AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > Anime Discussion > Older Series > Retired > Macross

Notices

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 2008-10-02, 12:40   Link #941
glyph
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaku_II View Post
In the opening of SDF Macross it's seen clearly the SDF-1 in ship mode firing the main gun.
The opening is not canon, because at no point in the series could that scene have taken place.

The SDF-1 as designed could fire the Macross cannon in ship mode, and was not meant to transform. It fired once in ship mode while on the ground, the shot that started off SW1.

But after the botched fold operation took out the power conduits to the cannon along with their fold engine, they had to implement a transformation mode to shift the modular parts of the ship around in order to reroute power to the cannon, something Global was loathe to do, because it would disrupt the lives of the refugees on board yet again.

The workaround would proved to have other unforeseen advantages, so it was incorporated into later designs.

Presumably they replaced the fold engine and repaired that flaw in the two years it sat in the lake in New Macross City, but it never transformed back to ship mode again that we saw.

Last edited by glyph; 2008-10-02 at 12:53.
glyph is offline  
Old 2008-10-02, 20:59   Link #942
ChronoReverse
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: May 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daigo View Post
I didn't say the giant gun should dwarf the ship that carries it. I said it makes more sense to make a ship around that giant gun, rather than having it be held by a giant mecha. So what's stopping that from happening? Just build a massive battleship around that massive cannon. It makes more sense than the more vulnerable giant mech. Armor will be stretched thin on that mech. There are more surfaces you have to armor. That's extra mass.
Putting aside the ridiculousness of the whole idea and allowing for Overtechnology, it's not 100% unreasonable. It's somewhat practical, allows versatility as well as being a great symbol for the flagship of fleets (the normal ships can be more normal). With this in mind, a logical progression could be made to yield something like a NMC:


We have a big gun that needs to be carried by our capital ship. The ship needs to be capable of landfall so there needs to be horizontal symmetry. Okay, let's strap two large engines on the sides.

==EEEE
=GGGGGGG
==EEEE

Now, the gun and the ship needs to be well-maneuvered; the gun is already quite large so the engines need to be large enough to deal with the gun and itself. Moreover, tremendous thrust is required to maneuver the entire thing. Since the technology for few articulated joints is possible, we'll make both engines built into these joints. Now we can have them mounted normally when cruising and able to swing about for extreme maneuvers. So far so good.

=EE
==EEE
==GGGGGGG
==EEE
=EE

Hmm, the gun could really use some protection. We could take engine damage and suffer thrust reduction, but if the big gun stops working that would really make such a large investment a waste. We'll surround the rest of the gun with a structure then.

=EE
==EEEAAAA
==GGGGGGG
==EEEAAAA
=EE

But what if we built this structure similar to the engines with articulated manipulator joints? Then we could swing the gun about even more despite the engine axis. If we want to do this we need more mass to counterbalance. Let's reduce the size of the reactors onboard the gun and have larger ones set in hub section.

=EE
==EEEAAAA
===HHHGGGG
==EEEAAAA
=EE

Tranformed (with the gun point upwards towards viewer):

=EEE===G
===EE=AG
====HHHH
===EE=AA
=EEE===A


Not quite humanoid shaped but getting closer. At this point it's quite similar in look to the SDF-1. The transition to the NMC's isn't much of a stretch and doesn't really break practicality. Most of the time this ship would be locked into cruiser mode and thus enjoy the benefits of greater robustness and a smaller target profile. When it's called for, it can open up to enabled greater maneuverability and firing arcs.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
Yes, it does. Joints are just something begging to break.

Transformable ships (or planes) are neither realistic nor practical. They just obey the Rule of Cool.
True in real life but not true in Macross. Overtechnology allows materials to overcome the inverse cube law (or rather not be constrained up to a certain size). The strength of the material is great enough that large articulated joints are possible and even tough enough to endure combat maneuvers.

Unfortunately, the same material isn't even close to strong enough to stand up to the tremendous firepower also brought about by Overtechnology. Hence mechanical strength is more than sufficient but armor is not even with greater still armor.

The logical solution would then to either evade fire or use different means of defense. The maneuverability of the articulated engines coupled with pin-point barriers serve both. The exposed joints are then not too much of an issue and is a decent trade off for the versatility.




