'm not ignoring the issue of RT's production, and I realize there are errors. However some of those "errors" show a lack of creativity on HG's part to run with to make Robotech its own thing.

Is Robotech trying to be its own independent story or not?

Yes and no? Or would "when it's convenient" be a more truthful answer?

Really, Harmony Gold wasn't all that invested in the idea of Robotech being its own thing when they made it. They were just trying to make Revell shut up and go away by agreeing to turn a dub of Super Dimension Fortress Macross into a commercial for Revell's failing robot toy/kit line that had originally been conceived as a blatant ripoff of The Transformers. It wasn't until after it went to air that Carl Macek started to get ideas - taking credit for the quality of the work of the Japanese creators and convincing himself he was a brilliant creator - about making Robotech into a property functionally distinct from the original shows. His plans to that end were abject failures, and when he was ushered out and replaced Harmony Gold's new tack was to present Robotech as a legitimate adaptation that hewed closer to the original shows. Once Shadow Chronicles ended in failure, the goal seems to have changed to just being "American Macross".

What'll become of it now is debatable, given that the Titan Comics alterniverse story seems to have met with a lukewarm-at-best reception and in less than two years Harmony Gold will lose the rights.

_________________
Macross2.net - Home of the Macross Mecha Manual

Zer0 Kay wrote:
Damn you for anticipating my question. I've really got to unfoe you, your information is far more valuable than my sanity when dealing with your blunt callousness. :)


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Fri Jul 05, 2019 1:10 pm
  

User avatar
Knight

Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 10:50 am
Posts: 6129
Location: WI
Seto wrote:
Out of sequence variant letters aren't necessarily weird if there's a specific meaning behind the out of sequence designation.a

AFAIK there is no specific meaning.

Seto wrote:
As it's being done entirely out of sequence, that doesn't necessarily imply that there are variants that exist for the skipped lettera

I agree this can and does happen, but usually when it happens there is some reason for it. And a reason seems to be lacking AFAIK (or in HG's case passing the buck to the OSM).

Seto wrote:
Really, Harmony Gold wasn't all that invested in the idea of Robotech being its own thing when they made it.

Yet they chose it. While not a common format at the time IIRC, there have been shows that where essentially amounted to double or triple features. You'd have to split the OSM episodes up into 2 or 3 parts, and in doing they would have ended up with more than 65 episodes easily for Macross, the other shows are a bit more difficult to match up owing to their shorter runs.

Examples of this format are Super Sunday/Saturday, Space Ghost and Dinoboy, Birdman and the Galaxy Trio, Space Stars (though unlike most examples they had cross overs), Marvel Action Universe (more of a programing block at 90min), Loony Tunes/Merry Melodies (essentially), Mighty Mouse, and probably more that aren't coming to mind or I've never seen/heard of.

Seto wrote:
as a blatant ripoff of The Transformers.

I don't know if I'd call it a blatant ripoff of Transformers, its contributing toy OSMs maybe (AFAIK) but not Transformers itself, as the Revel stuff was still piloted and not sentient machines. And Transformers seemed to ignore the toy OSM mythos when combining them (and that's at the toy level, never mind the show itself).

Seto wrote:
What'll become of it now is debatable, given that the Titan Comics alterniverse story seems to have met with a lukewarm-at-best reception and in less than two years Harmony Gold will lose the rights.


Gotchaman/BattleOfThePlanets might given an idea of the future after the rights expire.

I think HG's timing with the Titan Comics AU might have had better reception say 10 or 15 years ago when the fanbase was more engaged (than compared to today).


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Fri Jul 05, 2019 2:37 pm
  

User avatar
Knight

Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2010 6:36 am
Posts: 5002
Location: New Frontier Shipyard, Earth-Moon L5
Comment: "My theories appall you, my heresies outrage you, I never answer letters, and you don't like my tie."
ShadowLogan wrote:
AFAIK there is no specific meaning.

None that I have found an explicit statement of, but there are a number of MOSPEADA publications in my collection that are still untranslated for lack of time.

I should put the question to some die-hard MOSPEADA fans of my acquaintance.



ShadowLogan wrote:
I agree this can and does happen, but usually when it happens there is some reason for it. And a reason seems to be lacking AFAIK (or in HG's case passing the buck to the OSM).

As much planning went into MOSPEADA, I have a somewhat difficult time with the idea that it might be completely arbitrary.



