The Macross Valkyrie Thread

The future is now. This is the place for mecha and science.
Post Reply
User avatar
hitokirigarou
Posts: 380
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 1:46 am

Re: The Macross Valkyrie Thread

Post by hitokirigarou » Tue Sep 01, 2020 3:37 am

Seto Kaiba wrote:
Mon Aug 31, 2020 7:35 pm
Yes... though, for the life of me, I couldn't tell you where.
Thanks for the reply. It's disappointing that Kawamori didn't flesh out those mecha more.

About the VA-3M's weapons, I noticed in its Macross Chronicle entry that it has six high maneuver missiles and twelve micro-missile launchers. Looking at its lineart, I can only see two micro-missile launcher ports (one in each forearm/pontoon). Is that entry a typo?

Considering that high maneuver missiles are large, Am I safe in assuming that they are mounted on hardpoints underneath its wings?

User avatar
Seto Kaiba
Posts: 1219
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:18 pm
Contact:

Re: The Macross Valkyrie Thread

Post by Seto Kaiba » Tue Sep 01, 2020 3:10 pm

hitokirigarou wrote:
Tue Sep 01, 2020 3:37 am
Thanks for the reply. It's disappointing that Kawamori didn't flesh out those mecha more.
A bit, yeah... though they seem to be a favorite with some of Macross's other authors like Ukyo Kodachi, who snuck them into several different novels.

hitokirigarou wrote:
Tue Sep 01, 2020 3:37 am
About the VA-3M's weapons, I noticed in its Macross Chronicle entry that it has six high maneuver missiles and twelve micro-missile launchers. Looking at its lineart, I can only see two micro-missile launcher ports (one in each forearm/pontoon). Is that entry a typo?
Yup, that's a typo on the VA-3M sheet. It's written correctly as "12x micro-missile" instead of "12x micro-missile launcher" on the other VA-3 sheets, echoing the correct spec from VF-X2 itself and its various guidebooks.

hitokirigarou wrote:
Tue Sep 01, 2020 3:37 am
Considering that high maneuver missiles are large, Am I safe in assuming that they are mounted on hardpoints underneath its wings?
Or the hardpoints mounted on the center fuselage, yeah. All told, the VA-3 has eleven hardpoints. Three on each wing and five on the center fuselage, able to hold almost 20 metric tons of munitions.
The Macross Mecha Manual
Yes, we're working on updates...

User avatar
hitokirigarou
Posts: 380
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 1:46 am

Re: The Macross Valkyrie Thread

Post by hitokirigarou » Thu Sep 03, 2020 9:30 am

How does a VF's active stealth work?

Does any VF have anti-beam coating?

User avatar
Seto Kaiba
Posts: 1219
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:18 pm
Contact:

Re: The Macross Valkyrie Thread

Post by Seto Kaiba » Fri Sep 04, 2020 1:10 am

hitokirigarou wrote:
Thu Sep 03, 2020 9:30 am
How does a VF's active stealth work?
The active stealth technology used by aircraft and warships in Macross is a wave interference system similar, in principle, to the active noise reduction technology used in modern high-end headphones. That is to say, it works via destructive interference and the principle of wave superposition.

The active stealth system antennae receive and analyze the directionality, frequency, and amplitude of radio pulses and beams that contact the aircraft and transmits a directional radio signal with the same frequency and amplitude but an opposite phase back to the enemy radar. The enemy radar receives both the reflected waves from its radar pulse/sweep and the active stealth system's opposite phase waves at the same time. The destructive interference this produces under wave superposition reduces the net amplitude of the combined wave to zero. This means that even though the system doesn't prevent any radar reflection from the aircraft or warship, the enemy radar doesn't have any change in the amplitude of the received energy that would indicate something is in the path of its radar's beam/pulse, making the active stealthed aircraft/ship functionally invisible.