One MUST keep real life physics and Macross physics separate. A lot of our constraints that make things like giant articulated joints from difficult to impossible in real life. But if we find a miracle material that can be super light and tough such a machine is immediately possible. But it would STILL be impractical since it's better to use that tougher material for an armored tank instead. But what if we also then had compact piercing firepower that can cut through ten times the armor without pause? Then it's more practical to keep it light and at least have some chance of evasion.
ChronoReverse is offline  
Old 2008-10-02, 21:04   Link #943
squaresphere
Macross Lifer!
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
The big problem with that... why fold down the legs
squaresphere is offline  
Old 2008-10-02, 21:09   Link #944
ChronoReverse
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: May 2004
They're not folded down. They swing out to enable extreme maneuvers. The final product has the legs mounted a bit lower so that the arms can also attach to the central hub. The gun is then shortened and moved up slightly.



Taking this idea to the logical extreme, the Macross ought to be able to swing its arms all the around such that both the "front" and the "back" (while in transformed mode) can be interchanged.
ChronoReverse is offline  
Old 2008-10-02, 23:12   Link #945
Raidiantx
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
I guess end of the day, you know the new carrier class it just a story telling device, and it looks cool. The orginal SDF-1 had more of a rational for transformation, besides spaceships that look like navy ships are a pretty crazy idea, not to mention the bridge sticking out on the top, thats if you really think f-14 planes is the most optimum design in space, but I guess macross technology evolved under very different circumstances due to over technology, so such abnormal designs could be justified.

However I still think the design holds up, especially since the main gun can fire during carrier mode. To answer Daigo's question, the Battle Frontier does stay in carrier mode most of the time, which would be what he deems to be the most realistic design, having a additonal battle mode doesn't hurt, besides the Battle Frontier engages in two fleet battles without transforming, merely firing its noob cannon at the enemy.

Assuming Battle Frontier's core reactor can power that cannon. I can assume that yes the output is sufficient to give give battle mode, extra movement, as in battle mode the arcs of both main propulsion (the main bulk of thrust) and weapons are free. While I don't mean the Battle Frontier can dodge missiles. If it can land on its feet on a planet, and punch another ship, it must be more maneuverable than you think. Albeit not on the level of quarter's speed, it would still allow execution of more complicated maneuvers unavailable in carrier mode.
Raidiantx is offline  
Old 2008-10-03, 03:01   Link #946
LoweGear
Device Meister
*Graphic Designer
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: 3 times the passion of the usual flamenco
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ithekro View Post
I thought someone said the explaination for the transformation being only because of missing parts was a Robotech translation/scripting line. The SDF-1 likely had to transform to get the pieces to connect so they could fire the main gun after the "failed" fold since we did see it fire without turning into humanoid more at the start, but that it could transform doesn't seem like something the humans would have just built into the reconstruction of the warship...it had to have been there before hand. Unless it just "happened" to end up that way due to the "arms" placement for the docked carriers, the shifting bridge/head and the extending "legs".
As mentioned, the transformation was created by the SDF-1 crew as a makeshift solution to solve the problem of it having to fire the cannon with missing parts by rearranging the parts of the ship to line up the conduits they did have. Also, they did point out that coincidentally, it did look like a humanoid once they transformed it.

So yes, in-show itself it really just did "happen" that way. The humanoid Macross was an all terran thing, not related to anything the Supervision Army did.
__________________

On Life: "If you have problem with Ukrainian hard house, you have problem with life. If you have problem with life ... maybe we can fix that."
LoweGear is offline  
Old 2008-10-03, 04:45   Link #947
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChronoReverse View Post
True in real life but not true in Macross. Overtechnology allows materials to overcome the inverse cube law (or rather not be constrained up to a certain size). The strength of the material is great enough that large articulated joints are possible and even tough enough to endure combat maneuvers.

Unfortunately, the same material isn't even close to strong enough to stand up to the tremendous firepower also brought about by Overtechnology. Hence mechanical strength is more than sufficient but armor is not even with greater still armor.

The logical solution would then to either evade fire or use different means of defense. The maneuverability of the articulated engines coupled with pin-point barriers serve both. The exposed joints are then not too much of an issue and is a decent trade off for the versatility.