ShadowLogan wrote:
Yet they chose it. While not a common format at the time IIRC, there have been shows that where essentially amounted to double or triple features. You'd have to split the OSM episodes up into 2 or 3 parts, and in doing they would have ended up with more than 65 episodes easily for Macross, the other shows are a bit more difficult to match up owing to their shorter runs.

Examples of this format are Super Sunday/Saturday, Space Ghost and Dinoboy, Birdman and the Galaxy Trio, Space Stars (though unlike most examples they had cross overs), Marvel Action Universe (more of a programing block at 90min), Loony Tunes/Merry Melodies (essentially), Mighty Mouse, and probably more that aren't coming to mind or I've never seen/heard of.

I'm not sure "chose" is the right word... IIRC Harmony Gold originally pitched it as an anthology series in a similar style to Force Five, but it was rejected by the either network or Revell. They were a good three episodes into dubbing Super Dimension Fortress Macross in a (for the period) mostly accurate manner before Revell forced a change of strategy on them.



ShadowLogan wrote:
I don't know if I'd call it a blatant ripoff of Transformers, its contributing toy OSMs maybe (AFAIK) but not Transformers itself, as the Revel stuff was still piloted and not sentient machines. And Transformers seemed to ignore the toy OSM mythos when combining them (and that's at the toy level, never mind the show itself).

It was a pretty blatant ripoff of Transformers, and Revell was reasonably upfront (after the fact) about having created it specifically as a similar series to get a piece of Hasbro and Takara's action from the G1 Transformers cartoon.

That the robots were self-aware and sentient was something the model kit line largely failed to mention, but the cancelled limited comic series that was launched to promote the models did make that a plot point. They were mistaken for piloted robots because their minds had been sealed away by the Grelons, evil aliens who had invaded the star system the comic is set in to harvest its energy for the restoration of their civilization (the same schtick the Decepticons had in G1).



ShadowLogan wrote:
Gotchaman/BattleOfThePlanets might given an idea of the future after the rights expire.

I'm not sure Robotech has the brand recognition to attempt an original animated reboot like that... and it's already two years past its announced release date AFAIK.



ShadowLogan wrote:
I think HG's timing with the Titan Comics AU might have had better reception say 10 or 15 years ago when the fanbase was more engaged (than compared to today).

I'm not sure it was even originally intended to be an AU... Titan was phoning it in pretty hard, and by the end seem to have been throwing anything and everything at the wall because nobody cared anymore.

_________________
Macross2.net - Home of the Macross Mecha Manual

Zer0 Kay wrote:
Damn you for anticipating my question. I've really got to unfoe you, your information is far more valuable than my sanity when dealing with your blunt callousness. :)


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Fri Jul 05, 2019 3:58 pm
  

User avatar
Palladin

Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2009 8:33 pm
Posts: 10507
Location: Peterborough, Ontario
Comment: Yeah yeah yeah just give me my damn XP already :)
Quote:
an anthology series in a similar style to Force Five


I loved Force Five as a kid as well as Battle of the Planets and Starblazers (non of which at the time were really attributed as "anime" per se).

As for the rest......I have to say I cannot for the life of me wrap my head around the need of some fans, and shadow there are times we agree as well as time we do not so this is not meant as a shot at you specifically, to want to do to Robotech (a fully admitted rush job that had no real thought of detail put behind it) what BW has done with Macross or Bandai has done with Gundam.

I think my own personal wiki shows I have a love of Robotech but I think it is time to lay that corpse to rest once and for all sadly.

_________________
I am very opinionated. Yes I rub people the wrong way but at the end of the day I just enjoy good hard discussion and will gladly walk away agreeing to not agree :D

Email - jlaflamme7521@hotmail.com, Facebook - Jaymz LaFlamme, Robotech.com - Icerzone

\m/


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Fri Jul 05, 2019 3:59 pm
  

User avatar
Palladin

Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2009 8:33 pm
Posts: 10507
Location: Peterborough, Ontario
Comment: Yeah yeah yeah just give me my damn XP already :)
As for that AU timeline comic....MY GOD that was bad.....and I thought the Voltron crossover was bad...it was damn near shakespeare by comparison....

_________________
I am very opinionated. Yes I rub people the wrong way but at the end of the day I just enjoy good hard discussion and will gladly walk away agreeing to not agree :D

Email - jlaflamme7521@hotmail.com, Facebook - Jaymz LaFlamme, Robotech.com - Icerzone

\m/


          Top  
 
 
Post new topic Reply to topic



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users


Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Jump to:  

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group