Naturally, this system's effectiveness is dependent on its ability to accurately predict the sweep/pulse pattern and frequency hops of the enemy radar, and the amplitude of the enemy radar beam/pulse. Early active stealth didn't have the power necessary to conceal an aircraft from powerful search radars on things like ships and ELINT/AWACS aircraft except at long range, but worked well against fighter-mounted and missile-mounted radars. By the 2040s, the New UN Gov't was introducing 3rd Generation active stealth technology on its new 4th Generation VFs that had enough power to render the VF invisible to a previous-gen VF's radar at point-blank range (as seen in the Macross Plus OVA. To reduce the burden on the active stealth system, many VFs use passive stealth technology as well to reduce the aircraft's/ship's radar reflectivity.


hitokirigarou wrote:
Thu Sep 03, 2020 9:30 am
Does any VF have anti-beam coating?
It's not 100% clear when the technology was introduced, but the YF-19 and YF-21 in Macross Plus are the first VFs explicitly mentioned to have anti-beam coatings. More unusually, it was actually mentioned in the OVA dialog itself and not just in technical publications.

(Anti-beam coatings are also given as the reason the VF-171's color changed when it was upgraded to the VF-171EX in the Macross Frontier TV series. The improved EX type inherited the VF-25's more advanced combination of passive stealth coating and anti-beam coatings.)

One area in which anti-beam coatings in Macross are somewhat different from ones in Gundam is that the comparatively MUCH higher power of laser and beam weaponry in Macross means that it wasn't possible to create an anti-beam coating that could absorb the full power (or even most of the power) of a beam weapon's discharge. The best an anti-beam coating can do in Macross is to absorb around 30% of the energy of beam machine gun-level weapons fire.
The Macross Mecha Manual
Yes, we're working on updates...

False Prophet
Posts: 728
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2015 7:40 am

Re: The Macross Valkyrie Thread

Post by False Prophet » Fri Sep 04, 2020 11:47 pm

Is there anything such as minimum fold jump distance? And how exactly long does it takes to transition in or out of a fold jump? I wonder if you can abuse fold jump in space combat? How hard is it to set up a fold jump-deny area?

And what if someone try to sabotage a ship by placing wrong jump coordinate to somewhere, like, say, near a gravity well or the sun? I suppose that ships usually follow established routes with fixed jumping points, so if you try to jump anywhere else, the sirens would sound.

Also, I have just discovered this fact: https://twitter.com/stubborn_natto/stat ... 2218073088

And the comments bellow the post talk about illustrators lifting arts from other artists. I have no idea that this is a problem.

User avatar
Seto Kaiba
Posts: 1219
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:18 pm
Contact:

Re: The Macross Valkyrie Thread

Post by Seto Kaiba » Sat Sep 05, 2020 4:52 pm

False Prophet wrote:
Fri Sep 04, 2020 11:47 pm
Is there anything such as minimum fold jump distance?
Not in the sense of a limitation in the technology or the physics involved.

Folding is a very energy-intensive process, so it's usually not economical to use a space fold to cover distances of less than a light second or so with humanity's current fold technology.

We have seen folds over shorter distances in extremis, like when the Macross-7 fleet used fold boosters in a bid to steal/rescue the captured Macross-5 civilian population from Gepernich's spiritia farm by folding the whole spritia farm away. The Protoculture ruins on Uroboros used ultra-short range fold devices to transport people and equipment around as a form of practical personal teleportation.

False Prophet wrote:
Fri Sep 04, 2020 11:47 pm
And how exactly long does it takes to transition in or out of a fold jump?
It varies... but it usually seems to take a couple of seconds for a ship executing a fold jump to transition into or out of higher-dimensional space.

On a few occasions, larger warships like mobile fortresses and the like have been shown to take somewhat longer to transition into or out of higher dimensional space. Whether that's just Rule of Drama or what is unclear.

False Prophet wrote:
Fri Sep 04, 2020 11:47 pm
I wonder if you can abuse fold jump in space combat?
Depends what you mean by "abuse".