One MUST keep real life physics and Macross physics separate. A lot of our constraints that make things like giant articulated joints from difficult to impossible in real life. But if we find a miracle material that can be super light and tough such a machine is immediately possible. But it would STILL be impractical since it's better to use that tougher material for an armored tank instead. But what if we also then had compact piercing firepower that can cut through ten times the armor without pause? Then it's more practical to keep it light and at least have some chance of evasion.
Doesn't matter what material you use. At equal material, a simple, solid design will always be tougher than an articulated mess. And more maneuverable, too, because you won't be losing thrust to weight ratio through the addition of superfluous stuff.

And it seems to me you're confusing earthbound physics to space physics. On earth, there is an advantage to having a heavy base supporting a canon on a rotating turret. In space, it just means more mass to move. It's inefficient.

Except possibly as a measure against recoil, but that doesn't seem to be an issue for Macross ships.
Anh_Minh is offline  
Old 2008-10-03, 05:02   Link #948
Urei
Star Designer
*Graphic Designer
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Europe
Age: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
Doesn't matter what material you use. At equal material, a simple, solid design will always be tougher than an articulated mess. And more maneuverable, too, because you won't be losing thrust to weight ratio through the addition of superfluous stuff.
A complex construction with joints ect. can prove to be way more maneuverable simply by it's flexibility. That can also be controlled by onboard systems, ranging from low speed flexibility to high speed strudiness. The mass is only an issue when the engine output can't kill the pilot. Material is the main problem in all designs. Solve the problem of material and you can design the impossible.
__________________

AD 2314 Mobile Suit Gundam 00
~A wakening of the Trailblazer~

Urei is offline  
Old 2008-10-03, 09:17   Link #949
Raidiantx
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Good points, but the carriers were probably designed in mind for planet fall, as I had pointed out in macross 7, they use the legs as a stand several times on different planets, it also showed it could fire at orbit targets.

Also given the design of the bridge, and events, it would seem the Battle Frontier and Battle 7 are reliant on pinpoint barriers, and repulsion fields as a defense, it could very well be that the materials are so weak compared to the weaponary available that there is simply no point in building an non-flexible all armoured vessel. It is clear in all dialouge that the barriers are the ships last line of defense, again in Macross 7, Battle 7 simply blew up not long after the barriers had failed

For example in Battlestar Galactica, the flagship has no forcefield technology, thus arriving on its heavy armour design would be conclusive, given that most weapons in that world would take considerable amount of time to breach its thick hull, but put it any macross type weaponary, like reaction weaponary, heavy particle beam weapons, I don't think the battle star would last more than a few seconds under this

This is the only explanation I can think of, other than that if anything battle mode leaves the flagship more vulnerable, even if the materials were weak compared to the weaponary in macross, any extra armour would help delaying damage to important parts, such as the reactor, gunship, etc etc
Raidiantx is offline  
Old 2008-10-03, 11:22   Link #950
ChronoReverse
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: May 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
Doesn't matter what material you use. At equal material, a simple, solid design will always be tougher than an articulated mess. And more maneuverable, too, because you won't be losing thrust to weight ratio through the addition of superfluous stuff.
Not if you're in the Macross universe where weaponry is so powerful that even the light laser of fighter-craft can cut through the material. Simply put, the armor no longer plays much role as armor but only for rigidity.


Quote:
And it seems to me you're confusing earthbound physics to space physics. On earth, there is an advantage to having a heavy base supporting a canon on a rotating turret. In space, it just means more mass to move. It's inefficient.

Except possibly as a measure against recoil, but that doesn't seem to be an issue for Macross ships.
I didn't say a heavy base is needed. However, when you're performing maneuvers in space, any kind of thrust not along the center of mass will result in spin. One could certainly put the thrust only at the rear but that's quite limiting.

The hub part is just to have a place for the articulated manipulators and the engines to attach to while removing mass from the gun. The would allow swinging the gun around with less counter-thruster stabilizing.



Another fun factor for a transformable ship of any configuration is the ability to utilize conservation of momentum for even greater maneuverability than with thrusters alone. Since the material can withstand these sort of stresses, it's a nice bonus.
ChronoReverse is offline  
Old 2008-10-03, 11:36   Link #951
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChronoReverse View Post
Not if you're in the Macross universe where weaponry is so powerful that even the light laser of fighter-craft can cut through the material. Simply put, the armor no longer plays much role as armor but only for rigidity.
You're the one who brought up the solidity of the material. My point is, joints are going to be a mess to maintain, and serve no good purpose.