Much of the existing weapons technology in the Macross setting is built on the higher-dimensional physics of fold technology.
  • Super Dimension Energy weaponry, AKA converging beam cannons AKA heavy quantum reaction beam cannons, etc. operate by using fold carbon to produce a form of dimension-straddling matter called heavy quanta that the cannon then excites using fold waves until its immense mass that was trapped in fold space collapses into normal space. The gravitational collapse of the heavy quanta causes it to ignite in a fusion reaction, which the cannon's housing (or focused bending of space-time) directs into a high-velocity fusion plasma beam.
  • High-Angle Beam Guns, a form of super dimension energy cannon without a movable turret, bend local space in order to aim the fusion plasma beam.
  • Thermonuclear Reaction weapons are pure fusion warheads that use the intense gravity of heavy quanta that's been excited by fold waves to instantly compress hydrogen slush and trigger a fusion detonation.
  • Barrier technology is a focused warping of space-time, sort of a "space fold lite".
  • Dimension Eaters and their more compact Micro Dimension Eater (MDE) form are literally weaponizing folding, using the superheavy quanta produced by fold quartz to trigger super-intense local gravity that sucks matter into higher-dimensional space after violently crushing it with black hole-like super-intense gravity.
It's perfectly possible to fold in close to an enemy, attack, and fold away before a reprisal strike can arrive... or fold a fighter with reaction warheads into the middle of an enemy formation for a point-blank attack.

False Prophet wrote:
Fri Sep 04, 2020 11:47 pm
How hard is it to set up a fold jump-deny area?
Effectively impossible with present technology.

One of the things limiting the strategic utility of space folds is that unless you're folding over very short ranges, it's difficult to be precise about where you're going to come out relative to a moving target. Folding ships can only see the immediate area where they'll defold before emerging from higher-dimensional space, so trying to do something like folding into the middle of a fleet incurs the risk of, say, crashing into another ship immediately thereafter like Quamzin's forces did. It's also very difficult to detect an incoming space fold until the folding ship starts messing with local gravity, so you usually only get a few seconds of advance warning before the ship starts coming out of a fold jump.

False Prophet wrote:
Fri Sep 04, 2020 11:47 pm
And what if someone try to sabotage a ship by placing wrong jump coordinate to somewhere, like, say, near a gravity well or the sun? I suppose that ships usually follow established routes with fixed jumping points, so if you try to jump anywhere else, the sirens would sound.
Due to the nature of higher-dimensional space and how space folds operate, there aren't really established routes as such. Ships are forced to work around disruptions in higher dimensional space like fold faults, and the range a ship can fold is dependent on its ability to store energy for its fold system, so not every ship can create a fold of the same length. Some ships might need two or more folds to cover the same distance a more advanced ship might cover in one.

If the ship were traveling to a known, well-mapped destination, messing with the jump calculations might raise a warning. If hazards are detected at the planned defold point the ship might drop out of space fold early to avoid a collision or something of that nature. There are occasionally ships lost when they miscalculate a jump and end up stranded in higher-dimensional space because they didn't have enough energy to return to normal space (this was the cover story for the SDFN-04 General Bruno J. Global's destruction by the Vajra), and there've been other accounts of ships accidentally defolding practically on top of rogue Zentradi forces or simply vanishing. SDF-05 Megaroad-04 found Windermere IV by being forced out of a space fold by an intense fold fault that nearly disabled the ship, which turned out to be the fold fault surrounding Windermere.

False Prophet wrote:
Fri Sep 04, 2020 11:47 pm
Also, I have just discovered this fact: https://twitter.com/stubborn_natto/stat ... 2218073088

And the comments bellow the post talk about illustrators lifting arts from other artists. I have no idea that this is a problem.
Tracing has been a persistent problem in western comics for a very long time now.

Comic book artists work under very tight timing constraints even at the best of times, and the artists working on monthly serialized comics have it especially rough. Art styles in mainstream comics have been trending towards increased levels of detail for decades, so even with newer digital art technologies it takes longer for an artist to draw, ink, and color a single page and they may have to redo pages if the editorial staff doesn't like them. That means some artists - a growing number of them - resort to tracing characters and other things from photographs and other existing art as a way to speed up production or avoid having to spend time developing a new design to be used in one story and then thrown away. Greg Land is one such artist, being notorious for tracing his art from existing art or photographs of toys and models. Robotech comics published by Academy Comics, Antarctic Press, and Titan Comics are all notorious for blatantly tracing their mecha art from Macross artbooks, often accidentally using designs Harmony Gold has no rights to. Titan actually got in trouble for stealing far art from a CG modeler and passing it off as their own original take on the VF-1, and eventually paid a license fee to the fan artist in question when he threatened to sue, then abandoned the design because their audience hated it.

On some occasions, it's done as a deliberate homage to some other work the author is particularly fond of instead. Like in the first Transformers movie, you can see the wreckage of several Gundams in the Quentisson jail, or how several Macross fans working on Star Wars titles have slipped Macross-based designs into the titles they were working on... like the Clone Wars cartoon using the Macross's gravity control system as inspiration for the engine room on the Venator-class Star Destroyer.
The Macross Mecha Manual
Yes, we're working on updates...

User avatar
Seto Kaiba
Posts: 1219
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:18 pm
Contact:

Re: The Macross Valkyrie Thread

Post by Seto Kaiba » Sat Sep 05, 2020 9:26 pm

Y'all might enjoy this info I worked on from Master File earlier today:
http://www.macrossworld.com/mwf/topic/4 ... nt=1546992
The Macross Mecha Manual
Yes, we're working on updates...

False Prophet
Posts: 728
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2015 7:40 am

Re: The Macross Valkyrie Thread

Post by False Prophet » Sat Sep 05, 2020 10:19 pm

Yeah, you got that right about "abuse". I was talking about just delivering bombs in the middle of the enemy formations. Even when excluding reaction missiles and other exotic weapons, NUNS must have had plenty of destructive conventional munitions. Heck, just release as many Ghost Fighters among the enemy.

Also, there is something I want to ask: Do you think that there are some kind of standard or certification for materials that could survive fold jump? I can't imagine something like conventional steel could.

User avatar
Seto Kaiba
Posts: 1219
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:18 pm
Contact:

Re: The Macross Valkyrie Thread

Post by Seto Kaiba » Sun Sep 06, 2020 4:59 am

False Prophet wrote:
Sat Sep 05, 2020 10:19 pm
I was talking about just delivering bombs in the middle of the enemy formations.
Yeah, that's a standard tactic... literally what the VF-19 and VF-22 were designed for, using a fold booster to arrive behind enemy lines for a decapitation strike with heavy munitions.


False Prophet wrote:
Sat Sep 05, 2020 10:19 pm
Also, there is something I want to ask: Do you think that there are some kind of standard or certification for materials that could survive fold jump? I can't imagine something like conventional steel could.
Probably not, given that under normal circumstances anything inside the fold effect isn't subjected to any change in its momentum or subjected to any additional mechanical stresses. Nothing inside the fold effect is moving relative to the fold effect, that entire region of space inside the fold effect is cut loose and exchanged for an equivalent volume of space at the destination using higher-dimensional space. It's basically teleportation.

As we saw in the original Super Dimension Fortress Macross series, despite the bombastic botched fold jump the majority of the city on South Ataria island came through in one piece as did the ordinary naval ships and the slightly more advanced Daedalus and Prometheus.
The Macross Mecha Manual
Yes, we're working on updates...

User avatar
hitokirigarou
Posts: 380
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 1:46 am

Re: The Macross Valkyrie Thread

Post by hitokirigarou » Sun Sep 06, 2020 7:33 pm

Were the VF-11's weapons (head laser gun and C-type's gun pod) given "official" names in its own Master File book?

User avatar
Seto Kaiba
Posts: 1219
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:18 pm
Contact:

Re: The Macross Valkyrie Thread

Post by Seto Kaiba » Sun Sep 06, 2020 10:36 pm

hitokirigarou wrote:
Sun Sep 06, 2020 7:33 pm
Were the VF-11's weapons (head laser gun and C-type's gun pod) given "official" names in its own Master File book?
Yeah, the VF-11's laser gun was identified as REB-15R, and the gunpod (incorrectly) as GU-15 (which is actually the VF-19's gunpod).
The Macross Mecha Manual
Yes, we're working on updates...