Quote:
I didn't say a heavy base is needed. However, when you're performing maneuvers in space, any kind of thrust not along the center of mass will result in spin. One could certainly put the thrust only at the rear but that's quite limiting.
So? Just add well-placed thrust to counter the spin. You're going to have to do something about spin anyway, humongus mecha or not.

Quote:
The hub part is just to have a place for the articulated manipulators and the engines to attach to while removing mass from the gun. The would allow swinging the gun around with less counter-thruster stabilizing.
But more messing with joints. And more mass to move. For no good purpose.

Quote:
Another fun factor for a transformable ship of any configuration is the ability to utilize conservation of momentum for even greater maneuverability than with thrusters alone. Since the material can withstand these sort of stresses, it's a nice bonus.
I don't see how transforming out of the way (yeah... that's realistic!) is better than applying thrust and moving out of the way. Less mass with the same engines mean greater acceleration.
Anh_Minh is offline  
Old 2008-10-03, 11:53   Link #952
ChronoReverse
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: May 2004
You really don't understand conservation of momentum and how it provides far greater rotation than can thrusters alone eh? Not much I can do about that then.

Besides, there's not that many joints that the mass is a huge factor when the ship itself dwarfs all the joints involved.

As for the central hub. Are you being purposefully obtuse? That mass is needed since it holds the reactors that I posited should be moved out of the gun itself to reduce the mass that needs to be swung about for firing the gun in an arc.


I brought up the rigidity of the material because it's a prerequisite to having any sort of articulated joints. If it exists AND if weaponry STILL far exceeds the toughness of this magic material, then a transforming robot starts to make some sense.


In any case, it's not like such a configuration is ideal for all ships of the line. Clearly the majority of such ships are normal ones even in Macross. But in the name of versatility, the flagship retains the transformed mode even though most of the time the NMC remains in cruiser configuration.

Last edited by ChronoReverse; 2008-10-03 at 12:17.
ChronoReverse is offline  
Old 2008-10-03, 12:21   Link #953
Urei
Star Designer
*Graphic Designer
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Europe
Age: 29
I'll also add one thing to this discussion. Macross mastered gravity control to an unknown to us extend. Nevertheless, considering what we saw we can safely assume that it's modification does not pose many problems, thus creating many more possibilities when creating complex mechanisms.
__________________

AD 2314 Mobile Suit Gundam 00
~A wakening of the Trailblazer~

Urei is offline  
Old 2008-10-03, 17:59   Link #954
Daigo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReddyRedWolf View Post
Question Have you ever watched the original Macross?

If you didn't I suggest you watch it.

There is pretty good reason why the main gun is held on a separate ship as opposed to being built in.

Watch the last episode and what happens to the main gun of the Macross' last shot.
I watched it, but I can't remember it that well. In any case, I don't expect there to be any stunning revelations in the use of a humanoid form. So far I haven't heard any useful purpose to it for a gigantic mecha (it's questionable for even a variable fighter).

Try as I might, I can't agree that a giant mecha holding a giant cannon and aiming it with its hands is useful. There are other, simpler ways of aiming a giant cannon, that require less mass, less complexity, less cost, less vulnerability, and have larger firing arcs.