User avatar
hitokirigarou
Posts: 380
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 1:46 am

Re: The Macross Valkyrie Thread

Post by hitokirigarou » Mon Sep 07, 2020 12:05 am

Seto Kaiba wrote:
Sun Sep 06, 2020 10:36 pm
the gunpod (incorrectly) as GU-15 (which is actually the VF-19's gunpod).
That's the VF-11C's gun pod (from Macross 7), right?

What about that of the VF-11B (from Macross Plus; the one with a bayonet)?

User avatar
Seto Kaiba
Posts: 1219
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:18 pm
Contact:

Re: The Macross Valkyrie Thread

Post by Seto Kaiba » Mon Sep 07, 2020 1:55 am

hitokirigarou wrote:
Mon Sep 07, 2020 12:05 am
Seto Kaiba wrote:
Sun Sep 06, 2020 10:36 pm
the gunpod (incorrectly) as GU-15 (which is actually the VF-19's gunpod).
That's the VF-11C's gun pod (from Macross 7), right?

What about that of the VF-11B (from Macross Plus; the one with a bayonet)?
The VF-11B and VF-11C use the same gunpod, actually... just the C type is a simplified variant of the design that omits the bayonet as a cost-saving maneuver.
The Macross Mecha Manual
Yes, we're working on updates...

User avatar
hitokirigarou
Posts: 380
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 1:46 am

Re: The Macross Valkyrie Thread

Post by hitokirigarou » Mon Sep 07, 2020 5:01 am

I looked up the VF-11's Japanese wiki page and it mentions a "GU-16" and "GU-16S". Are those from any official material?

Where are the VF-14's micro-missile launchers? Are they in the forearms or legs?

When a conformal part covers, let's say, a VF's leg (which has either micro-missile ports or launchers), is that VF prevented from launching its missiles from its legs or does the conformal part move/swivel/open to accommodate the launchers?

Is there an in-universe reason for why the VF-3000 and VF-5000 are numbered that way. I'm assuming the real world reason is that it's inspired partly by the Mirage 2000.

User avatar
Seto Kaiba
Posts: 1219
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:18 pm
Contact:

Re: The Macross Valkyrie Thread

Post by Seto Kaiba » Mon Sep 07, 2020 7:46 pm

hitokirigarou wrote:
Mon Sep 07, 2020 5:01 am
I looked up the VF-11's Japanese wiki page and it mentions a "GU-16" and "GU-16S". Are those from any official material?
IIRC, that's Master File's attempt to explain the different gunpods.

Macross Chronicle was the first to misidentify the VF-11's gunpod as "GU-15", which is the designation that belongs to the VF-19's.

hitokirigarou wrote:
Mon Sep 07, 2020 5:01 am
Where are the VF-14's micro-missile launchers? Are they in the forearms or legs?
That depends on which version of the VF-14 we're talking about.

Macross Chronicle seems to have taken the view that the Macross M3 VF-14 is the standard model, while the version that appeared in Macross 7 via the omake "Spiritia Dreaming" is an enhanced armaments type used by the special forces. (Previous fan conjecture was that the "Spiritia Dreaming" VF-14 was the mentioned-but-never-seen VA-14 attacker specification.)

Both versions of the VF-14 have a missile bay located in the front of the lower leg. This feature is only animated on the Varauta derivative model Fz-109F though: http://www.macross2.net/m3/macross7/fz- ... ineart.gif

Only the Special Forces model has dedicated micro-missile launchers, which are located in its shoulders similar to the VF-17's in Battroid mode and on the dorsal surface above the engine intakes in Fighter mode. It has eight of them, four on each side.

The Varauta derivative model has an airframe shape more similar to the standard model but the armaments of the special forces type.

hitokirigarou wrote:
Mon Sep 07, 2020 5:01 am
When a conformal part covers, let's say, a VF's leg (which has either micro-missile ports or launchers), is that VF prevented from launching its missiles from its legs or does the conformal part move/swivel/open to accommodate the launchers?
It's not really an issue for most FAST Pack designs, but when it does come up it varies from pack to pack.

For instance, the VF-11 and VF-19's internal missile bays in the side of the leg/engine nacelle are covered by their conformal fuel tank packs... but the tank's mounted to the bay door itself so it can swing out of the way with that bay door to allow internally-carried missiles or bombs to be deployed. (This is seen in Macross Plus in Isamu and Guld's final dogfight over Earth, where Isamu deploys a pair of CHM-2 medium-range missiles from his YF-19's leg bays without purging his FAST Pack.)

The VF-17's Super Pack doesn't obstruct the port that its gunpod uses to fire while stowed internally in its Fighter mode, but it isn't clear if the VF-17 can actually draw its gunpod in Battroid mode because the pack does obstruct the bay door for the gunpod in Battroid mode. Unfortunately, the question may never be answered since Gamlin's the only one we ever see fight using the VF-17 Super Nightmare and he purges the pack after expending its missile bays before drawing his gunpod.

The VF-25's Super Pack doesn't obstruct anything on its own, and its Armored Pack avoids obstructing any weapons systems by including an armored gunport that allows the hip-mounted guns to fire unobstructed through the pack while also adding two more guns to the same gunmount.

The VF-171EX's Armored Pack does obstruct the gunpod bay and bomb bays in the VF-171's legs and prevents either from being used. However, the gunpod can be carried on a centerline ventral mount and the bomb bays weren't all that necessary, so it doesn't really do anything to slow the VF-171EX down.

The VF-31 Siegfried's Super Pack obstructs the weapons bay in the back of each leg, but includes ports to allow its micro-missile launchers to still fire unimpeded. The Armored Pack from the movie blocks off the micro-missile launchers AND the weapons bay, but it includes such gargantuan amounts of micro-missiles that nobody's really gonna miss the contents of those launchers.


hitokirigarou wrote:
Mon Sep 07, 2020 5:01 am
Is there an in-universe reason for why the VF-3000 and VF-5000 are numbered that way. I'm assuming the real world reason is that it's inspired partly by the Mirage 2000.
Like the VF-171, they're cases of aberrant designations where the military kind of just went with the manufacturer model code for the project... all three being cases where the manufacturer went back to the drawing board with an existing design that'd already been adopted by the military and tried to further refine it.

One of the things Stonewell and Bellcom were working on in parallel with their development of the VF-X-4 was a project that attempted to address the shortcomings of their VF-1 Valkyrie design by taking the same basic design and simply enlarging it to allow it to carry more fuel, more weaponry, and more powerful engines. This got that design the nickname "Stretch Valkyrie". The lore is somewhat inconsistent on when this project started, but the older versions mention it was originally intended to be marketed to individual member nations in the UN Gov't, which strongly suggests it was started before the First Space War began in earnest. Master File runs with that stance and asserts the original program code was 1000 and that the reconstructed plan resumed after Earth bit the big one adopted the number 3000. The design had unresolvable mechanical issues and the military opted to pass on it in favor of the VF-4 Lightning III. The VF-5000 is a lessons-learned continuation of the same project that takes the basic VF-1 Valkyrie design and concept further with the addition of Zentradi overtechnology, more passively stealthy airframe shaping, internalized weapons, and so on, which achieved some renown when it was adopted on a limited basis by the New UN Forces as a supplement to the VF-4 because of the VF-4's somewhat iffy atmospheric performance.
The Macross Mecha Manual
Yes, we're working on updates...

False Prophet
Posts: 728
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2015 7:40 am

Re: The Macross Valkyrie Thread

Post by False Prophet » Wed Sep 09, 2020 9:57 am

Speaking of missiles, could the VF-25 equip and use only the shoulder missile pods from the Armored Pack without having the entire pack on them?

Also, is it just me, or does the VF-25 and VF-31's armored packs look like they came straight out of a SMUP game? I have been playing a lot of Raiden and Darius lately, and looking at the design I could not help but feel something like that.

User avatar
Seto Kaiba
Posts: 1219
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:18 pm
Contact:

Re: The Macross Valkyrie Thread

Post by Seto Kaiba » Thu Sep 10, 2020 1:10 am

False Prophet wrote:
Wed Sep 09, 2020 9:57 am
Speaking of missiles, could the VF-25 equip and use only the shoulder missile pods from the Armored Pack without having the entire pack on them?
Yeah. Strictly speaking, there's nothing actually stopping a VF from using only part of a FAST Pack setup.