Increased maneuverability is also false. At those massive sizes, the machine isn't going to be maneuverable no matter what you do to it. Furthermore, there are other designs that more maneuverable in zero gravity, that can change facing far better than a humanoid shape.
Daigo is offline  
Old 2008-10-03, 18:41   Link #955
Ithekro
Space Battleship
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 36
One thing. The SDF-1 didn't carry it's main gun in its hand. It was integrated into the ship's "shoulders" and fired with the two giant booms facing in front of the "head/bridge". This was less manuverable than the later New Macross design with a detachable gunpod. Also one would imagine that is would be easier to repair/replace the damaged or destroyed gunpod Macross Cannon than to force drydock time of the fleet flagship which can still fight in most types of engagements without the use of it's main gun. While (as we've seen) the SDF-1 still exists, I doubt it is quite as viable a warship as it was 50 years earlier...since it probably hasn't moved much since its last refit (and hard landing) nearly 20 years before Frontier. It also has likely never transformed back into carrier mode since before the end of the First Space War.
__________________
Dessler Soto, Banzai!
Ithekro is offline  
Old 2008-10-03, 19:46   Link #956
abynormal
Skull Fairy Scout
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Recon
Send a message via AIM to abynormal Send a message via Skype™ to abynormal
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daigo View Post
I watched it, but I can't remember it that well. In any case, I don't expect there to be any stunning revelations in the use of a humanoid form. So far I haven't heard any useful purpose to it for a gigantic mecha (it's questionable for even a variable fighter).
Since you've seen it, what happens is the main cannons get blasted off by a Zentradi warship's particle cannon and severely damages the entire vessel. A warship aiming to disable the Macross' main weapon will also incur massive damage to the rest of the ship in doing so. Hence the argument that a modular, detachable weapon not built into the main structure works better.

However I find arguing about the practicality of anything in other than a hard sci-fi universe in real world terms pointless. Everything from Star Wars to Macross run on their own internal logic, so whatever works in that universe makes sense. In the Macross Universe, shape-shifting humanoid battleships work, and that's that. I don't expect it to work in the real world, but it works in Macross and is fun to look at. That's good enough for me.
abynormal is offline  
Old 2008-10-03, 23:34   Link #957
ReddyRedWolf
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Since Ghosts usually fly in groups of three I wonder if there will be a team composed of the X-9 Ghost descendants.


AIF-9B Ghost


AIF-7S Ghost


V-9 Ghost


I'd like to call them Warera, Loli and Konda as opposed to Simoun, Johann and Pietro of Luca.
ReddyRedWolf is offline  
Old 2008-10-04, 01:22   Link #958
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urei View Post
I'll also add one thing to this discussion. Macross mastered gravity control to an unknown to us extend. Nevertheless, considering what we saw we can safely assume that it's modification does not pose many problems, thus creating many more possibilities when creating complex mechanisms.
Complexity for its own sake is idiotic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChronoReverse View Post
You really don't understand conservation of momentum and how it provides far greater rotation than can thrusters alone eh? Not much I can do about that then.
Are you trying to argue that joints are so much stronger than thrusters they compensate for all the disadvantages of added mass? And of the fact you have to rotate the gun from the robot's shoulder or elbow, rather than around its own center of mass?

Quote:
Besides, there's not that many joints that the mass is a huge factor when the ship itself dwarfs all the joints involved.
The mass I'm talking about is the mass of the giant robot itself, not just the joints. Instead of having a gun + some thrusters, you have a gun + a giant robot that's five times bigger + lots more thrusters because you have to move the robot, too.
Anh_Minh is offline  
Old 2008-10-04, 01:41   Link #959
Urei
Star Designer
*Graphic Designer
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Europe
Age: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
Complexity for its own sake is idiotic.
I'm guessing you fail to notice the benefits of controlling gravity. As someone else stated, it may very well be used as a g-force damper, in planets atmosphere or in space. I'll add that it's likely the case that compact version of such modules are used in the latest VF designs. It's size and output may limit it's operation capabilities and thus the value to which the g-forces are neutralized. This is only an assumption but considering the output of VF-25 or 27, even earlier designs like 19 and 22, it;s probable that this technology is already implemented.

Also, about the materials. We may very well have such an incredible material that would let us advance our technology. This however, does not mean that we are able to put it into good use. Structure, design, composition and for the most part, durability are what determine how good the end product will be.

I agree that complex machines tend to malfunction faster. This however is mostly due to the materials or any fort of coding errors. If we posses the abilities to design something as complex as a transformable fighter, and that includes the materials, we should also have the capability to make it function. You are applying our current potential into a situation when such potential is outdated.
__________________

AD 2314 Mobile Suit Gundam 00
~A wakening of the Trailblazer~

Urei is offline  
Old 2008-10-04, 01:59   Link #960
Ithekro
Space Battleship
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 36
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

An object in motion will tend to stay in motion unless acted upon my another force.

Every movement needs something to counter it so that the rest of the mass will not shift wildly in Zero-gravity, Near Zero resistance , and nothing to hold on to, Deep Space.
__________________
Dessler Soto, Banzai!
Ithekro is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:34.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.