False Prophet wrote:
Wed Sep 09, 2020 9:57 am
Also, is it just me, or does the VF-25 and VF-31's armored packs look like they came straight out of a SMUP game? I have been playing a lot of Raiden and Darius lately, and looking at the design I could not help but feel something like that.
Dunno... the VF-25 Armored Pack was kind of inspired by the Stampede Pack from the FamilySoft series of Macross strategy game. To me, the VF-31 Armored Pack just looks like complete arse. Like the designers just gave up and reused as many art assets from Frontier as they could.
The Macross Mecha Manual
Yes, we're working on updates...

User avatar
hitokirigarou
Posts: 380
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 1:46 am

Re: The Macross Valkyrie Thread

Post by hitokirigarou » Thu Sep 10, 2020 2:09 am

Some questions about the VF-17 and VF-171:

- I know that the VF-17 stores its gun pod in its right leg but does it still have space for ordnance in the weapon bay of the same leg?

- Are the four "diamonds" in each leg-mounted FAST pack of the VF-17, micro-missile launcher ports?

- Does the VF-171 have micro-missile launchers in its legs? There seems to be two ports on each leg (near the knees).

- Looking at the RVF-171 toy, its ventral antenna/array folds towards its fuselage when not in operation. Does this mean that it's unable to equip its gun pod?

User avatar
Seto Kaiba
Posts: 1219
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:18 pm
Contact:

Re: The Macross Valkyrie Thread

Post by Seto Kaiba » Thu Sep 10, 2020 5:54 am

hitokirigarou wrote:
Thu Sep 10, 2020 2:09 am
Some questions about the VF-17 and VF-171:

- I know that the VF-17 stores its gun pod in its right leg but does it still have space for ordnance in the weapon bay of the same leg?
Yes, it can. The internal storage arrangements inside the VF-17's legs is somewhat complex, but the gunpod bay sits above the landing gear bay and outboard of the modular ordnance bay.

The VF-17's internals are somewhat crowded, because it's a Gen 3.5 VF that was developed as 2nd Gen active stealth technology started to lose the fight to improvements in radar technology. Consequently, its design focuses extremely heavily on passive stealthiness. The VF-171 can take more liberties, because it has a 3rd Gen active stealth system like the VF-19 and VF-22.

hitokirigarou wrote:
Thu Sep 10, 2020 2:09 am
- Are the four "diamonds" in each leg-mounted FAST pack of the VF-17, micro-missile launcher ports?
They're not described as such, no.

hitokirigarou wrote:
Thu Sep 10, 2020 2:09 am
- Does the VF-171 have micro-missile launchers in its legs? There seems to be two ports on each leg (near the knees).
Nope, it only has two built-in micro-missile launchers located in its shoulders.

hitokirigarou wrote:
Thu Sep 10, 2020 2:09 am
- Looking at the RVF-171 toy, its ventral antenna/array folds towards its fuselage when not in operation. Does this mean that it's unable to equip its gun pod?
Under normal operating conditions, its gunpod would be stored internally in a manner identical to the VF-17's.
The Macross Mecha Manual
Yes, we're working on updates...

User avatar
hitokirigarou
Posts: 380
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 1:46 am

Re: The Macross Valkyrie Thread

Post by hitokirigarou » Thu Sep 10, 2020 6:49 am

Seto Kaiba wrote:
Thu Sep 10, 2020 5:54 am
They're not described as such, no.
Sometimes, the lineart is misleading.

Seto Kaiba wrote:
Thu Sep 10, 2020 5:54 am
Under normal operating conditions, its gunpod would be stored internally in a manner identical to the VF-17's.
I didn't expect the thinner leg of the VF-171 to have space for the gun pod. Also, its gun pod seems too long for the leg. Where is the the port for the gun pod to shoot out of?

Does the VF-171 also have the same weapon bays as the VF-17?

Post Reply